G.I. Joe No Longer the Real American Hero?

Wanted to post a non-RightWingWacko version of TFA by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 17:39 · Score: 1, Funny

...but FOX News had the only other one I could find. =(

Still better than the crap in the submission.

In other news.... by MonorailCat · 2007-09-07 17:40 · Score: 5, Funny

President Bush has signed a $100 million appropriations bill to supply soldiers in Iraq with red lasers.

Re:In other news.... by MagusSlurpy · 2007-09-07 17:46 · Score: 4, Funny

Well, now, that's good news, but when is he going to send them the sharks?

--
My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
Re:In other news.... by muindaur · 2007-09-07 18:34 · Score: 0

When he figures out how to put the friken lasers on their heads and builds the robot water tanks so they can roam the desert.
Re:In other news.... by famicommie · 2007-09-07 19:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

In other news... ? I would sincerely like to know who qualifies a blog with the following mission statement as news:
This political blog is dedicated to informed citizens who understand the benefits of limited government, capitalism, private property rights, and plain common sense. If you disagree with any or all of the political satire on this blog, we apologize for the intellectual abuse inflicted upon you by your university professors." So, what? If I feel that capitalism allowed to be unrestrained by a hampered limited government is bad news, then I have clearly been tainted by university professors? Whatever. I'll just pass on reading your blog and instead ask the moderators why the Hell this article was accepted at all (let alone promoted to front page material).
Re:In other news.... by thegsusfreek · 2007-09-07 20:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

So if I believe that having a small, limited government is good (as the founding fathers did) and that capitalism (not unrestrained, but not heavily restricted either; just minimal intervention) is a good thing, just because you believe in Socialism or some other such system means that this article (having little to do with either of these beliefs) should not be accepted?

Wow.
Re:In other news.... by PalomarJack · 2007-09-07 21:10 · Score: 1

So, what? If I feel that capitalism allowed to be unrestrained by a hampered limited government is bad news, then I have clearly been tainted by university professors? Whatever. I'll just pass on reading your blog and instead ask the moderators why the Hell this article was accepted at all (let alone promoted to front page material).
Please, enlighten us as to how that is relevant to the article and that it is actual fact. Are you more atwitter about it coming from an "Evil Right Wingers" weblog? Would it have been more credible from some Left Wing site? Like that would happen.
But I digress, let's hear your take on this dumbass politically corrected GI Joe debacle of a feater, and I use that term loosely, motion picture?
As for the moderators, regardless of their political leanings, maybe they don't have as big a problem with respecting other peoples opinions on current events as you. Or, you could use some common sense and figure that they checked on the information and found it true. Do you have a problem with the truth when it may not serve your political stance? I know I don't, for example, Bush has made a complete mess of his presidency. One way is that he positioned himself far left of JFK. Another is not setting a policy and sticking to it. That's where Kennedy, Reagen and other great pesidents kicked ass.

--
If you think one should be self reliant, virtuous and responsible, I'm sorry, but you're a Conservative.
Re:In other news.... by Scudsucker · 2007-09-07 23:29 · Score: 0, Troll

So if I believe that having a small, limited government is good

Having a small government for the sake of a small government is no better than more government for the sake of more government.
Re:In other news.... by morari · 2007-09-07 23:46 · Score: 1

I'll just pass on reading your blog and instead ask the moderators why the Hell this article was accepted at all (let alone promoted to front page material).
Because there are way too many wanna-be libertarians on Slashdot? That aside, G.I. Joe always sucked. The fact that pretty much any modern film also sucks, especially when based upon a pre-existing franchise, doesn't really help its case.

--
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
Re:In other news.... by sigzero · 2007-09-08 00:18 · Score: 0

Hey scud, he didn't say that at all. Try reading and understanding before posting.
Re:In other news.... by hoppo · 2007-09-08 00:21 · Score: 2, Funny

All I want is sharks with frickin laser beams, and you have to bog me down with all these details.
Re:In other news.... by I(rispee_I(reme · 2007-09-08 00:33 · Score: 5, Informative

G.I. Joe came in two flavors:

1) Older, barbie-doll size toys, with clothes you could change and such. These are probably what the antediluvians at Fox News are witnessing the corruption of. This toy line was produced from 1942-1982. While this toy line was a success, it predated the tendency of toy manufacturers to sell a storyline with their products, which began in earnest with He-man and the Masters of the Universe, circa 1981. As such, this version of G.I. Joe had no villains to contend against until around 1976, when a line of alien invaders villains, called "Intruders" was introduced in a tacked-on fashion. Since almost no one knows about the Intruders, I submit that a "G.I. Joe vs. The Intruders from Space Movie" would be rather unpopular.

Which leaves us with...

2) A line of toys produced from 1982 until the present day, with a few pauses. This toy line, unlike the original, was based upon the marvel comic book, and utilized a wide array of science-fiction and fantasy devices, such as mad scientists (Dr. Mindbender), masked villains (Cobra and Destro), and even went so far as to integrate Robert E. Howard's myth of a prehuman, reptilian civilization in the animated movie.

The second incarnation of G.I. Joe was inclusive by design (including both the token black and the token female in the original roster), and fought a war on terror that could never end, because Cobra was an undying hydra of a terrorist organization (sound familiar?)

The multiculturalization of G.I. Joe that the article complains about actually took place over 20 years ago. Why were there no protests then? Perhaps because we were in the midst of a cold war, and people had something better to do than piss and moan about a toy line/cartoon/movie. Or perhaps because we as a culture realized that if we made certain classes of citizens feel unwelcome in our military, we would:

a) Weaken the military.
b) Look like the "unfree", "antidemocratic" culture we were nominally opposing.

Just an idea. I rather lean towards the "better things to do" theory.

I probably got some trivial detail re: G.I. Joe incorrect. I feel I can reliably depend upon the legions of their fandom to correct me. For the most part, though, the above information is accurate, and the linked-to article is a bunch of jingoist hysteria.

Next week on slashdot: The global Zionist conspiracy forces Microsoft to keep its products closed-source!
Re:In other news.... by colmore · 2007-09-08 01:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yeah, if these guys are holding G. I. Frikkin' Joe to be "sacred" then I really have to ask how sacred they're holding the idea of sacredness.

--
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
Re:In other news.... by theAtomicFireball · 2007-09-08 01:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

Having a small government for the sake of a small government is no better than more government for the sake of more government.
Perhaps, but it sure is a lot less expensive. Not that I agree with this nutjob who wrote TFA in the slightest, but I have to say that in general, I'm in favor of much smaller government than we have now. The massive bureaucracy is rife with waste and that doesn't help anyone.
Re:In other news.... by Scudsucker · 2007-09-08 01:45 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Hey scud, he didn't say that at all.

Of course he did:
...I believe that having a small, limited government is good...
Try reading and understanding before posting.

Try pulling your head out.
Re:In other news.... by caseydk · 2007-09-08 01:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

Having a small government for the sake of a small government is no better than more government for the sake of more government.

A small government with less power/budget should be less effective at taking our rights.
Re:In other news.... by Mr.+Slippery · 2007-09-08 02:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm in favor of much smaller government than we have now.

Unfortuantely, those who make the most noise about "smaller government" usually mean taking the regulators and governors off the engine of the state, not shrinking the engine.
Smaller government? Start by reducing the amount we spend on military dominance of the planet for the benefit of American business. We could halve our "defense" spending and still outspend any potential adversary about five to one. That leaves plenty to defend our nation - while being less of a temptation to foreign adventures and wars of choice.
Then let's go about reducing government powers to issue corporate charters, land and resource deeds, copyright and patents, and to run a federal reserve system that lets banks suck in wealth and that bails out speculator markets. (Yes, some of these are federal, some are state; as a practical matter, though, it matters little which level of government employs the guy with the gun who backs up government's demands.) Shrink the engine that creates economic injustice, and there's less need for the (relatively small) regulators of social welfare programs.

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Re:In other news.... by BakaHoushi · 2007-09-08 02:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

I pretty much agree with everything you said. But I can't help but shudder at the thought of complaints from minority groups if there weren't any token blacks/Hispanics/etc. Personally, I find characters whose sole purpose is to stand up and scream "look at me, I'm not white!" to be rather annoying. But I digress.

Of course, I wouldn't expect feminist groups to speak up about a lack of women in the line: I mean, I'm sure most of them would rather keep OUT of the draft, should one ever return (I can't blame them, there, either. It's gone, and likely to never return, but if it did, I'd do all I could to avoid it, too.)

Of course, I doubt they didn't complain back then because we had "better things to do." I mostly lay the blame on:
1) Lack of national communication (With the Internet, we now have the capability of rounding up a group of irate people who hate just about everything that doesn't conform to their ideal for protests. Back then, you'd need to have essentially an entire town who was outraged by a toyline)
2) We were too busy accusing each other of being a communist. "So, when the Rooskies are gonna nuke us any minute, you want to discuss the RACE of a toyline? Sounds like you're just trying to divert attention, COMRADE."
3) Racists. Let's face it, in the 1940's through... well, to about 1970 I'd say, you could stand right out in the open and be as racist or sexist as you wanted. HOW long did it take the Civil Rights movement to get rights for blacks to use the same BATHROOM as whites? Not to mention how many people, not unlike the anti-gay rights movement of today, claimed that "interracial marriage will destroy the sanctity of marriage?" (Fortunately, many of those people are now dead.)

Blowing things out of proportion... while ignoring actual problems... is a tradition as old as man himself, though America has certainly done a lot of it in a disproportionate amount of time.
Re:In other news.... by pimpimpim · 2007-09-08 02:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

I like your point b. For some reason, somewhere between the 80s and now, avoiding to look like the "unfree", "antidemocratic" culture the 'west' is supposed to oppose, got completely removed from the political agenda. These days, it is perfectly acceptable to introduce measures that are antidemocratic or removing the liberties of citizens. One just wonders when that change happened.

--
molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
Re:In other news.... by modecx · 2007-09-08 02:27 · Score: 1

He said he believes that a small government is good. He didn't go on to outline his reasons for believing so, and least of all did he say "I likes me a small guberment, you know, just because."

--
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Re:In other news.... by Dun+Malg · 2007-09-08 02:28 · Score: 1

Hey scud, he didn't say that at all.

Of course he did:
...I believe that having a small, limited government is good...
Try reading and understanding before posting.
Funny, I don't see the part where he says "Having a small government for the sake of a small government". Just because he chose not to inflict upon us his particular reasons for desiring small government does not mean that you may assume there are none.

Try pulling your head out.
You first, troll.

--
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Re:In other news.... by Danathar · 2007-09-08 02:30 · Score: 1

Um....I hate to break this to you, but nobody qualifies blogs except the authors. DUH!

Attention! Attention!....To Those without a clue....the above remark is a form of Sarcasm!
Re:In other news.... by hedwards · 2007-09-08 02:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

Unfortuantely, those who make the most noise about "smaller government" usually mean taking the regulators and governors off the engine of the state, not shrinking the engine.
Sigh, I really wish this weren't the case. It kind of bugs me that if that weren't bad enough most of the people the propose a smaller government have been voting for a regime that has moved all the regulators over to spy agencies.

Personally, I like the idea of a small efficient government. But I know better than to assume that less regulation will bring that, mostly what it brings is higher bills. Texans ought to know that better than anybody as they presently pay some of the highest electricity bills, while the producers have polluted their air to a degree worse than LA in its heyday.

The issue tends to be that a smaller government can't adequately police morality. And that tends to be a deal breaker. You really can't have a government that has the resources to spy in people's bedrooms and still have it be small.
Re:In other news.... by Dun+Malg · 2007-09-08 02:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

Or perhaps because we as a culture realized that if we made certain classes of citizens feel unwelcome in our military, we would:

a) Weaken the military.
b) Look like the "unfree", "antidemocratic" culture we were nominally opposing.
Yeah, this theory is in the "not likely at all" category. The "GI Joe, Mk 2" creation was totally non-representative of the US military. The characters had no discipline, no uniforms in the sense of uniformity, no clearly delineated rank, and never planned anything beyond "you guys go this way, and we'll go thataway". No thinking person saw the military when they saw GI Joe the comic/cartoon. They saw the Superfriends, 80's edition.

--
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Re:In other news.... by saxoholic · 2007-09-08 02:58 · Score: 1

To add to what "I(rispee_I(reme" said, when the cartoon series in the 80s became extremely popular, it was brought overseas to the UK. When brought to the UK, it was renamed "Action Force." Producers were concerned that with such an american oriented title, it wouldn't be successful overseas. When writing the movie, they had the same concern -- that it wouldn't be successful internationally. So that is the reason for much of the multiculturalization the article talks about. As long as they don't do G.I Joe: War On Drugs. Remember, Knowing is half the battle!
Re:In other news.... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 03:06 · Score: 1, Interesting

> I find characters whose sole purpose is to stand up and scream "look at me, I'm not white!" to be rather annoying.

I find it to be racist. It happens in minority-centered entertainment also, where finding whites can be like playing Where's Waldo. Hollywood self-segregates entertainment to cater to different demographics and their lingering racism.
Re:In other news.... by Xonstantine · 2007-09-08 03:28 · Score: 1, Insightful

Unfortuantely, those who make the most noise about "smaller government" usually mean taking the regulators and governors off the engine of the state, not shrinking the engine. No, most people who talk about smaller government really do want a smaller Federal government. The Federal government has increasingly usurped issues that are better left decided at a local or state level. Education for example.
We could halve our "defense" spending and still outspend any potential adversary about five to one. That leaves plenty to defend our nation - while being less of a temptation to foreign adventures and wars of choice. Funny how people forget things like the US military being first on the scene after the Tsunami hit...or world kept mostly free of piracy from the US navy. When the Somali civil war broke out and all the embassies were evacuated, guess who evacuated them? That's right, the US military. So yeah, the US military is a hegemony machine, but if the US wasn't doing a lot of those functions, someone else would need to, or the world would suffer for it.
Then let's go about reducing government powers to issue corporate charters, land and resource deeds, copyright and patents, and to run a federal reserve system that lets banks suck in wealth and that bails out speculator markets. Bah...what do you think has increased the size of government? It's shit like the above...government spending is always a windfall for someone. Usually someone with government connections. Which is why smaller government is an inherent good...it reduces the ability of big business to line their pockets with your tax money while being backed up by the monopoly of force that is the government.
Re:In other news.... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 03:32 · Score: 0

Yep. You missed a trivial detail. There was a black GI Joe doll in the 70's, so the seeds of eventual multiculturalism were already there.
Re:In other news.... by Paracelcus · 2007-09-08 05:35 · Score: 1

Leth thuppily them with dithco ballth and showtuneth, then we can watth Richard Thimmonth tapeth and wear pathtelth!

--
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
Re:In other news.... by Lemmy+Caution · 2007-09-08 05:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

The "hegemony machine" part is the important aspect.

Look, not only do I know that the military does some good work at times, I know that a lot of the kids in the military are well-intentioned and responsible people (I was a service brat, I got a pretty close look at the military psyche in action.) But the same can be said of the military of just about any country, as well. And, conversely, it can also be said of the non-military governmental bodies, and just about anything else.

The truth is that there isn't much that's defensive about the present-day US military - most of the security work is now being done by the "Department of Homeland Security" (just what the hell is "Defense" supposed to be, then? Maybe it should go back to being called the Department of War, like it used to be.) The de-facto purpose of the US military is to project force overseas. That occasionally it performs relief and rescue services doesn't change that.
Re:In other news.... by skam240 · 2007-09-08 05:44 · Score: 1

"Funny how people forget things like the US military being first on the scene after the Tsunami hit...or world kept mostly free of piracy from the US navy. When the Somali civil war broke out and all the embassies were evacuated, guess who evacuated them? That's right, the US military. So yeah, the US military is a hegemony machine, but if the US wasn't doing a lot of those functions, someone else would need to, or the world would suffer for it."

This really goes both ways though. Our military is currently responsible for destabilizing what had been a fairly stable country, for very little cause. This has resulted in wide spread ethnic warfare in said country, thousands of deaths, and threatens to destabilize the entire region. Perhaps with a smaller military we would not have attempted this.

--
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Re:In other news.... by Belial6 · 2007-09-08 05:47 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, racism in America isn't dead. It just changed sides.
Re:In other news.... by Xonstantine · 2007-09-08 06:08 · Score: 1, Insightful

This really goes both ways though. Our military is currently responsible for destabilizing what had been a fairly stable country, for very little cause. This has resulted in wide spread ethnic warfare in said country, thousands of deaths, and threatens to destabilize the entire region. Perhaps with a smaller military we would not have attempted this. True, and perhaps with a smaller military, Saddam Hussein would've kept his tanks rolling into Saudi Arabia in 1991 because there would've been no one in a position to oppose him. And lets be clear...Iraq was "stable" because of tyranny and brutal oppression, ethnic and religious. The US "broke" Iraq, but it's not like we invaded Canada. Iraq was already a teapot about to boil over.
Re:In other news.... by bladesjester · 2007-09-08 06:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

These days, it is perfectly acceptable to introduce measures that are antidemocratic or removing the liberties of citizens. One just wonders when that change happened.

It's been happening for quite a while, but if you want to point at one event that really started taking away constitutional rights, I'd say it was probably when people started taking shots at Regan.

It caused Brady to get shot instead, and eventually (after a number of years of lobbying), the Brady Bill was passed. Instead of blaming the person who did the shooting, they started blaming the guns.

It's been sort of downhill from there.

--
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
Re:In other news.... by gad_zuki! · 2007-09-08 06:22 · Score: 1

Whoa this is incredible. This is the realm of the crazy right-wing nutjobs. What is it doing on a technology site? Oh well anything to make ad impressions eh?
Re:In other news.... by cayenne8 · 2007-09-08 06:56 · Score: 1

"But I can't help but shudder at the thought of complaints from minority groups if there weren't any token blacks/Hispanics/etc. Personally, I find characters whose sole purpose is to stand up and scream "look at me, I'm not white!" to be rather annoying."
Coming soon..."Don't ask, Don't tell" G.I. Joe in the blockbuster feature G.I. for the Straight Guy

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:In other news.... by deKernel · 2007-09-08 06:57 · Score: 0

Funny how those dictatorships are so darn stable...and friendly. Please wake up.
Now regarding the comment about destabilizing the entire region...well...um...you might want to read up on history because that region has never been nor ever will be stable.
Re:In other news.... by Mr.+Slippery · 2007-09-08 07:12 · Score: 1

No, most people who talk about smaller government really do want a smaller Federal government.

"Smaller government" and "smaller Federal government" are two very different things. Simply shuffling powers around matters little. I don't disagree that the Fed has gotten too big, but all too many "state's rights" advocates either naively believe that the states are more friendly to liberty than the federal government, or actively want the states to be able to oppress the minority groups they don't like.
Funny how people forget things like the US military being first on the scene after the Tsunami hit...

And wouldn't it have been better if well-trained and well-equipped disaster relief specialists from a Department of Peace were doing that, instead of a bunch of people whose primary training is warfare?
or world kept mostly free of piracy from the US navy

Piracy still accounts for hundreds of incidents each year, with $13 to $16 billion in annual losses.
Which is why smaller government is an inherent good...it reduces the ability of big business to line their pockets with your tax money while being backed up by the monopoly of force that is the government.

My point is that the very existence of "big business" is only made possible by government action, and that those are the parts of government that need to be shrunk first. Shrinking the parts that provide some oversight of "big business" is foolhardy - like lightening your car by installing light-duty brakes instead of replacing the engine with a smaller one.
Merely saying "shrink the government!" is not enough, you need to describe what parts. There's a big difference between a plan that starts with shrinking the Army, the Federal Reserve, and the DEA, and once that starts with shrinking FEMA, the Small Business Administration, and the NIH.

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Re:In other news.... by pimpimpim · 2007-09-08 08:14 · Score: 2, Informative

Hmm, as a non-US-ian, I am not so much in favor of the right to carry arms, but since it is historically important to the US I won't discuss that now.
What I do find interesting is that similar things are happening in Germany nowadays. The minister of interior Schüable got partially crippled 17 years ago when he was shot in an attack on him (he was then also minister of interior). Now, he is introducing a shitload of freedom-limiting laws, as you have read on slashdot this year (e.g. forbidding possession of 'hacking' tools). Strangely enough, he is actually in favor of the loosening of the right to carry arms, probably because he wants to carry arms himself, I have no real clue. For both your example as the current, one can say: for any political measure, fear should not be the reason behind it.

--
molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
Re:In other news.... by TheoMurpse · 2007-09-08 08:51 · Score: 1

GP was saying that, because the blog said that anyone who believes a way different than the blogger must have been "tainted" by college professors, the blog is pointless to read. GP was saying nothing about the merits of anyone's beliefs other than that of the blogger who seems to quick to insult everyone who doesn't agree 100% with his platform.

Learn to use logic, man.
Re:In other news.... by Xonstantine · 2007-09-08 08:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Smaller government" and "smaller Federal government" are two very different things. Simply shuffling powers around matters little. I don't disagree that the Fed has gotten too big, but all too many "state's rights" advocates either naively believe that the states are more friendly to liberty than the federal government, or actively want the states to be able to oppress the minority groups they don't like. I'm not making the argument that states or local municipalities are any less prone to corruption than the Federal government, but at least with states and municipalities you have the option of moving to a better, friendlier environment that is more conducive to one's values. Do you really want the Federal government mandating creationism being taught side-by-side (or instead of) evolution? How about the Federal government mandating books like "Bobby Has Two Dads"? Point is, if I don't like the way Greenville, Kansas or San Fransisco, California runs their education system I can move...in many cases it's as easy as moving the next town or school district over. It's a lot harder to emigrate out of the US entirely.

Furthermore, there is a very real reason to shuffle powers around. It's called Federalism. Basically, the Federal government today runs roughshod over the Constitution primarily because the idea of Federalism and enumerated powers has been abandoned. Like many of the Framers originally feared, the Bill of Rights has become the basis for an exclusionary policy (that which is not explicitly permitted is explicitly forbidden). The imperial ambitions of people like Alexander Hamilton have won out. And one of the end results of a powerful Federal government is exactly the adventurism and foreign interventionism which a lot of big government proponents decry.
Piracy still accounts for hundreds of incidents each year, with $13 to $16 billion in annual losses. Which isn't all that much considering that the world economy is some $40 trillion per year, and a significant fraction of that is transported via waterways. Piracy is gone in most areas, a nuisance in others, but it used to be a real scourge all over the world.

My point is that the very existence of "big business" is only made possible by government action I disagree. Big business was alive and well during the Gilded Age, when the US Federal government was tiny compared to today. As a percentage of national GDP, people like Rockefeller dwarfed today's billionaires.
Shrinking the parts that provide some oversight of "big business" is foolhardy - like lightening your car by installing light-duty brakes instead of replacing the engine with a smaller one. I'm not really advocating the shrinking of regulatory agencies (although I think in some respects, the EPA is a rogue agency but that's a topic for another day). My main concern is non-discretionary entitlement spending, which we have (as a nation) overpromised and have no way to pay for in 20 years. If the government had stayed within it's enumerated powers or even managed to maintain fiscal discipline, we wouldn't be in the pickle we are today. And don't blame Bush for all of this. He at least tried to initiate Social Security reform, which was promptly shot down by Democrats and the AARP (taxing tomorrow's generation for today's seniors). But, Bush and the Republican Congress certainly haven't helped. Which is why a lot of people stayed home during the 2006 elections.

And I'm not advocating abandoning the social safety net either, I just think it should be shuffled lower, down to the individual states, with Federal oversight with respect to benefits. That way, money in New York stays in New York, and we don't have a welfare system where well over half of the money spent goes to paying the bureaucratic staff rather than actually giving benefits to people mired in poverty.
Re:In other news.... by Haeleth · 2007-09-08 09:56 · Score: 1

we as a culture realized that if we made certain classes of citizens feel unwelcome in our military, we would:

a) Weaken the military.
b) Look like the "unfree", "antidemocratic" culture we were nominally opposing.
Sadly, your military's leaders haven't realised this, as is evidenced by the fact that American soldiers face dismissal if it is discovered that they are homosexual.

The US forces try to justify this sickening prejudice with a range of tired old defences, despite the counter-evidence from other nations, such as Britain, that allow openly practising homosexuals to serve with no obvious ill effects.

I suppose gay US servicemen are supposed to be thankful that they merely lose their jobs, instead of actually being stoned to death like they would be in an even less tolerant society...
Re:In other news.... by bendodge · 2007-09-08 10:01 · Score: 1

Here's a start:
1. Put a lifetime cap on welfare.
2. Nuke farm subsidies. Yes, it will cause temporary pain, but it will be much better in the long run.
3. Make Social Security so that you get out exactly as much as you put in.
4. Restructure the education system so that every student has $x that go with him top any school that meets the minimum requirements.
5. Remove most of the zoning laws. I ought to be able to have a horse pasture if I want to.

--
The government can't save you.
Re:In other news.... by skam240 · 2007-09-08 10:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

True, and perhaps with a smaller military, Saddam Hussein would've kept his tanks rolling into Saudi Arabia in 1991 because there would've been no one in a position to oppose him. And lets be clear...Iraq was "stable" because of tyranny and brutal oppression, ethnic and religious. The US "broke" Iraq, but it's not like we invaded Canada. Iraq was already a teapot about to boil over.

First off it could very easily have been an international coalition that stopped Saddam in 1991 and you can bet that if he had dared to enter Saudi Arabia it definitively would have been.

Second, as of right now most of the Iraqi people are far worse off than they were under Saddam (who I will agree was a horrible dictator) and given the effectiveness of their current government it looks like this is unlikely to change anytime soon.

As for the teapot bit, I have never heard of any evidence that there was any kind of boiling over eminent for the country. In fact that's half the reason we invaded Iraq, because our sanctions had failed to unseat Saddam. Of course it's possible I'm missing something so feel free to correct me on that last part.

--
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Re:In other news.... by DAtkins · 2007-09-08 10:07 · Score: 1

Because it's News For Nerds. A large percentage of American geeks grew up watching GI Joe and therefore have an emotional attachment to it. It's just nostalgia that put the link on the page, not conspiracy.
Re:In other news.... by sco08y · 2007-09-08 11:34 · Score: 0, Troll

Unfortuantely, those who make the most noise about "smaller government" usually mean ...

Stop right here. The basic principle of debate is that you debate what the person actually says, not what you invent. If you can't do that, you can take your ass back to a lefty echo chamber like DailyKos where you belong.
Re:In other news.... by Mr.+Slippery · 2007-09-08 11:54 · Score: 1

The basic principle of debate is that you debate what the person actually says, not what you invent.

Except that I wasn't debating "theAtomicFireball". I was making a general comment about a certain current in political thought, one that was under discussion in the thread and one that I have encountered many, many, many times.

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Re:In other news.... by Mr.+Slippery · 2007-09-08 12:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

I disagree. Big business was alive and well during the Gilded Age, when the US Federal government was tiny...

You miss the point. I'm talking about something much more fundamental. No government issued corporate charters, no Big Business. No government issued land deeds for speculators, no Big Business. Eliminate government issued copyrights and patents as we know them, no Big Business. And on this point it makes no difference that some of these are done by the federal government and some by states.
I'm not hostile to your points about Federalism, it's a question I go back and forth on. Certainly the contemporary Federal government is leaps and bounds beyond its Constitutional mandate, we're in agreement there. But the point I want to raise is the dependance of Big Business on state action.
Libertarian capitalists are fond of talking about "smaller government", but capitalism can't exist without a whole lot of government action on behalf of the owning class. Which is why the original - and the only true - libertarians were and are liberatarian socialists, a.k.a. anarchists.

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Re:In other news.... by Danse · 2007-09-08 13:41 · Score: 1

True, and perhaps with a smaller military, Saddam Hussein would've kept his tanks rolling into Saudi Arabia in 1991 because there would've been no one in a position to oppose him. We never needed a large military to stop Saddam. The problem was never in defeating his military, we knew we could do that with ease any time we wanted to.
Iraq was already a teapot about to boil over. Says who? We could have left things the way they were and been fine for at least several more years. Maybe that would have been enough time to get some people with half a brain involved in the "planning" that was done before the invasion. From what I remember, the planning consisted of telling everyone that it would be quick and cheap and that we would be greeted as liberators. Then they didn't seem to have gone as far as actually considering what could possibly happen, and ignored or removed anyone who tried to tell them.

--
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Re:In other news.... by Scudsucker · 2007-09-08 16:31 · Score: 1

A small government with less power/budget should be less effective at taking our rights.

And far less able to protect you (Katrina, product and worker saftey, bridge maintenance, pollution) and save you money (healthcare, education, crime reduction). So again, smaller government for the sake of smaller government is no better than larger government for the sake of larger government.
Re:In other news.... by Scudsucker · 2007-09-08 16:52 · Score: 1

Stop right here. The basic principle of debate is that you debate what the person actually says, not what you invent.

And you don't get to ignore inconvenient facts. It's no strawman to point out that the vast majority of conservatives who prattle on about "limited government" only want to limit the stuff they don't like (social spending), but baby, bring on that pork and military spending, any more than pointing out how full of crap they are on "family values".

If you can't do that, you can take your ass back to a lefty echo chamber like DailyKos where you belong.

Oh, come on, admit that the real reason you don't like DailyKos is because they bring attention to right wing assholes.
Re:In other news.... by Scudsucker · 2007-09-08 16:59 · Score: 1

Funny how those dictatorships are so darn stable...and friendly. Please wake up.

Vastly more so than civil war and chaos. You wake up. Even Cheney saw that back in the 90's.

Now regarding the comment about destabilizing the entire region...well...um...you might want to read up on history because that region has never been nor ever will be stable.

Of course it has been. And it would be more stable without crap like Operation Ajax.
Re:In other news.... by professorfalcon · 2007-09-08 18:03 · Score: 1

...and lasers for their sharks and dolphins.
Re:In other news.... by ArwynH · 2007-09-08 19:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

The 1st Gulf War was not a US waged war. It was called for by the UN and supported by the US, UK and most UN member countries.

The 2nd Gulf War was/is a US waged war with the support of whatever countries it could bully into supporting it.

Either way, the grandparent is wrong about the military being to blame for the current mess. The US military is under the direct control of the civilian government and follows their orders. If you're going to blame someone, do not blame the gun, blame the person who pulled the trigger.

On a different note: sometimes tyrannical despotism works better than an elected democratic government would. In order for a government to function it requires control over the people it governs, this can either be obtained via force (military, police, militia) or via trust. 1st world governments use trust and supplement it with a strictly limited amount of force to keep the unruly elements at bay. In Iraq's case, there are too many unruly elements to be kept back by a limited force and so it's a case of 'He who has more guns: wins'. Unfortunately, the Iraq government does not have more guns and thus cannot effectively govern it's people. Historically despots are far more likely to be able to obtain more guns in such situations, hence installing a despot might have been a better choice, than installing a democratic government.
Re:In other news.... by KudyardRipling · 2007-09-09 03:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

Please forgive the pedantry.

The idea of the state policing morality arises from the evangelical Christian view that God judges any nation that refuses to enforce those standards of morality as expounded by the evangelical Christian community's interpretation of the Bible. Therefore it would be possible to view that Al-Qa'ida is America's Nebuchadnetzar. This is the chain of thought. Some time in the past, a covenant was made between America and G-d similar in spirit to the one made with Israel at Mount Sinai. There are problems with this view.

1. This covenant was made with a specific people. Techncally this covenant is contained in a document named Deuteronomy. The structure of this document is based on second millenium BCE suzerainty treaties. I am aware that some may try to weasel in America in the verses in parshat Netzavim (Deuteronomy 29:9-30:20) where it says "I make this covenant with its sanctions not with you alone, but both with those who are standing here with us today before the L-RD our G-d and with those who are not with us here this day" (TANAKH JPS 1985 Deut. 29:13-14). The context is that those yet to be born of those present were included in that covenant.

2. It was ratified with accompanying signs and wonders. The mountain called Sinai on the eponymous peninsula is not the real Mount Sinai. The real Mount Sinai is in Arabia. The rocks atop of that mountain is charred in a manner not reproduced outside of ground level nuclear tests. No miraculous/supernatural events of the sort recorded or any other were manifested at the founding of the American republic.

3. This sort of thinking arises from a pernicious doctrine that had infected Christendom since the early second century called supersessionism or 'replacement theology'. However, discussion of this in detail is way beyond the scope of this post.

I do not dismiss with prejudice the character of the founders of the American republic. Neither do I the same with the fact that apart from a few problems, America has been perhaps the most noble experiment in human history. However, as with any nation, they do rise and fall. What could happen to America would be more of the 'Sin of Sodom' scenario (Ezekiel 16:49-50). This is an attitude of arrogance and haughtyness and that the poor deserve to die and to assist such would be a crime, all in the name of prosperity-- socioeconomic darwinism. That is a more immanent danger. How big should government be to protect us from enemies, foreign, domestic, and Divine?

As for the G.I. Joe issue, all that Hollywood is doing is showing their true colors. What they do not realize is that the only reason why they have what they have is because the stereotypcal armed forces member: european, african, latino with smaller percentages from elsewhere. Again it raises the spectre (I have spoken on this before on /.) that when one accumulates a threshold of wealth and power, that wealth and power become their nationality. For these, a passport is a mere identity document for which one shops to obtain the best bargain (lowest income taxes).

5H4L0M

--
Submission as evidence constitutes plaintiff and/or prosecutorial misconduct.
Re:In other news.... by Scudsucker · 2007-09-09 07:08 · Score: 1

Funny, I don't see the part where he says "Having a small government for the sake of a small government".

It's as about as different as cougars and mountain lions. The parent offered no qualifiers or details, so taking his statement of "I believe that having a small, limited government is good" at face value is personally reasonable. Much as taking an equally dubious statement like "I believe that having a large, expanding bureaucracy is good" at face value.

You first, troll.

Unless you can claim with a straight face that you would be equally supportive of someone saying "I believe that having a large, expanding bureaucracy is good", this is the part of the discussion where you blow it out your ass.
Re:In other news.... by Scudsucker · 2007-09-09 07:11 · Score: 1

Then the parent can expound upon his views. However, the asshat the jumped into the conversation is unlikely to be equally defensive on a statement such as "I believe that having a large, expanding bureaucracy is good", he can piss off.
Re:In other news.... by pseudochaos · 2007-09-09 07:42 · Score: 1

True, and perhaps with a smaller military, Saddam Hussein would've kept his tanks rolling into Saudi Arabia in 1991 because there would've been no one in a position to oppose him. ... Iraq was "stable" because of tyranny and brutal oppression, ethnic and religious.

Iraq invaded Kuwait for (allegedly) drilling into their oil field.
As you said, that region of the world probably isn't ready for democracy, but rather needs tyranny and brutal oppression to keep all the fundies in line and not killing each other. So now we're over there trying to convert them all to democracy while they're dying in record number, and fleeing the country en masse (some 100,000 per month, according to http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1966333,00 .html). These people need 'tough love' to keep them in line and return them to the closest thing to stability that they're going to be able to have in the foreseeable future.

--
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
Re:In other news.... by kaffiene · 2007-09-09 09:01 · Score: 1

You can have a military to do all those things (as most nations do) without having to spend trillions invading other people.

A military that does defense and aid does not require the expense that your military consumes.
Re:In other news.... by tehcyder · 2007-09-09 21:31 · Score: 1

So if I believe that having a small, limited government is good (as the founding fathers did) and that capitalism (not unrestrained, but not heavily restricted either; just minimal intervention) is a good thing, just because you believe in Socialism or some other such system means that this article (having little to do with either of these beliefs) should not be accepted?
Any blog which starts by insulting non-believers should be treated with great caution. I bet you wouldn't feel so blase if this was a posting from a militant terrorist group's blog, however little the post had to do with those beliefs.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:In other news.... by tehcyder · 2007-09-09 21:45 · Score: 1

Next week on slashdot: The global Zionist conspiracy forces Microsoft to keep its products closed-source!
Oh crap, now some retard will link to this on his blog as a news item and in true dog-eating-its-own-sick style there will be a debate on slashdot later in the week about how it's probably more or less true.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:In other news.... by peaker2006 · 2007-09-10 00:45 · Score: 1

No, no, you want to use camels. Desert hardened, and would look completely ridiculous to boot. :p
Re:In other news.... by tbannist · 2007-09-10 02:45 · Score: 1

As I understand much of the current Chaos in Iraq is directly tied to Bush's (and his cronies') incompetence. One of Bush's cronies ended up making the decision to disband the Iraqi army after the invasion. It was something that was expressly against the political and the miliary plans for Iraq. But no one knows how this guy ended up in charge, and no one tried to countermand his orders even though they were obviously wrong. They just let it happen and now there's 400,000 more armed men in Iraq who don't work for the government because some dipshit who's friends with Bush screwed up and forgot the not in "DO NOT DISBAND THE ARMY".

This is the legacy of Bush. When you elect a moron you get idiots in charge and they will truly screw everything up.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Re:In other news.... by tbannist · 2007-09-10 02:50 · Score: 1

And less effective at defending them too.

Everything has both advantages and drawbacks. Be sure to enumerate both in the future.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Re:In other news.... by tbannist · 2007-09-10 02:58 · Score: 1

I thought everyone knew the Shipwreck and Gung Ho were a couple?

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Re:In other news.... by Scudsucker · 2007-09-20 06:49 · Score: 1

No, most people who talk about smaller government really do want a smaller Federal government.

No, that's really just a marketing slogan. What they want is an end to social spending and oversight that interfere in profit by any means necessary.

Funny how people forget things like the US military being first on the scene after the Tsunami hit.

You don't need the largest military in the world to offer disaster relief. Hugo Chavez, for example, offered help to Katrina victims.

Damn It! by rossz · 2007-09-07 17:41 · Score: 4, Funny

Now those bastards are turning him into a euro-pussie. They already have Ken, what more do they want?

--
-- Will program for bandwidth

Re:Damn It! by wamerocity · 2007-09-07 18:00 · Score: 2, Funny

Are you suggesting that a Greenpeace Soldier action figure would not be manly?!

--
"Thank you for using Stop-n-Drop, America's favorite suicide booth since 2008"
Re:Damn It! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 18:01 · Score: 1, Funny

Well, hey it's a new century. Everybody can go metro at the drop of a hat at least pretend to. Anyways my point being is that soldiering is boring without a little sex added to the mix. Just imagine finding out if Snake Eyes is really deformed and the only one who knows is the Scarlet Witch whose been doing him, Duke, and Cobra Commander on the side. It makes military, mercenary, and overall killer jobs a whole lot more interesting than going to a foriegn place and wacking some moron. Nothing says nothing like a little killin' and a little sex mixed in a foriegn country. Do you agree?( I'm just playing around but kinda serious but not really in a tired, out of my mind with fatigue type roundabout way. Apologies for the lunacy. It's Friday!).
Re:Damn It! by rossz · 2007-09-07 18:04 · Score: 3, Funny

A greenpeace action figure would eat tofu, wear earth shoes, and run screaming like a school girl at the first sign of any real danger.

--
-- Will program for bandwidth
Re:Damn It! by gwaawg · 2007-09-07 18:40 · Score: 2, Funny

lol! first Jesus Christ and now G.I. Joe.... Those darned Europeans.
Re:Damn It! by arivanov · 2007-09-07 18:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

Really,

Wanna try to picket a UK naval base and not let the whole fleet group out to go and kick some Iraqis for a week? Want to stand in the way of a frigate coming out of harbour?

Wanna run the gauntlet of Japanese whaling boats and stand between them and a whale? Each harpoon has at least one pound of TNT in it by the way. Granted, it is not a cannon shell, but it can do some hefty damage...

Wanna stand in the way of French towboats towing an asbestous ladden ship to India for disassembly? We all very well know how much they value protestors life...

--
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Re:Damn It! by Seumas · 2007-09-07 19:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

What is it exactly that makes the WWII generation better than every other generation that has ever existed? Is it that they spent themselves into an enormous debt habit? Is it that they gave themselves Social Security so they'd always be taken care of? Is it that they fought in a popular war?

What makes them better than today's generation? Today's generation is the one PAYING their self-given Social Security. What about the interment camps? What about the massive racism? Sure, racism still exists today, but we scorn it as a society wherever it creeps up. Were they a better generation than the current generation and the one before us, because they died fighting the Japanese and Germans while the generation after them merely fought a bunch of Vietnamese in an unpopular war and the current generation is fighting an extremely unpopular war? Is my death any less valiant and my sacrifice any less, because those in power send me to fight for different things in a different place than they sent YOU?! In fact, isn't it exactly THAT generation that sent the Vietnam generation to Vietnam and the current generation to... everywhere?

Just because Tom Brokaw tells them that they're the saving grace of an entire nation doesn't mean they are.

As for GI Joe... Who fucking cares?! It's a god damned half hour long advertisement that used to run on Saturdays. Who the hell is dumb enough to sit and actively watch a commercial for a toy? (And yes, the toy company that puts out GI Joe used to slot GI JOE as an advertisement; not a "show").

The WWII generation is the "greatest generation" the way that Guliani is "America's Greatest Mayor". Not so much because of doing anything great, but just happening to be alive during a period that certain events happened in the world.
Re:Damn It! by Carewolf · 2007-09-07 19:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

Hey!! Ken is an all-american pussy. You made him, he is your responsibility.
Re:Damn It! by Seumas · 2007-09-07 19:06 · Score: 1, Insightful

At least the greenpeace solidier wouldn't rape a fourteen year old girl and then kill and burn her entire family to cover it up and invent a story that they were under attack when it all happened.
Re:Damn It! by Reapman · 2007-09-07 19:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

You realize GI Joe wasn't about a cartoon, and existed before yours (and my) generation cared about GI Joe? I don't think that their generation was better, per say, but being in an extraordinary situation, lead to extraordinary people standing out. What their generation did should not be taken lightly, however. The "wars" we do now, honestly, pale compare to the wars of WW1 and WW2.
Re:Damn It! by iamacat · 2007-09-07 20:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

Perhaps those later wars would be more popular - in US and abroad - if people remembered that prior to WWII americans didn't want any part of world politics or being a global policeman. It's too bad that Japanese attacked Perl Harbor and Hitler had stupidity to declare unnecessary for him war on US. After the war it became apparent that Stalin's regime was as bad as Hitler's. Thus the cold war to deny any turf to the Soviet block.

Now we are attacked again - this time by muslims rather than soviets (let's separate communism as an economic decision possibly made democratically from totalitarian government and military aggression). Perhaps american support of Israel was foolhardy, but becoming neutral in respect to Israel vs Palestine will not stop all terrorists attacks now. And Muslims clearly believe in imposing their Sharia law on the rest of the world by force. Well, not everyone who calls himself a muslim, but the more "devote" one is, the more he is likely to advocate violence. To preserve ourselves, we have to fight another cold war aimed to sabotage existing muslim governments and prevent emergence of new ones.

Obviously Bush is an idiot. Saddam Hussein was preventing Iraq from being a Muslim state. Now it's an insanity to support a government based on Islamic laws. But all the same, the new cold war needs to be fought. The last one involved many unethical actions such as atomic bomb tests that harmed many civilians. At the same time, it protected freedom of many countries, including ones that hate US now, to determine their own future. It's naive to expect that the new war will be bloodless.
Re:Damn It! by Wyatt+Earp · 2007-09-07 20:14 · Score: 1

GI Joe wasn't a saturday cartoon, it aired weekdays.

Originally it was a 12" action figure series from the late 50s on. Then a comic book and 3" action figure line in the early 80s before the cartoon came one.
Re:Damn It! by Baumi · 2007-09-07 20:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

You know, I have lots of issues with Grenpeace, namely their tendency to concentrate on issues that'll get them media exposure instead of those which may be more pressing, but exactly that tendency has driven them to do anything but run away from danger. For better or worse, this chase from the G8 summit e.g. doesn't look like running away to me. (It's debatable whether it serves any purpose besides grabbing headlines, but that's another issue.)
Re:Damn It! by zooloostyle · 2007-09-07 20:38 · Score: 1

Just imagine finding out if Snake Eyes is really deformed and the only one who knows is the Scarlet Witch whose been doing him, Duke, and Cobra Commander on the side. It makes military, mercenary, and overall killer jobs a whole lot more interesting than going to a foriegn place and wacking some moron. http://www.zooloo.se/
Re:Damn It! by Yvanhoe · 2007-09-07 20:54 · Score: 1

Let me introduce the new G.I. J.O.E. character : "Le légionnaire Jean"

--
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Re:Damn It! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 21:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

yeah, really easy to do all of those things because you know those you do them against won't take any action to harm you.

how about you go head to head against the Chinese government or maybe the Russians. oh and do it in an out of the way place without a lot of cameras pointed at you.

get back to me and let me know how it goes.

I won't hold my breath waiting on your reply. wouldn't be healthy

Turing Word: forfeit
In a sentence: Go up against the wrong government hippie and your life is forfeit.
Re:Damn It! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 21:53 · Score: 5, Informative

Yeah because western governments would never resort to violence against Greenpeace, right?
Re:Damn It! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 22:08 · Score: 0

It was a better generation because they didn't have whiny little bitches like you.
Re:Damn It! by ricegf · 2007-09-07 22:27 · Score: 3, Informative
"The Greatest Generation" did much more that just show up in the right place at the right time. It's easy to look back now and say how easy it was to make so many right decisions at such a critical time in history, but back then they struggled with overwhelming issues and yet managed to be united and purposeful - and therefore overcame.

Among other accomplishments, they:
- Fought and won a two front war against two powerful, highly immoral military dictatorships that not only sought to conquer the world (in reality, not Hollywood-ese) but to murder entire races and classes of people;
- Rebuilt both defeated countries into modern economic, republican powers and allies (the allies helped, of course, but I'm drawing a distinction with the punative post-WWI "reparations" laws that proved so foolish);
- Laid a working foundation for international dispute resolution (as opposed to the worthless League of Nations) that has survived to this day without become irrelevant (for the most part);
- Generated a huge post-war economic boom that dramatically improved the quality of life for a large percentage of the population; and
- Laid the foundations upon which the Cold War could be won without WWIII and (especially) the use of nuclear weapons.
All in all, not a bad days work IMHO.

(The "enormous debt habit" was not a product of The Greatest Generation, who were a uniformly thrifty and cash-based society except during WWII itself. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hi st.pdf (PDF file, starting pp 126) for the data - but national debt relative to GDP declined every year from 1946 (end of WWII) until 1981. The "enormous debt habit" was my generation, Bucky - show a little respect! :-/)

I don't propose TGG were perfect by any means. Discrimination against certain classes of people were not eradicated (though they certainly didn't invent the concept!), although some of the worst abuses were indeed addressed (lynchings, for example, dropped out of popular acceptance, and the accomplishments of some Blacks were finally acknowledged and recognized, if only out of embarrassment for how much had gone unrecognized in the past). And the foundations for defeat were also laid, resulting most notably in the Vietnam war (where allied soldiers were required to bomb empty jungles lest we hurt any Russian advisors - idiots!).

But compared to the moral confusion and lack of clear and unified purpose in the current generation, I think they did pretty darned good against overwhelming odds, and are worthy of the title bestowed by the popular media. YMMV, of course.
Re:Damn It! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 22:49 · Score: 0

Well, it was certainly naive of our American public to think that even this war would be bloodless (and for taking advantage of THAT naivte, I do blame the Pentagon--they did so at the expense of our soldiers...who have been forced to fight with one hand tied behind their backs. Tied because it's "politically correct" (and for THAT part...I blame the Democrats)).

"Shock and Awe" SHOULD have been both shocking...and awesome. But it wasn't...because to do so would have been politically incorrect. And so instead (to this day) American soldiers lose life and limb "maintaining a presence" on the streets of Baghdad. As worthwhile as it might be, it hardly puts fear into the enemy.

The correct military pose (having captured Saddam) would have been for US troops to pull back into the desert. Into a series of military redoubts--fortresses--out in the desert. Fortresses with a a clear field of fire in every direction, but still forts which still serve to "occupy the country." Thereby forcing the insurgents to come out to us (to get us). Forcing them because of THEIR defintion of manhood.

To paraphrase Patton: You win a war by making the other poor son-of-a-bitch die for HIS country.

Want us out of Iraq, you insurgents? Good. Just try. Come out here into the desert. Try to come get us .
Re:Damn It! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 23:57 · Score: 0

To me you seem to have more of a problem that the GI Joe issue. You seem insecure with yourself and its hard to see why. I dont care either who is considered a great or the greatest generation, but to them it may. WWII, Veitnam, Korea, Gulf War or even peace time; military veterans have helped procure your right to make your ranting and i feel you should be proud of it. Obviously you do not care or even think of that. Every military generation starting with the Revolution should be considered a saving grace. You are proof of that. You have freedom and your rights. Think about it!

As for GI Joe, I watched him as a kid and liked it. If we need to idolize something to make up proud of our freedom, then he is it. A decent symbols for all those who died in all wars. I hope he lives on. I hope that any silly "politically correct" icon gets shot with Osama
Re:Damn It! by GooberToo · 2007-09-08 00:22 · Score: 1

Were they a better generation than the current generation and the one before us, because they died fighting the Japanese and Germans while the generation after them merely fought a bunch of Vietnamese in an unpopular war and the current generation is fighting an extremely unpopular war?

No, they are a better generation because without them YOU wouldn't be here to freely scorn what you and most everyone else openly scorns today; including Hollywood.

They are a better generation because they gave lives of friends and brothers on a scale you and I can not imagine, to fight an obvious wrong in the world, while going months to years without seeing their loved ones; doing so because they believed it was their obligation. This generation bitches and complains like little spoiled children when they have to do the right thing...regardless of if they do the right thing...and if there is a cost to be paid, that's unacceptable. This generation is too busy being morally corrupt and selfish while complaining about righteousness and their decaying position in the world.

They are a better generation because sometimes you have to do what is important and right rather than what is popular; and even the press knew that back then.

They are a better generation because they understood what it is to do without and to sacrifice for the greater good. This generation bitches about loss of life of people they don't know or care, because it's "PC". All the while refusing to stop driving SUVs and trucks because it is more important to show the world how small your penis is than it is to actually do something about it; all the while complaining about the problems to which they actively contribute. This generation has no concept of what sacrifice means.

They are a better generation because in almost every way that matters to be human in a society, they are better. If you want to argue they had faults, fine. There is certainly no shortage of faults to go around in this generation either. At least the Great Generation can claim ignorance of a more simple time. This generation knows better, so there is no excuse.
Re:Damn It! by LaughingCoder · 2007-09-08 00:58 · Score: 1

But, let's not forget the single most important thing any generation does ... raise and teach the next generation. In the case of the "Greatest Generation", I believe the next generation is called the "Baby Boomers". Unfortunately, based on all the negative press the boomer generation garners (much of it warranted I might add), I would have to conclude that the "Greatest Generation" failed miserably in fulfilling its most significant responsibility. Can you really be considered the greatest if you fail to achieve your primary objective?

Don't get me wrong, I have tremendous respect for the WWII generation. But like every generation (boomers included), they made plenty of mistakes. So, to call them the "Greatest Generation" is, in my mind silly, especially given my first point above.

--
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
Re:Damn It! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 01:13 · Score: 0

Hollywood in Europe? I don't need to ask. You are from the USA.
Re:Damn It! by Tribbin · 2007-09-08 01:40 · Score: 1

Captain Planet?

--
If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
Re:Damn It! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 02:35 · Score: 0

You realize GI Joe wasn't about a cartoon, and existed before yours (and my) generation cared about GI Joe?

Sorry? G.I. Joe started out as a comic strip in 1942. How is a thing originating from a comic strip not related to a cartoon?
Re:Damn It! by Lumpy · 2007-09-08 02:38 · Score: 1

Let Gi-joe die. everyone knows that the new american heros are Team America-World Police! Protecting the whole planet from Terrorism!

Those are the real hero's that americans can get behind!

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Damn It! by dbcad7 · 2007-09-08 02:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

I find the term euro-pussie amusing, only because it is coming from someone complaining about what they are doing to the image of their doll. Funny stuff really. Don't know why it has to be "euro-pussie" though, but I'll just let that go, I am not European and I am sure they can defend their own honour.

--
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
Re:Damn It! by Mr.+Slippery · 2007-09-08 02:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

Perhaps those later wars would be more popular - in US and abroad - if people remembered that prior to WWII americans didn't want any part of world politics or being a global policeman.

...provided one forgets about WWI, the Spanish-American War, Philippine-American war, the Monroe Doctrine, et cetera. And the amazingly little-known U.S. and allied invasion of communist Russia, one of my favorite little-known but vitally important historical events. (Kind of relevant to the Cold War, eh? Not so paranoid for the Russians to fear an American attack if we'd already done it once.)
Oh, and just how did we come to have a naval base in Hawaii in the first place? Or our presence in Guam? The Philippines? The Pacific conflict was a straight-up fight between expansionist colonial powers. Yes, the U.S. was somewhat less vicious, though American atrocities were not unknown.
The idea of the U.S. quietly minding it's own business when suddenly attacked by those sneaky Japanese and then reluctantly rising to save the world, is great nationalist mythology. But it's lousy history. Sure, we'd toned down the foreign meddling for a few years - because we ran out of money.
And Muslims clearly believe in imposing their Sharia law on the rest of the world by force. Well, not everyone who calls himself a muslim, but the more "devote" one is, the more he is likely to advocate violence.

That's odd. I don't think my Muslim veternarian, or his kids who used to take my karate class, want to impose Sharia law on me. Nor did the Muslim karate teacher who visited my dojo and stayed at my house for a few days a few years back. I don't think the woman in the chador who bagged my groceries yesterday (yes, that was odd) bore me any ill will. Nor did the nice folks from South Africa with whom I sat at dinner at an event last summer (we were all at the vegetarian table). But I think they all counted themselves as devout.
So how's about you ease off the prejudice, friend?
Now we are attacked again - this time by muslims rather than soviets

You seem to be confused. The Soviets never attacked us, and the Muslims who did were part of a criminal ring, not agents of a state. 9/11 was a crime, not an act of war. Treating it as war was the first mistake.

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Re:Damn It! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 02:54 · Score: 0

Exactly, the pussies calling Iraq a war need to talk to my grandfather that was on the beaches on D day. watched 12 of his buddies get mowed down and had to listen to one of them cry to him for help as he followed orders and made his way farther up to his position. the beaches were covered in bodies, the water was red with blood.

Honestly, the fucking pussies Leading our men today would not last 30 seconds in a real firefight. Try fighting a full on war charging bunkers full of machinegunners WITHOUT your armor and other crap.

I did not say that the men on the ground are pussies. The fact their training is crap and their leaders are pussies and force the men on the ground to be pussies. calling in airstrikes need to be done WAY more. Think there might be a IED on the side of the road, Blast the fucking thing with a tank round instead of pussyfooting around trying to disarm it and risking a man.

Why are there not way more tanks rolling around there? get shot at from a building, blow up the whole fucking building and put another 1000 rounds into the smoking ruins just to make sure.
Re:Damn It! by ghyd · 2007-09-08 03:17 · Score: 1

"Is it that they fought in a popular war?"

My grand mother was a little sad to have here friends blown to bits by ally bombardments (following droppings of aluminum foil bits that the children, mind you, liked a lot) but she was still a little happy to be freed from the Nazi: because, you know, it was such a popular war.
Re:Damn It! by Scrameustache · 2007-09-08 03:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

A greenpeace action figure would eat tofu, wear earth shoes, and run screaming like a school girl at the first sign of any real danger. Let's see you get between an explosive harpoon and the whale it's meant for, internet tough guy.

--
You can't take the sky from me...
Re:Damn It! by bbdb · 2007-09-08 03:32 · Score: 1

How about you stop pretending what their ideology really is?

You use fallacy of composition: just because some, formally Muslim, probably not very devout, people are not serial killers screaming jihad all the time, doesn't mean their ideology and purpose is not what it demonstrably is.

Plus, they are peaceful only because they are in minority. For now.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-turkey/article_ 679.jsp

"Thus, the democratic culture of conflict implies the sceptical idea of duality, as against the optimistic idea of unity. Since no one owns the truth, regulated forms of dispute must be established. Islamicist dissatisfaction with this model is based on its predisposition to discord, strife, and sham conflicts.

Against this, they evoke the dream of a scholars' republic. Conflicts that arose were to be solved by reference to the Koran, by obtaining a legal report, a fatwa. The weight of such a report is substantially dependent on the personal authority of the issuer. Thus, unlike a court judgment, the legal opinion given is only binding on someone who acknowledges this authority. But personal authority develops out of the free play of forces. What political Muslims have in mind, therefore, is a scholars' republic or a legal opinion state."

Christianity is doctrinally about love, Islam is doctrinally about submission:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FD16Aa02.h tml

" Less important than the differences in content - "audience" rather than "dialogue", "submission" rather than "love" - is the difference in emphasis. With this perfunctory preface, Sistani begins a lengthy treatise on when, where, with what clothing, and in what bodily positions prayers may be said. His concern is not the spiritual experience of prayer, but establishing communal norms for prayer. Where the Christians and Jews gush with loquacity on the subject, Muslims have remarkably little to say about the experience of prayer. Reading through Muslim sources, I am at loss to find anything remotely resembling Ratzinger's quite typical discourse on prayer.

In fact, virtually all of Sistani's writings address communal norms for behavior, including the most intimate. Ritual impurity (janabat) is a central concern, especially in the case of sexual relations. He writes, for example:

[...]
In calling attention to these portions of Sistani's theology I do not mean to deprecate him. On the contrary, he addresses the inhabitants of traditional society for whom spiritual experience means submission, that is, submission to communal norms, whence the individual derives a lasting sense of identity. In the most intimate details of daily life, culture and religion become inseparable. For traditional society it is the durability of communal norms that lends a sense of immortality to the individual, a life beyond mere physical existence. That is why prayer in the Judeo-Christian sense, the lovers' exchange between God and the individual soul, does not come into consideration within Muslim theology. Allah is the all-powerful sovereign of the world before whom the individual dissolves; the individual's submission to the ummah, the community of Islam, is a spiritual experience of an entirely different order.

To this the Americans can only come as destroyers, not saviors. America by its nature disrupts traditional order. It is the usurper of the Old World, the agency of creative destruction, the Spirit that Denies, to whom "everything that arises goes rightly to its ruin" (Goethe) - in short, the Great Satan. America is the existential threat to Islam."

In short, there can be no peace with Islam, as two ideologies underpinning the reflective lifestyles - Islam, the traditional and developed world, the modernist lifestyle, which more or less can be reconciled with Christianity - are in fundamental and irreconci

--
Python is nice quick and flexible... but it provides so much rope a monkey would hang the whole ecosystem with it. -- in
Re:Damn It! by enrevanche · 2007-09-08 03:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
What a bunch of crap. This is just a bunch of neocon myths. But lets go through your BS.
- The U.S. already knew what was happening in the Soviet Union before WWII
- The U.S. has been interfering in Middle East politics forever causing orders of magnitude more harm than 9/11 ever caused. We were "attacked" by dissidents from our "allies".
- Support of Israel (not in as that it has a right to exist but in the way it deals with its neighbors) has been to US advantage (or at least in power). The neocons hated Nixon and Kissinger because they were pragmatists. They pushed Israel and Egypt to peace. (they've also done their share of war crimes).
- Your view on Muslims is totally jingoistic, you place all of them in the same bag. Most of them just want us to stop interfering in their lives.
- Bush (actually those behind him, he is a figurehead) want Iraq to be a mess. They want there to be an increase in terrorism because they want you to be scared and angry so that they can pursue their policy against you and those abroad. They use this to keep you under control. So that you don't question what they're doing. So that you don't ask for a better life.
- This "cold war" like the last one, is just an invention. It will become real only if they get you to believe it is.
Re:Damn It! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 04:02 · Score: 0

What is it exactly that makes the WWII generation better than every other generation that has ever existed? ... Is it that they fought in a popular war?
I think that pretty much nails it.
But remember, this wasn't just any old war. It was a war of Good against Evil, when the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces would write a book about it called Crusade in Europe [1949], and then become President of the USA for 8 years (Eisenhower).
These were not bad people. But as the new wealth that was created by technologies born from war efforts became available, they regarded their improving circumstances as a kind of proof that they had been chosen by their God, tested, found to be pure and wholesome, and were now receiving the beneficence that was their just desserts.
Entertainment and speeches that fed that myth went down very easily; that myth quickly bored into the very core of that generation's psyche. "We are better than everyone else has ever been, because we fought for God against the ungodly evil of fascism, and now we're fighting for God against the ungodly communists. We deserve to have two cars and a swimming pool, and steak and lobster whenever we want, because we're the good guys."
Re:Damn It! by sqrrl101 · 2007-09-08 04:10 · Score: 1

Wanna stop breaking the law to accomplish your goals? I'm all for legitimate protest (I've organised a couple in my time), but deliberately setting up pickets to prevent people doing their jobs is not the way to go. Try petitioning, marching peacefully and writing letters. If that doesn't work, wanna deal with the fact that you live in a democracy? Sometimes the majority disagrees with you, and that doesn't justify illegal action (with the exception of some cases where basic human rights are being violated, so I'm less critical of your first example).
Re:Damn It! by ricegf · 2007-09-08 04:20 · Score: 1

Could be. I can only vouch for the exceptionally involved and careful job that my parents (born 1919 and 1921) did in trying to raise me, as well as the parenting I saw for my friends as I was growing up. I didn't appreciate the sacrifices and tears then, but having raised 3 kids of my own, I do now. So whatever you may think, *I* still think they are the greatest!
Re:Damn It! by sqrrl101 · 2007-09-08 04:21 · Score: 1

The "Animal Rights" lot are even worse for that. They spend all their time bashing on about how bad medical animal research is, despite the fact that it helps science immeasurably and the animals involved are generally treated pretty well (in the UK and US, at least). You rarely see them demonstrating against the meat industry, despite the fact that all we gain from it is a tastier meal, and the animals are often kept in pretty unpleasant conditions.

Why? Because people have experience of enjoying meat and directly associate that with animals, but not many members of the public understand just how useful animal research can be. PETA know they can't win the public argument against meat alone, so they try to work their way in by slandering the research, spreading pharmaceutical company conspiracy theories, and using the creationists' "the science doesn't add up, honest!" arguments.
Re:Damn It! by jollyreaper · 2007-09-08 04:24 · Score: 1

Now those bastards are turning him into a euro-pussie. They already have Ken, what more do they want? I believe their three part plan is as follows:

1. Political correctness
2. Anatomical correctness
3. Party!

Why do you think they wanted that kung-fu action grip?

--
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Re:Damn It! by Deliveranc3 · 2007-09-08 04:37 · Score: 1

stupidity to declare unnecessary for him war on US. Yes that was an unnesessary mistake, the U.S. decided not to bother with that in future.

Does anyone wonder if the U.S. is just at war with everyone so repeating themselves with a declaration would just be a waste of time?
Re:Damn It! by baboo_jackal · 2007-09-08 04:44 · Score: 1

The WWII generation is the "greatest generation" ... not so much because of doing anything great, but just happening to be alive during a period that certain events happened in the world.
By your own reasoning, everything good you've ever done in your life is just a result of you randomly being in a certain place at a certain time, and acting in ways that you were already predisposed to act. Just like everyone else.

Therefore, nobody is actually capable of doing anything "good," and neither is anyone actually capable of doing true "bad."

Way to distill the experiences of a generation who, as a whole, sacrificed greatly to accomplish much good down to fit into your little bottle of retarded.
Re:Damn It! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 04:54 · Score: 0

Let me guess, you are about 17 years old. Correct?
Re:Damn It! by Frumious+Wombat · 2007-09-08 05:04 · Score: 1

No sex, due to the miracle of sublimation. If any of them (heroes, villians, hangers-on), were getting any, they'd be sitting under palm trees on the beach, drinking mai-tais, rather than running around worrying about blowing each other up.

The new, peaceful, version: GI Joe in Hawaiian print shorts, lounging by the pool and flexing while making eyes at GI Jane.

--
the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
Re:Damn It! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 05:04 · Score: 0

Absolutely agreed. I agree with most of what Greenpeace has to say, but I'm dead set against their methods. In fact it's to the point where I will deliberately distance myself from the organization at all costs, even if they're trying to do some good. For example, the other day they were hitting the streets, asking people to sign a petition to convince the government to be more forthcoming on which foods contain genetically modified ingredients. This is a very lofty goal, and one that I would definitely agree with, but I couldn't bring myself to sign it because, well, they're Greenpeace. Despite agreeing with what the petition was demanding, I chose not to sign because this organization has A LOT of wackos.

Sometimes it's best to stick to the everyday methods of protest. While they may be a bit stuffy and traditional, at least they don't actively turn public opinion against your organization.
Re:Damn It! by jedidiah · 2007-09-08 05:04 · Score: 1

You must be from Europe.

The "native born" population of Hollywood has to be about what 5%? It's the quinticential town where people come from OTHER places to make their fortune. It's like Dubai. The concentration of Europeans in Hollywood is probably dramatically higher than it is than the rest of the country.

Although it doesn't really matter. Our homegrown liberals are good enough standins for European liberals.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Damn It! by GPL+Apostate · 2007-09-08 05:29 · Score: 1

It's called adventurism. Young people are angry because they are finally adults, and yet they feel like they don't have much power to affect the world around them. Occasionally, said young people band together, or are recruited by slightly older people and they take action to correct what they perceive as being wrong about the world.

This sometimes results in noisy dramatic demonstrations and protests. It helps if the young people are growing up in a time when there are actual injustices in the world happening. Particularly if simplistic explanations of why said injustices are happening can be spun up, so that parody opponents and straw men can be concocted to shake a fist at.

It gives people a sense of purpose, and a feeling of belonging to belong to social movements engaged in 'fixing' the world. The world is a big sometimes alienating place. People want to feel they can have an impact.

In truth, speaking from experience, the slogan from the sixties should read "Don't trust anybody slightly older than you" instead of the original 'over thirty.' Those 'political organizers' on campus are the people who flunked out and/or dropped out. They need a new crop of freshmen every year to recruit new blood from.

--
Microsoft says legacy (serial/parallel) ports are bad. They don't obfuscate the hardware enough.
Re:Damn It! by rossz · 2007-09-08 05:51 · Score: 1

But ... but ... we don't want him! Neither does Barbie.

--
-- Will program for bandwidth
Re:Damn It! by GPL+Apostate · 2007-09-08 06:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

The only scenario where it could not happen is if Islam curls up and dies before it mobilizes itself massively for war.

Another interpretation could be that Islam as it presently stands (at least 'political Islam' and those who use it) is backwards facing. There's no real way that they can 'wage war' against modern societies in an effective fashion without an infusion of cash and resources from said modern societies. The 'improvised roadside devices' are as technologically advanced as those folks can get, and even those bombs are fabricated from materials that have to be imported in from 'the modern' and/or fabricated from cast-off or surplus munitions which again are from 'the modern.'

The loud and rather destructive impact of modern 'Radical Islam' comes out of the fact that those folks have soaked up a huge amount of oil money. There were angry xenophobic people in that part of the world 100 years ago who would curse at the 'modern' outsiders, but they were mired in the backwardness inherent in their culture.

Cut off their oil money and let their culture settle down. It will happen. The 'energy model' we presently live under has to subside and be replaced. And it will, long before a bunch of angry zealots can rein over the world.

--
Microsoft says legacy (serial/parallel) ports are bad. They don't obfuscate the hardware enough.
Re:Damn It! by GPL+Apostate · 2007-09-08 06:04 · Score: 1

You live in a cartoon world, where you have parody opponents. The way you push around them evil 'neocons' in your playpen makes it obvious.

--
Microsoft says legacy (serial/parallel) ports are bad. They don't obfuscate the hardware enough.
Re:Damn It! by meta-monkey · 2007-09-08 06:06 · Score: 1

The good news, though, is that hippie chicks are easy.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Re:Damn It! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 06:08 · Score: 0

It's a god damned half hour long advertisement that used to run on Saturdays. Who the hell is dumb enough to sit and actively watch a commercial for a toy? (And yes, the toy company that puts out GI Joe used to slot GI JOE as an advertisement; not a "show").

I was more or less with you up to this point. Where I lived, G.I. Joe ran 5 days per week. In the "after school, but before dinner" time slot. There was character development. There was suspense, there was drama, there was sexual tension. It was never going to win an Emmy, but it was a great show for 8-12 year old boys.
Re:Damn It! by meta-monkey · 2007-09-08 06:09 · Score: 1

Why the hell would anyone want to do that? It's a goddamn whale.

And if I cared [i]that[/i] much about the damn fish, I can tell you I'd find a way to save it that [i]doesn't[/i] involve getting myself explosively harpooned.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Re:Damn It! by Bo'Bob'O · 2007-09-08 06:22 · Score: 1

The USSR made enormous contributions to the war effort, and just the same, the war likely could not have been won without them. Does that mean you think we should have given Stalin not just free reign, but our total support?
Re:Damn It! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 06:27 · Score: 0

If your goals are to change a law, you'll probably have to break it at some point.
Re:Damn It! by dunkelfalke · 2007-09-08 06:32 · Score: 1

idiot, whales are mammals, not fishes.

--
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Re:Damn It! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 06:43 · Score: 0

Yeah because western governments would never resort to violence against Greenpeace, right?

The frogs.. god love 'em. At least they tried to cover it up. You want violence? Let Greenpeace try to impede a carrier group and see what happens.
Re:Damn It! by iamacat · 2007-09-08 06:47 · Score: 1

Hey, I grew up in the Soviet Union. In school we would have regular donation drives to support "freedom fighters in south and central america". History classes were all about world revolution and "international war heroes" helping to make it happen. Does that sound to you like a country willing to respect sovereignty and self-determination of other nations? Do you really think all East European countries joined the soviet block voluntarily?

I have no doubt that, left unopposed, Soviet Union would eventually decide to support a revolution in Hawaii or take back "unfairly purchased" Alaska. And that World War II would be prevented if US and Europe mounted a united, strong military intervention when Hitler annexed Rhineland. You can not expect the world to turn into a favorable direction for you if you sit down and do nothing.
Re:Damn It! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 06:48 · Score: 0

Yeah because western governments would never resort to violence against Greenpeace, right?

Good for western governments, then. I guess they're good for something, after all...
Re:Damn It! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 06:57 · Score: 0

Yeah, Ken is a wuss.. it's pretty bad when Joe comes up and steals his girl.
Re:Damn It! by hollywoodb · 2007-09-08 07:05 · Score: 2, Funny

Dude, it was called the "Rainbow Warrior". Everyone knew it was going to go down.

--
I may have to share this planet with animals, but I'm doing my damn best to eat every last one of them.
Re:Damn It! by Von+Rex · 2007-09-08 07:10 · Score: 1

But you personally won't do any of those things, will you? And you won't do any of the things the Greenpeace guy mentioned either. Hell, you don't even have the guts to log in and post under a pseudonym.

Bravery is for other people, right? Just like sacrifice and death abroad.
Re:Damn It! by XScB · 2007-09-08 07:18 · Score: 1

Wanna get blown up by the French intelligence services?
Re:Damn It! by Mr.+Slippery · 2007-09-08 07:39 · Score: 1

How about you stop pretending what their ideology really is?

How about you put down your hate, fear, and bigotry, and learn what the ideology of actual Muslims is?
You use fallacy of composition: just because some, formally Muslim, probably not very devout

Who the hell are you to tell these people that they're not very devout?
It's those who are murdering in the name of Islam who are not devout, breaking the laws of the religion they claim to follow - the rules of jihad do not allow for the killing of innocents.
Plus, they are peaceful only because they are in minority. For now.

Oh, horseshit. The people I mention are peaceful bcause they're nice people.
Christianity is doctrinally about love, Islam is doctrinally about submission:

Uh, right. No Christian would ever pray "thy will be done."
In short, there can be no peace with Islam, as two ideologies underpinning the reflective lifestyles - Islam, the traditional and developed world, the modernist lifestyle, which more or less can be reconciled with Christianity - are in fundamental and irreconcileable disagreement.

In their mainstreams, neither Christianity nor Islam is really compatible with democracy, which is why you have so many "born-again" Christians who want kingly authority for the President. You can't pray to "The Lord", the "King of Kings", etcetera, and hold democracy close to your heart.
It's no wonder that the wacko fringe Christians and the wacko fringe Muslims hate each other so dearly - they're entirely too much alike.

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Re:Damn It! by Comatose51 · 2007-09-08 07:59 · Score: 1

I recall a letter written to the daily newspaper of my alma mater by another alum who fought in WWII. He stated that he and those of his generation never believed in Brokaw's "Greatest Generation bullshit" (exact words written and printed) and fought because his country told him to.
I agree with you completely on how unfairly Vietnam veterans were treated compared to WWII veterans when both groups fought for the same reason. They were drafted. That's not to understate the merits and deeds of those who fought but to call them the "Greatest Generation" is just unfair to the later and previous generations. What about those who fought in the Civil War? Let's not forget that all the soldiers holding up the Iraq war today are volunteers. So how is our generation any less valiant than those before or after us?

--
EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
Re:Damn It! by arivanov · 2007-09-08 08:35 · Score: 1

Really, Ever heard of Rainbow Warrior?

--
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Re:Damn It! by mulhollandj · 2007-09-08 08:37 · Score: 1

Actually the problem was really WWI. Americans were tricked into entering the war by federal government. The Zimmerman telegram was probably a fake. It didn't make sense for Mexico to attack the US. The Germans couldn't give them arms and the only person who had any to sell was the US. The Lusitania was a munitions boat and the Germans tried to publish in eastern newspapers that they would sink it but the State Department stepped in and wouldn't let the newspapers publish the warnings. It actually got published in a midwest paper. The reason I mention this is that we stayed had stayed out of Europe since the starting of the country and since this time we have had a very aggressive foreign policy.
Re:Damn It! by bogjobber · 2007-09-08 08:41 · Score: 1

Perhaps those later wars would be more popular - in US and abroad - if people remembered that prior to WWII americans didn't want any part of world politics or being a global policeman.

Talk about selective memory. Are you forgetting about the US invasion of Mexico, the Spanish-American war, Phillipine-American war, banana republics, overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy, etc? You may want to re-evaluate your knowledge of American history.
Re:Damn It! by PMBjornerud · 2007-09-08 08:58 · Score: 1

Why are there not way more tanks rolling around there? get shot at from a building, blow up the whole fucking building and put another 1000 rounds into the smoking ruins just to make sure. Then you get a shot from a building full of civilians. Putting the whole population to the sword is a very efficient way of warfare, but these days it generates horrible PR.

--
I lost my sig.
Re:Damn It! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 09:38 · Score: 0

? How does that have to do with... ANYTHING? And to answer your question of course not, Stalin turned out to be arguably just as evil as Hitler ever was. What does that have to do with the topic at hand, which is what the generation of WW2 accomplished?
Re:Damn It! by westlake · 2007-09-08 09:41 · Score: 1

Today's generation is the one PAYING their self-given Social Security.
Who do you think paid for the care of the elderly before social security? Meaningful pensions were almost non-existent. What makes you think you could live on Social Security in 1940?
The mean life expectancy of an adult male retiring in 1940 was 12 years, seven months. The first generation of retirees under Social Security have been dead for over fifty years. Male Life Expectancy
In a service-based economy - in which physical strength and endurance becomes increasingly irrelevant - who employs - and promotes - a younger generation of workers - particularly at entry level?
On January 31, 1940, the first monthly retirement check was issued to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont, in the amount of $22.54. Miss Fuller, a Legal Secretary, retired in November 1939. She started collecting benefits in January 1940 at age 65 and lived to be 100 years old, dying in 1975. History
What about the interment camps?
I'll not defend the internment of the Japanese-Americans. But it did not happen in the true war zone of Hawaii. It did not preclude service in the American military - and there could be vindication for the interned after the war was over. A Village Disappeared
Re:Damn It! by Mr.+Slippery · 2007-09-08 10:11 · Score: 1

Does that sound to you like a country willing to respect sovereignty and self-determination of other nations?

I'm not quite sure what your point is. I'm not lauding the Soviet Union. only pointing out that a significant factor in the way that it developed may well have been attacks on it by the Allies.
The fact that the USSR didn't respect the sovereignty and self-determination of other nations, is hardly an excuse for the USA to behave the same way.
You can not expect the world to turn into a favorable direction for you if you sit down and do nothing.

True. But that doesn't mean that violence and colonialism are the only ways of "doing something".

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Re:Damn It! by DavidShor · 2007-09-08 10:15 · Score: 1

Do you actually want to occupy Iraq? Your plan does not seem to do much else.
Re:Damn It! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 10:22 · Score: 1

Whether you agree with their methods is irrelevant. Instigator called Greenpeace cowards. Respondent demonstrated this is not so.
Re:Damn It! by Descalzo · 2007-09-08 11:39 · Score: 1

I am sure they can defend their own honour.
Only with the help of NATO.

--
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
Re:Damn It! by WilliamSChips · 2007-09-08 13:25 · Score: 1

You mean like the Tank Man, who survived and was never actually in danger for his life? Not a single man died in Tiananmen Square. China would never kill on TV or kill a foreigner.

--
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Re:Damn It! by WilliamSChips · 2007-09-08 13:29 · Score: 1

"Shock and Awe" SHOULD have been both shocking...and awesome. But it wasn't...because to do so would have been politically incorrect. "Shock and Awe" was what got us into this fucking mess in the first place! Saddam was willing to accept surrender but we had to go in for "shock and awe"!

--
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Re:Damn It! by WilliamSChips · 2007-09-08 13:32 · Score: 1

FUCK YOU. The military in the United States hasn't fought a defensive war since 1812. EVERY SINGLE WAR SINCE has been in offense.

--
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Re:Damn It! by WilliamSChips · 2007-09-08 13:34 · Score: 1

He's talking about the state of United States politics during the 20s and 30s. All the things you described happened in the 00s and 10s. That's worse than political correctness...it's actual correctness.

--
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Re:Damn It! by MMaestro · 2007-09-08 13:43 · Score: 1

The U.S. has been interfering in Middle East politics forever causing orders of magnitude more harm than 9/11 ever caused. We were "attacked" by dissidents from our "allies".
Allow me to rephrase:
The U.S. has been interfering in European politics forever causing orders of magnitude more harm than WWI/WWII/The late-80s/early-90s Balkan Wars ever caused. We were "attacked" by dissidents from our "allies".
Oh and if you want to play the numbers game, many Middle Eastern citizens believe the U.S. allowed Saddam to begin the Iran-Iraq War (debatable), gave Saddam the chemical weapons he used against Iran and the Kurds (undebatable), has funded and encouraged the oppression of the Palestinians (undebatable), white-washed the aggressive actions of Israel (debatable, some countries claim the 1967 war was "illegal" despite the threats made against Israel prior to its outbreak) and set itself up as a target by maintaining a presence in the Middle East for decades (doubtful, European countries have held varying levels of influence over the region for centuries but its only in the 21st century do we hear terrorist reports of Muslims attacking on European soil).
Re:Damn It! by hawk · 2007-09-08 14:41 · Score: 2, Funny

Oh, c'mon.

France was *desperate* for a military victory after 900 years . . . :)

hawk
Re:Damn It! by pelo8280 · 2007-09-08 15:09 · Score: 1

The WWII generation is the "greatest generation" the way that Guliani is "America's Greatest Mayor". Not so much because of doing anything great, but just happening to be alive during a period that certain events happened in the world.
Stephen R. Reed of Harrisburg, PA is "America's Greatest Mayor." http://www.worldmayor.com/results06/wm_winners06.h tml
Re:Damn It! by Aardpig · 2007-09-08 16:55 · Score: 1

1812 was an offensive war; the US invaded Canada and burned their Parliament.

--
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
Re:Damn It! by bbdb · 2007-09-08 23:21 · Score: 1

" How about you stop pretending what their ideology really is?

How about you put down your hate, fear, and bigotry, and learn what the ideology of actual Muslims is?"

How about reading and replying to sources on actual ideology of muslims that I have cited and you have simply cut out and pretended they don't exist, liar? E.g. al-Sistani, Rosenzweig, insightful texts written by Spengler at Asia Times. Or anthropologist, prof. Werner Schiffauer.

Since you lie by omission of what is inconvenient to you, you maniacal liar, there's no possibility of arriving of any conclusion in debate with you other than what you want and not what is out there. You liar. EOT.

--
Python is nice quick and flexible... but it provides so much rope a monkey would hang the whole ecosystem with it. -- in
Re:Damn It! by bbdb · 2007-09-08 23:29 · Score: 1

"The 'improvised roadside devices' are as technologically advanced as those folks can get, and even those bombs are fabricated from materials that have to be imported in from 'the modern' and/or fabricated from cast-off or surplus munitions which again are from 'the modern.'"

I think they hope they can "make do" with that until they run over the modernist world. Remember those poles in Afghanistan with bunches of magnetic tapes pulled out of cassettes as symbol of sin and no electricity. They still retained pickup trucks and Kalashnikovs as means of struggling.

"Cut off their oil money and let their culture settle down. It will happen. The 'energy model' we presently live under has to subside and be replaced. And it will, long before a bunch of angry zealots can rein over the world."

That alone is worth replacing oil with other energy sources.

One problem with Islam is that people have peristent "double vision" when it comes to it: they think there is "wacko" warlike Islam and "moderate" peaceful Islam.

If what Spengler and Schiffauer write is true, namely, that Islam per se is designed as "republic of Islamist scholars" trying to impose traditionalist lifestyle as a ruleset of communal lifestyle on everyone and nothing can be allowed to be left out of its scope, then such distinction has no basis in reality.

--
Python is nice quick and flexible... but it provides so much rope a monkey would hang the whole ecosystem with it. -- in
Re:Damn It! by Mr.+Slippery · 2007-09-09 02:56 · Score: 1

How about reading and replying to sources on actual ideology of muslims that I have cited...

The Schiffauer text you link doesn't even say anything relevant! He's talking about internal politics of one branch of Islam in Germany, and ends with the hopeful conculsion that "Islamic philosophers could use the strength of Islam to elaborate a philosophy of the network society, incorporating a wise treatment of boundaries and a rethinking of the social nature of the individual."
Spengler's piece on Sistani might be useful is seen as the opinions of one strain of Islam in one culture, but veers into bigotry when it suggests that Sistani's ideas are universal throughout Islam. Really, would you take a piece about a conservative Catholic bishop in Africa as informative about your Quaker neighbors?
It's sad that you're so bound and determined to find justification for your hate you can't read straight.
Look, no one is arguing that there do not exist Muslims (and Christians, and Buddhists, and Hindus, and Pagans, and atheists...) who have wacko ideology.
But to pretend that such is that ideology of all Muslims (Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, atheists) is exactly the defintion of prejudice. You're unwilling to look at Muslims as individual human beings, to understand that across the world they represent a wide swath. The dancing Sufis are not the same as the Nation of Islam, who are not the same as middle-class American Muslims whose grandparents immigrated to the states, who are not the same as the Palestinian Muslim who endure the occupation, who are not the same as the Saudi princes.

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Re:Damn It! by Shotgun · 2007-09-09 14:55 · Score: 1

if people remembered that prior to WWII americans didn't want any part of world politics or being a global policeman. It's too bad that Japanese attacked Perl Harbor and Hitler had stupidity to declare unnecessary for him war on US. After the war it became apparent that Stalin's regime was as bad as Hitler's.

And just why did Japan attack the US, and Hitler declare war? Could it be because we did actually want a little part in world politics? Why else would be be running an oil blockade against Japan, as they were fighting a war with China? Or why would be be supplying arms to the Allies, but not the Axis powers?

The only thing 'great' about WWII, was that the leadership did a better job of selling it.

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Re:Damn It! by sumdumass · 2007-09-09 18:00 · Score: 1

I agree with your premise but I have to disagree with your supposition on why they don't target the meat markets.

It is because of the teamsters. Yes, It is a wild thought but I have some experience with them myself. They don't like anything that takes work from them. And this isn't your typical autoworkers union of today, it is the old school almost Mob type mentality union where even the cops support them to some degree. And when you have union workers who lump around 50 and 70 pound boxes of meat, hoist sides of beef or pork or whatever all day long, you end up with some pretty tough and strong employees who would make short work of the typical green peace/pita person attempting to screw with their lively hood.

Some people will claim they are courageous and willing to step in front of what would seem as dangerous. But truthfully, they make calculates decisions based on the likelihood of getting hurt. They use laws that guarantee they would be reasonably safe and pick their targets based around who is likely to follow the laws.

This is why they stay away from the meat houses and processing plants. If the medical researcher facilities would treat it as a gang related attempted theft of drugs or something and have officers with clubs beating them when they showed up, they would leave the medical research facilities alone too.
Re:Damn It! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 19:02 · Score: 0

Thats interesting. You know, Ken never shipped with a penis because barbie came in her own box. Now I am wondering if she didn't have help?
Re:Damn It! by Walter+Carver · 2007-09-12 06:35 · Score: 1

Like the war for independence from United Kingdom pale compares to WWI and WWII?
Re:Damn It! by Reapman · 2007-09-12 07:27 · Score: 1

With the war not over perhaps it's a bit premature to say, but currently I don't see the war on terror equaling the war for independence either. Although the death toll in that war was far less then either WW, it had a pretty big impact on the world stage (be interesting in a world without the US as we know it)

Hey, if this whole thing was to balloon into a thermonuclear war, I'll take back my statement, but right now I don't feel thats the case. Right now the war is confined to one area of the world for the most part, and other then peace keeping forces doesn't involve the entire world yet, not to the extent of WW1 or 2 anyways.

I mean hey we could compare WW1 and 2 to the Crusades, Alexander the Great, Napoleon Mongol invasion of China, etc all day...

Money Talks by Derling+Whirvish · 2007-09-07 17:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

Isn't anything sacred to these people?" Yes, there is something sacred to them. Money.
U.S. branded GI Joe's may not sell as well outside the US as a multinational task force would.

Re:Money Talks by Propaganda13 · 2007-09-07 18:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

Cobra as a terrorist organization founded in Springfield has been a hit worldwide though.

God have mercy on the souls on anyone mentioning the retarded money grab of an organization ending in -la.
Re:Money Talks by SuhlScroll · 2007-09-07 18:46 · Score: 1

Yes, there is something sacred to them. Money. Dude, spot-on! ;)
Re:Money Talks by Spy+der+Mann · 2007-09-07 18:53 · Score: 1

U.S. branded GI Joe's may not sell as well outside the US as a multinational task force would.

Just replace him with Guile and we're set. :)
Re:Money Talks by PCM2 · 2007-09-07 20:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

U.S. branded GI Joe's may not sell as well outside the US as a multinational task force would.
Random trivia for U.S. readers: G.I. Joe sold reasonably well in the UK, where he was known as Action Man.

--
Breakfast served all day!
Re:Money Talks by GalionTheElf · 2007-09-07 23:38 · Score: 1

Err, not really. Although they started at the same time and might have even inspired each other, Action Man is completely separate from GI Joe, the only similarity being that they're both soldiers.

--
I'm going over here and I don't know why!
Re:Money Talks by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 05:02 · Score: 0

G.I. JEW!
An all American Hebrew!
Re:Money Talks by vishbar · 2007-09-08 12:29 · Score: 1

God have mercy on the souls on anyone mentioning the retarded money grab of an organization ending in -la.
Umm...I am drawing a blank here. The only organization I can think of ending in -la is...well...NAMBLA.

--
Ride the skies
Re:Money Talks by Propaganda13 · 2007-09-09 10:51 · Score: 1

Couldn't tell if you're serious, so I thought I'd reply with the answer. In 1987, they made GI Joe: The Movie. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093066/ This movie contains information that will corrupt your childhood memories. Read at your own risk.
Re:Money Talks by vishbar · 2007-09-09 14:50 · Score: 1

I am serious...I didn't know if the GGP was making a joke. I'm not so familiar with G.I. Joe.

--
Ride the skies
Re:Money Talks by vishbar · 2007-09-09 15:15 · Score: 1

Aaaah...Cobra-La. Thanks!

--
Ride the skies

No... by Omnedon · 2007-09-07 17:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

Nothing is ever "sacred" to Hollywood.

Legends are "re-imaged" (and usually ruined).

History is "re-imaged" (and usually ruined).

Classic movies are "re-..."... (Notice a trend?)

Re:No... by poopdeville · 2007-09-07 18:27 · Score: 3, Funny

I've got a bad feeling that Jerry Bruckheimer, Michael Bay, Uwe Boll, or W.S. Anderson is going to direct. This has the potential to make Team America: World Police the world's first parody of a chronologically later film.

--
After all, I am strangely colored.
Re:No... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 19:08 · Score: 0

Fuck Yeah!

Old News by sakusha · 2007-09-07 17:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

Apparently the author of that incredibly lame blog article missed the 1980s, when GI Joe cartoons were full of multicultural characters and fought abstract non-national enemies like COBRA.

Re:Old News by mr_tenor · 2007-09-07 17:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

I scanned that as "and fought abstract non-national enemies like CORBA" and even though my mind registered the mistake, i thought "Oh yeah!"
Re:Old News by the_humeister · 2007-09-07 17:54 · Score: 5, Funny

Wait, you mean Cobra-La wasn't a real nation???
Re:Old News by Faylone · 2007-09-07 17:56 · Score: 1

Yes, but the complaint is that now GI JOE is slated to be abstract non-national heroes
Re:Old News by mmkkbb · 2007-09-07 18:03 · Score: 1

OMG, I totally read the same thing.

--
-mkb
Re:Old News by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 18:06 · Score: 0

Yeah but you're apparently illiterate. The GI Joe task force has been a multinational cooperative since at least the 1980s.
Re:Old News by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 19:15 · Score: 0

This is old news for the real Army and other branches of the service as well.
Re:Old News by Jethro · 2007-09-07 19:30 · Score: 1

..and that cartoon was marketed and shown around the world as "Action Force: International Heroes".

--

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
Re:Old News by Kulilin · 2007-09-07 19:43 · Score: 1

I can attest to the fact that G.I Joe was "international" long ago.

When G.I. Joe was on on British satellite TV around 1989 (I think it was on Super Channel but it might have been Sky Channel), the opening tune of the show was already "International Heroes" instead of "a real American Hero". Funny enough, US flags were everywhere on the show (and the only national flag around). I guess re-dubbing is way easier than making new animation.
Re:Old News by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 21:40 · Score: 0

It brought me great sadness the day when they replaced the Action Force adverts with ones for GI Joe on British television. The term "GI" meant nothing to me. I thought "What is this American crap they're trying to shovel down our throats?" My childhood dreams were shattered.
Re:Old News by Paolone · 2007-09-07 23:50 · Score: 1

Thanks a lot, now my macbook is full of fruit juice.
I've never laughed so much for a /. joke, you made my day.
Re:Old News by MysteriousPreacher · 2007-09-08 00:18 · Score: 1

Based on his style of writing and it's resemblence to The Daily Mail (a British newspaper aimed at the middle-class closet nazi who thinks that things aren't as good as they used to be), I'd say he's trapped somewhere in the fictional 1950s. You can't blame him for missing the 80s, he hasn't even reached them yet.

--
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Re:Old News by rucs_hack · 2007-09-08 01:52 · Score: 1

So, you had to study CORBA in your final year at uni too eh?
Re:Old News by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 05:21 · Score: 1, Funny

I would support a war against CORBA.
Re:Old News by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 05:45 · Score: 0

Thats just what Cobra Commander wants you to believe while he and Destro cook up their latest plot. Do not be distracted by the terrorists, COBRA is the real threat!
Re:Old News by Scrameustache · 2007-09-08 10:45 · Score: 1

..and that cartoon was marketed and shown around the world as "Action Force: International Heroes". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRf4c-p6VWg
WTF? "International heroes!" *waves old glory atop the statue of liberty*

My brain hurts...

--
You can't take the sky from me...
Re:Old News by Jethro · 2007-09-08 10:51 · Score: 1

Don't blame me, man.

I voted for Kodos.

--

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.

Holy cow. by Valar · 2007-09-07 17:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think my hosts file might have been tampered with... I typed in slashdot, but somehow I ended up at free republic. This looks kind of like slashdot though. Hmm...

--

====
Crudely Drawn Games

Re:Holy cow. by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 00:14 · Score: 0

Look, if it upsets you that much, post your address and we'll mail you a hankie. A nice pink one to go with your politics.
Re:Holy cow. by Frumious+Wombat · 2007-09-08 05:09 · Score: 1

It's a slow news day. It's not like they caught Joe using Windows Vista or anything.

And yes, there does periodically seem to be a rift in the time-space continuum which injects Freepers into Slashdot. Probably time to hire a quantum mechanic and get that fixed.

--
the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken

Jesus Fucking Christ by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 17:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

I mean, really, Slashdot. I understand the need to compete with Digg, and the whole firehose thing, but, really, shit like this is ridiculous and it only works to drive people like me away.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 20:32 · Score: 0

And you sir/madam drive me mad to hear cussing in Christ's name.
Re:Jesus Fucking Christ by chubs730 · 2007-09-08 03:42 · Score: 1

You must be new here.
Re:Jesus Fucking Christ by mikelieman · 2007-09-08 05:37 · Score: 1

Well, with Digg's Patented Fucked Up Comment System, you ain't going to Digg.

Reddit, perhaps?

--
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
Re:Jesus Fucking Christ by evil_aar0n · 2007-09-08 07:15 · Score: 1

Simple solution: If you're not interested in the topic, DON'T READ IT.

--
Truth, Justice. Or the American Way.

This is comforting by victim · 2007-09-07 17:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

It is comforting to know that if I ever receive a debilitating head injury, lose most of my faculties and embrace the victim complex wing of the libertarians I will still be slashdot-worthy.

Oh no! Maybe I'm out to get the libertarians! Quick! Pen a screed!

Re:This is comforting by Harmonious+Botch · 2007-09-07 18:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Anyone who holds the opinions that he does, and calls himself a libertarian, is clearly brain damaged. Any sane libertarian would look at the GIJoe issue and say 'The producers bought the rights, they can do anything they please with it. They're consenting adults, it's none of my business."
Re:This is comforting by poopdeville · 2007-09-07 18:10 · Score: 1

I don't know about that. The producers presumably bought the rights with the intent to try to make it your business. The movie is a product they intend to sell.

--
After all, I am strangely colored.
Re:This is comforting by Wordsmith · 2007-09-07 18:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

Not really. Libertarianism isn't all about "live and let live." It's more like "live and don't let the government interfere with your or anyone else's living."

Libertarians who fondly remember GI Joe wouldn't be hyopcrites if they, say, actively boycotted this movie and encouraged others to do so. They could still be upset over what's happening. They just wouldn't see any reason why the government should get involved.
Re:This is comforting by tftp · 2007-09-07 18:50 · Score: 1

They can't make me buy, though. If such views become statistically significant it might be a clue to some in {RI,MP}AA.
Re:This is comforting by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 18:58 · Score: 0

I don't know about that. The producers presumably bought the rights with the intent to try to make it your business. The movie is a product they intend to sell.
Now I know that Hollywood has spent a lot of money in Washington trying to protect their out of date business model, which would be in better shape if they could come up with some real scripts and some actors that could act, but I don't think they have gotten any laws passed yet that require me to go to a movie studio and pay money to see something I have no interest in seeing nor purchase same on DVD. It remains to be Hollywood's business to decide what they put into a movie and it remains our business to chose if we think it might be worth wasting our money and time on. They can promote any movie they want and we can demote it at the box office and in our public and private statements, we can also ignore their promotion three times in a row and hope they end up on an island off the coast of Alaska. If you want to know the name of the island, ask the Navy.
Re:This is comforting by Seumas · 2007-09-07 19:11 · Score: 1

To be fair, people who were stupid enough to watch a thirty-minute Saturday morning toy advertisement is going to be stupid enough to watch any crap movie and enjoy it, too.

Seriously, are all these bitches on Slashdot honestly whining about what was originally a Saturday morning ADVERTISEMENT to push a stupid toy now talking about "GI Joe" selling-out?! That's like bitching about the Country-Crock couple on those Country-Crock Spread commercials "selling out".
Re:This is comforting by poopdeville · 2007-09-07 19:14 · Score: 1

It remains to be Hollywood's business to decide what they put into a movie and it remains our business to chose if we think it might be worth wasting our money and time on.

Negotiation isn't something only done when a product is ready and you and the seller are trying to settle on a price. If this were true, nobody would become a contractor.

Indeed, potential customers become customers through negotiation. You can't get terms you like if you don't try.

Granted, in a case like this, many people would have to share your opinion. And they would have to be vocal. But at least the complainers are doing their part.

(That said, Libertarians are still stupid)

--
After all, I am strangely colored.
Re:This is comforting by poopdeville · 2007-09-07 19:25 · Score: 1

To be fair, people who were stupid enough to watch a thirty-minute Saturday morning toy advertisement is going to be stupid enough to watch any crap movie and enjoy it, too.

Yeah, fuck you too. ;-)

--
After all, I am strangely colored.
Re:This is comforting by Harmonious+Botch · 2007-09-07 19:56 · Score: 1

Your definition of libertarianism is a good one, and if we were purely political creatures, I'd agree with your conclusion.

But we're more than that; there is a psychological side to us. The ideals and beliefs that leads up to choose our political affiliations also affect other facets of our lives. Most libertarians who I know really believe in the idea of not meddling in other people's affairs. The don't think that the government should meddle, and they don't think that they themselves should meddle. They are really ornery people if you knowingly step on their toes, and very easy to get along with otherwise. A parallel: If I were to say that most libertarians like SF, you could also respond that that is not part of the definition of libertarianism, and you would again be right. But again there is something prior to the politics ( a preference for what-if thinking , or the building of whole different worlds ) that leads to one's choice of politics and reading material.
Re:This is comforting by Belacgod · 2007-09-07 20:03 · Score: 1

How is watching a movie like being a contractor?
Ahh forget it, no point in arguing with deliberate flamebait.
Re:This is comforting by poopdeville · 2007-09-07 20:26 · Score: 1

...

Making a movie is being a contractor (for the director, crew, and cast).

You're pretty dense. The point was that the consumer has power to dictate the terms under which a product is made. If the consumer did not, contractors could not exist as such. They would have to create a product without the consumer's input and put it on the market.

--
After all, I am strangely colored.
Re:This is comforting by Belacgod · 2007-09-07 20:46 · Score: 1

The GP wasn't talking about -making- the movie. He was saying that, as a viewer, the appropriate response to movies that suck is not to see them, not to (as TFA does) throw a fit and demand some sort of political action in response.
Re:This is comforting by poopdeville · 2007-09-07 21:00 · Score: 1

And I was saying that the consumer has the right/responsibility to throw a fit before the movie is made in a suck manner if he would be interested in watching a non-suck version. One consumer's opinion might not change the suck/non-suck nature of the movie, but many opinions might.

--
After all, I am strangely colored.
Re:This is comforting by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 21:25 · Score: 0

This is what I love about Marxists - anyone who disagrees with them is automatically a paranoid, right wing nut job. After all, who in their right mind could disagree with the great Marx?
Re:This is comforting by HullBreachOnline.com · 2007-09-07 23:05 · Score: 0

I doubt Ron Paul will be watching this one CFR propaganda.

--
Software and Games for Wii's Opera Browser
Re:This is comforting by Rob+the+Bold · 2007-09-08 01:02 · Score: 1

Any sane libertarian would . . . say 'The producers bought the rights, they can do anything they please with it. They're consenting adults, it's none of my business."

The people who produce the political compass website http://www.politicalcompass.org/ suggest that there are multiple dimensions. Social libertarians are leaning more toward anarchy than authoritarianism. Economic libertarians, are more like Milton Friedman vs. Karl Marx at the opposite extreme of that dimension.
Anyway, it's worth a look to see some of the ways "libertarian" is used.

--
I am not a crackpot.
Re:This is comforting by 0xdeadbeef · 2007-09-08 01:46 · Score: 1

I find it most amusing that the Atlas Shrugged-reading blogger is throwing a hissy fit because they took the word "government" out of the name.
Re:This is comforting by ravenshrike · 2007-09-08 01:56 · Score: 1

Acknowledging the fact that it's their business to do what they want with it is no reason not to bitch about it, especially as doing so may get the business in question to change their minds.(It's unlikely mind you, but it's possible.)
Re:This is comforting by Wordsmith · 2007-09-08 03:48 · Score: 1

I've met many libertarians like the ones you describe, and many like the ones I describe (I am one).

My general philosophy:
1) The government's job is a very limited one.
2) We still all have a moral responsibility to make the world a better place.

So, by that, I mean I'd gladly boycott or protest something I find objectionable, but I wouldn't depend on government to make it illegal (unless there's a strong argument to criminalize the action as it directly violates someone's rights). I don't want government taking anyone's money for social programs, but I encourage people to give to charity. I don't believe in regulating hiring practices, but I'd refuse to work for or patronize any company with bigoted policies. And so on.
Re:This is comforting by jjk3 · 2007-09-08 05:37 · Score: 1

I think it's perfectly within the Libertarian values to bitch and try to raise awareness of your beliefs.
The article doesn't call for government intervention or any other way to force them to stop them form making the "change". It just points out that he thinks the "change" is wrong. If other people agree maybe they boycott and if enough people agree it will affect the movie release then the producers will undo the "change" or try to cater to this large group of people next time. Chances are no one will care and the movie will do well
This blogger may be a tool, I haven't read anything else of his, but even tools have the right to free speech.
Re:This is comforting by bbdb · 2007-09-09 01:10 · Score: 1

Nonsense. Sure they bought the rights, so what? We're debating the meaning, not who makes the product. One can easily be a libertarian re rights of the producer and still debate the message that is tried to be conveyed across. You present a fake dilemma: your argument applied to books/newspapers would prevent a libertarian from arguing book's or newspaper's message just because somebody else has publishing rights. It's about cultural archetype, not who has the trademark rights or bawling that it's "it's just a plastic toy".

Truth is, Hollywood does have its own hare-brained, multiculti, feel-good, multilaterally failed agenda and writings such as presented on the blog in question cannot be written off as just a nutjob's ramblings. Those who claim so typically share the aforementioned hare-brained agenda.

Those might be the echoes of some leftie doctrines put forward by Gramsci that the left tries after failure of up-front commie revolution and then failure of New Left that wanted to try social engineering by "direct social action". Since real warfare has become economic drain as opposed to economic gain as it used to be in the past, now it's time of "cultural warfare".

Hence looking for homosexuality in that sponge-something character (idiotic) and blathering about class consciousness and "uninterested proletariat" (Marcuse) by the left. Not all of it is nonsense, though, there are real cultural archetypes, some of them expressed in form as basic as a plastic toy for kids and some people do try to push for their agenda this way as well. See e.g. attitude/stance of some people "no toy guns for kids".

--
Python is nice quick and flexible... but it provides so much rope a monkey would hang the whole ecosystem with it. -- in

And I, for one, welcome. . . by MagusSlurpy · 2007-09-07 17:49 · Score: 2, Funny

Our new international multicultural coed overlords!

--
My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.

Re:And I, for one, welcome. . . by orionYoung · 2007-09-07 21:47 · Score: 1

Holy crap whats next women in the workplace! Racial co-operation! What are those damn liberals doing to our country!... Come on how can you be surprised they all ready made a gay cowboy movie. I agree with MagusSlurpy, hell yes to multinational co-ed crime fighting!

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2007-09-07 17:50 · Score: 4, Interesting

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Mmm, bias by ameyer17 · 2007-09-07 17:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

I don't even know where to start here...
Headline from TFA:

Hollywood Seeks to Change "G.I. Joe" into an International Feminazi: Disgraces our Greatest Generation

from the first paragraph:

Yes, Hollywood limousine liberal idiots are exceeding my patience. I can handle their unabashed socialism, even their global warming insanity, but when they attack G.I. Joe, enough is enough.

From the second paragraph:

Well, if we look at the facts, the rest of the world would be controlled by Nazis if it were not for the G. I. Joe.

From the final paragraph:

Now Hollywood celebrities are going to turn him into a politically correct Feminazi.

Seems to be a bit biased to be "news". Also, someone needs to introduce the guy who wrote this to Godwin's Law

Re:Mmm, bias by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2007-09-07 18:24 · Score: 2, Funny

Hollywood limousine liberal idiots are exceeding my patience. I can handle their unabashed socialism, even their global warming insanity, but when they attack G.I. Joe, enough is enough. If GI Joe can't fight off a bunch of 'limousine liberals' then he is already a pussy.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Re:Mmm, bias by Alegery · 2007-09-07 20:53 · Score: 1

For myself, I'm rather confused as to why these people would be so upset at the idea of a privatized GI Joe force, and instead seem to prefer him/it as an arm of the government they clearly hate so much. Then again, I guess if they were capable of sense they wouldn't be such nut-balls in the first place.

Don't these rightwing bozos understand .... by taniwha · 2007-09-07 17:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

G.I Joe is a doll

Re:Don't these rightwing bozos understand .... by Garabito · 2007-09-07 18:19 · Score: 1

Sorry sir, but the term "doll" is offensive to G.I. Joe. He'd rather be called action figure.
Re:Don't these rightwing bozos understand .... by deniable · 2007-09-07 19:08 · Score: 1

Incorrect, gripping hands make him an action figure. Looks at Ken's hands then look at Joe's.
Re:Don't these rightwing bozos understand .... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 19:23 · Score: 0

have you looked in his pants - he has nothing to grip ....
Re:Don't these rightwing bozos understand .... by 1u3hr · 2007-09-07 21:19 · Score: 4, Funny

Incorrect, gripping hands make him an action figure. Looks at Ken's hands then look at Joe's.
So Joe grips Ken?
Re:Don't these rightwing bozos understand .... by deniable · 2007-09-08 00:25 · Score: 1

Don't ask. Don't tell.

I did have a typo. :)
Re:Don't these rightwing bozos understand .... by 1u3hr · 2007-09-08 01:48 · Score: 1

I did have a typo. :)
Of course, it should have been "groping hand".

the hurt . . . by LiquidHAL · 2007-09-07 17:55 · Score: 2, Funny

i'm rolling my eyes as hard as i can. it hurts, but i dare not stop.

Midlife crisis here I come.... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 17:56 · Score: 0

I remember my GI Joe. I played with him so much he ended up with a bald spot.

Ah those were the days. I wish I was a kid again.... oh god here comes my midlife crisis!

Why don't they call him... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 17:58 · Score: 0

G. W. Joe?

G.I. U.N. by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 17:59 · Score: 0

I can't wait for the episode where the G.I. U.N. force takes kickbacks for looking the other way on oil sales and then blows it all on child prostitutes.

And don't miss the wacky "Phosgine Phollies" show where one G.I. U.N. soldier forgets about the duffle bag full of Phsogine gas, and gaslarity ensues when he accidentally sits on the bag!

Go Multiculturally Sensitive Joe!*

* Go applicible only during designated U.N. working hours and with express approvial of China, Russia, and North Korea.

America only! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 18:00 · Score: 0

Fucking feminazis! There's no World in World War II.

Re:America only! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 18:11 · Score: 0

Hahaha. That must be sarcasm, so I'll laugh.

Didn't it stand for... by Rix · 2007-09-07 18:02 · Score: 1

General Infantry?

Re:Didn't it stand for... by Digital+Vomit · 2007-09-07 19:02 · Score: 2, Informative

No, G.I. stands for Government Issue.

--
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Re:Didn't it stand for... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 19:16 · Score: 0

It stands for Galvanised Iron, and is of English origin.
Re:Didn't it stand for... by stewbacca · 2007-09-08 00:02 · Score: 1

Well, I doubt many of you were ever in the Army, but I was and GI means General Infantry. Everything else you people are spouting is ignorant.
Re:Didn't it stand for... by Scrameustache · 2007-09-08 03:41 · Score: 1

No, G.I. stands for Government Issue. Not really http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GI_(military)

--
You can't take the sky from me...
Re:Didn't it stand for... by Dun+Malg · 2007-09-08 04:00 · Score: 1

Well, I doubt many of you were ever in the Army, but I was and GI means General Infantry. Everything else you people are spouting is ignorant. Leave it to an 11-bang-bang to get it completely wrong and swear he's right. And people wonder where all the infantryman jokes come from.

GI is most commonly assumed to mean Government Issue, but even that is wrong. Around the WW2 era many military metal containers were zinc electroplated steel, also known as galvanized iron. These containers were labeled in the traditional military manner, e.g. a zinc plated steel trash barrel would be stamped "barrel, refuse, GI". Due to ignorance, the "GI" was variously assumed to mean "government issue", "general issue", "general infantry", etc. The appellation then came to be used for all things government, including soldiers. Regardless, GI still only meant Galvanized Iron.

--
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Re:Didn't it stand for... by Digital+Vomit · 2007-09-08 06:19 · Score: 1

Hmmm...interesting.

--
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.

....so what's different from the cartoon? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 18:03 · Score: 0

The "Real American Hero" and GI Joe moniker were derived from the first generation soldier doll. The popular cartoon and action figure series featured such a broad assortment of Joes from so many cultural backgrounds and took place in so many fictional locations that it already seemed "international".

Not that I'm defending a movie based on a cartoon advertisement for a toy, but when it's inevitably horrible any superficial changes to the mythical and already vaguely nonsensical G.I. Joe organization will not be the primary reason.

Re:....so what's different from the cartoon? by deniable · 2007-09-07 19:11 · Score: 1

Actually Real American Hero was the new name they used for the 3 3/4'' re-release in the 80s. The original 60s versions were not labeled as such. So whoever wrote the Article/Summary doesn't know jack, or Joe.

Nothing sacred by TaleSpinner · 2007-09-07 18:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

> Isn't anything sacred to these [Hollywood] people?"

Umm...in a word, no. Is this something you just noticed?

Re:A novel idea by Scoth · 2007-09-07 18:03 · Score: 1

Considering it was done for the original cartoon, should be possible: Action Force Intro

It's about freaking time! by Black+Copter+Control · 2007-09-07 18:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

My understanding was that GI stood for General Infantry.
It wasn't just Arayan gay model types that fought against Hitler and his crew.
The one unit type that the germans really hated being thrown against was the Russian Female reserves. Those babes took and gave no quarter! (and they really knew what to do when they had their their enemy by the balls.)
Canada, Australia, Britain, India ... and even Russia (once Hitler turned on Stalin).
It's the 21st Century buddy -- Get with the program!

--
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.

Re:It's about freaking time! by king-manic · 2007-09-07 18:14 · Score: 1

It wasn't just Arayan gay model types that fought against Hitler and his crew.

Haven't you seen the WWII movies. It was all male models.

--
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Re:It's about freaking time! by poopdeville · 2007-09-07 18:40 · Score: 1

Yeah, Ernest Borgnine and Telly Savalas were such hotties.

--
After all, I am strangely colored.
Re:It's about freaking time! by xs650 · 2007-09-07 19:07 · Score: 2, Informative

"1. My understanding was that GI stood for General Infantry."

It stands for Government Issue.
Re:It's about freaking time! by turing_m · 2007-09-07 19:33 · Score: 1

Slayer's lead singer was even born until 16 years after the war ended.

--
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
Re:It's about freaking time! by eimerkopf · 2007-09-07 19:51 · Score: 2, Informative

Apparently, GI originally stood for "Galvanized Iron" and was then later extended, based on the misunderstnading that it stood for "Government Issue." See the the current version of the wikipedia page and references therein.
Re:It's about freaking time! by Rhapsody+Scarlet · 2007-09-07 20:02 · Score: 1

It's the 21st Century buddy -- Get with the program! This is pretty much what I was going to say. Thanks to the inattentiveness and laziness of the American public, the American Dream has gone old and mouldy. No one wants it any more. At this rate, G.I. Joe is only the first of many American heroes that are going to die.
Re:It's about freaking time! by 1u3hr · 2007-09-07 21:24 · Score: 1

. At this rate, G.I. Joe is only the first of many American heroes that are going to die.
Captain America died six months ago.
Re:It's about freaking time! by DaTrueDave · 2007-09-07 23:01 · Score: 0

Would somebody please inform all the illegal aliens that the American Dream has gone old and moldy?
Re:It's about freaking time! by lostsatellite82 · 2007-09-08 00:09 · Score: 1

My understanding was that GI stood for General Infantry.

At least originally it didn't.

If the rest of your information is correct though, I know now where the phrase "strong as Russian woman" comes from.
Re:It's about freaking time! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 01:03 · Score: 0

your understanding was wrong, faggot.

GI stood for Government Issue.

GI = Government Issue by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 18:06 · Score: 1, Informative

Ask anyone who's been in the military

WAAAAAHH FOXNEWS WAAAAAAHHHH!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 18:07 · Score: 0, Informative

fucking whiny biotch

Re:WAAAAAHH FOXNEWS WAAAAAAHHHH!!!! by Ticklemonster · 2007-09-08 08:42 · Score: 2, Informative

Negative one, flamebait? That's one of the best posts I've seen here in ages. Directly to the point. That person ought to get a freaking award. The little bit of news that Fox broadcasts is right on the money, and non biased. It's the opinion shows that Fox broadcasts that make people on the left direct so much hatred towards Fox news. Funny thing is, it's not the news portion of Fox news that they are complaining about. So their complaints are basically nutty. America was built on the right to an opinion, why does the left try so hard to silence any opinion they don't agree with, then say that the right is unAmerican?

--
Karma: Bad is the liberal way of saying this guy won't drink the kool aid here on slash dot. I wear my Karma with pride
Re:WAAAAAHH FOXNEWS WAAAAAAHHHH!!!! by Homr+Zodyssey · 2007-09-08 09:23 · Score: 2, Informative

why does the left try so hard to silence any opinion they don't agree with, then say that the right is unAmerican? ...For the same reason that the right does.
Re:WAAAAAHH FOXNEWS WAAAAAAHHHH!!!! by Watts+Martin · 2007-09-09 07:59 · Score: 1

You know, I don't like to respond to things like this, but those of us who haven't supported the Iraq war have been told that we are fucking committing treason because we've expressed our opinion. That saying anything critical of any aspect of the administration's way of doing things means we're "against the troops," that we're helping Al Qaeda, that we need to shut up or leave the country because we're not real Americans. So don't pretend that "silencing any opinion they don't agree with" is some kind of wacko left-wing thing that conservatives are standing strong against. Just -- don't.

And I mean this in the nicest possible way, but it'd be a lot easier to believe you have an interest in upholding everyone's right to an opinion and your fight against those who would silence dissent if it wasn't for your funny ha ha isn't that clever signature joking about keeping liberals from reproducing.
Re:WAAAAAHH FOXNEWS WAAAAAAHHHH!!!! by sumdumass · 2007-09-09 17:20 · Score: 1

I look around here and don't seem to find much to agree with your sentiment.

Of course, I have notices some of what you say in other areas. There is a time and a place for everything though. In most of the cases I have seen where the outrageous left have been told to shut up is when they are in the wrong place and time. I can think of several example and analogies, Like demanding all the troops pull out of Iraq at a pivotal time where a lot of Iraqi citizens have to chose sides. You know they aren't going to pick the side that is going to leave them high and dry and at the mercy of the sides left standing. And then they hold this up as proof that the president is bungling everything and the military cannot do it's job. You have newspapers giving away investigation techniques with details about how we are watching certain known terrorist's cell phone usage, their banking records, how we where monitoring all international telephone communications without regard to Americans being on the line, and they ask why we haven't caught the terrorists. Some of these things have/had the effect of getting soldiers killed or wounded.

I'm not saying your one of those people. But if the idea of free speech is to actually help the enemy or attempt to foil that country's plans in order to speak louder, then I would suggest the claims your arguing about are correct to some extent and probably valid. I mean christ, you had Bin Ladden and Al Qeada coming out in support for Pelosi, Clinton and a number of other democrats in the 2006 election and they just released another video condemning them for not doing the stuff they put them there to do. How the hell else do you take that? They aren't doing it because it makes their life harder!

But I don't think you are actually one of the ones I am talking about. You could be, you are really the only one who would know. It could be possible that your doing it without the slightest thought of what your actions cause and support. It could also be more likely or possible that you just second someone else's opinion who has been labeled by someone else. Your more or less not in that group but are suffering from collateral damage or something.

I don't mean this to flame you, It is just to put things into perspective. Anyone can be "critical of any aspect of the administration's way of doing things" without falling into the trap of actually helping the enemy out or potentially getting the troops killed. You don't have to be a bitter Ex-presidential candidate claiming that the troops are dumb and poor. It is really just a matter of how far they go with it and when or where they do it. No body is stopping you from having an opinion, they are just pointing out when acting on that opinion borders what could be considered treason or awfully close to it.
Re:WAAAAAHH FOXNEWS WAAAAAAHHHH!!!! by NulDevice · 2007-09-10 01:07 · Score: 1

You don't think that maybe Al Qaeda was just trying to mess with us when they did that? I mean, c'mon, seriously, their whole modus operandi is to spread fear and confusion, so weighing in on any side of the election was going to do that. Their actual political beleifs are so far removed from either party that from their perspective it probably wouldn't matter who won. They just want to screw with us.

--
----
"I used to listen to Null Device before they sold out."
Re:WAAAAAHH FOXNEWS WAAAAAAHHHH!!!! by tbannist · 2007-09-10 02:28 · Score: 1

I have my doubts about Fox News being accurate. They are after all the company that won a lawsuit declaring they had no duty to be truthful to their viewers and therefore had the legal right to terminate-with-cause employees who refuse to knowingly lie on camera.

Then again, it's not like I'd trust any other American news source.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Re:WAAAAAHH FOXNEWS WAAAAAAHHHH!!!! by sumdumass · 2007-09-10 03:43 · Score: 1

You tell me what we should seriously think about here. On one hand we have group R, a political group that wants to hunt down and kill Al Qaeda. On the other hand, we have a different group D, Another political group that wants to leave it as a police action and let Al Qaeda have free rein in whatever countries it can find support in.

Now group D has been doing quite a bit to undermine group R's efforts and it is no surprise that Al Qaeda has come out in support for group D's actions.

Do you really think it would be about political strategies being aligned? It is about who is helping ho the most. The enemy of my enemy is my friend even if he is my enemy. Sound familiar?

It isn't about spreading fear and doubt with this. Listen to Bin Laden's words on the last tape. They said that they would retaliate if the democrats didn't do what they were put there to do. Seems to me they want the group who is making life difficult for them to go away and are supporting th groups that have helped them directly or indirectly. Now, I'm not saying that the democrats are working hand in hand with Al Qaeda. I am saying that their undermining the current administration's policies and actions have helped them to enough of a degree that they are actively supporting them in the elections.

Think about that and take a serious cross party line look at what's going on. We have people dieing with all the games being played.
Re:WAAAAAHH FOXNEWS WAAAAAAHHHH!!!! by Watts+Martin · 2007-09-10 08:36 · Score: 1

On the other hand, we have a different group D, Another political group that wants to leave it as a police action and let Al Qaeda have free rein in whatever countries it can find support in.

With all due respect, this is the difference in perspective here. Most of "group D" thinks that the appropriate actions after Al Qaeda attacked America would have involved, um, going after Al Qaeda. Instead, "group R" took the attacks as a justification for going after Hussein and bringing down the government of Iraq. This is the foreign policy equivalent of using crimes committed by decrying the teenage drug gang in your city, and taking definitive action against -- the long-established organized crime ring a couple metro areas away.

When us "group D" folks point this out, the "group R" folks tend to ask things like, "So, you SUPPORTED Hussein? Huh? Huh?" But c'mon, that's a "have you stopped beating your wife yet" kind of attack. No, of course we didn't. We just don't think attacking Iraq had much to do with stopping Al Qaeda. And we think that no matter what your position on the war was to start with, the Iraq of 2007 is a much more violent, unstable, and not to put too fine a point on it, terrorist-filled place than the Iraq of 2001 was, and this is in no small part because we've flipped the political situation on its head. Hussein hated America but most of his citizenry hated him, and really didn't mind us. Now we've got a government there that (sort of) likes us but is completely ineffectual at running the country (and by some reports aiding and abetting its slide into civil war), and a citizenry that blames us -- with some justification -- for turning their country into a constant war zone. Nobody wants to live under a fascist dictatorship, but you know, replacing that with a country where death squads set up check points to kill people who belong to the "wrong" religious sect was not a way for America to win friends and influence people.

You can believe Al Qaeda "supports" the Democrats if you want, but I might gently point out that, um, you're the one taking Al Qaeda propaganda at its word when you do that. I think it's absolutely true that Bin Laden doesn't want a strong, stable, democratic Iraq, but -- again with all due respect -- after five years of "group R" getting their way on every single point when it comes to how to fight this war, Iraq looks like it's an awfully long way away from being strong, stable and democratic, doesn't it?
Re:WAAAAAHH FOXNEWS WAAAAAAHHHH!!!! by sumdumass · 2007-09-11 01:48 · Score: 1

With all due respect, this is the difference in perspective here. Most of "group D" thinks that the appropriate actions after Al Qaeda attacked America would have involved, um, going after Al Qaeda. Instead, "group R" took the attacks as a justification for going after Hussein and bringing down the government of Iraq. This is the foreign policy equivalent of using crimes committed by decrying the teenage drug gang in your city, and taking definitive action against -- the long-established organized crime ring a couple metro areas away.

Well, with as much respect back, I think your missing the key elements into why we went into Iraq. It wasn't to punish Al Qaeda by taking down Hussein.

After 911, the R's changed the game plan. They stopped waiting for stuff to happen and trying to react afterwards and started looking at problem areas and reacting before it could get as bad as 9/11. Iraq wasn't a direct result in going after Al Qaeda, it was a direct result of our idea that we don't wait for another 9/11 to happen before we do something. Iraq was/is about stopping Hussein who defied how many UN resolutions that he agreed to be bound to in order to stop the last war he was in. He claimed to have had WMDs on many occasions and we knew he had them at one time. Sanctions didn't work because countries like France were making secrete oil deals with Hussein and basically defeating any intent of punishment or attempt to force their compliance with the resolutions. Iraq intended to not live up to their obligations just to show a position of power over the UN and the US while making his country look defiant to the rest of the world. The R's saw it as a threat that could become as dangerous and devastating as 9/11.

Some people apposed this type of action. They think we should wait until we are counting dead bodies and billion dollars worth of destruction then go after the people who did it while ignoring everyone who might have help along the way. Some people just think putting a lock on the door and never talking to strangers will keep them safe too. I personally believe that No Terrorist group would have had the balls to attack the US on US soil and target innocent civilians if it wasn't for all the years of Hussein walking around like a rabid dog claiming we were a paper tiger and he was winning and all that. This showed us as week and made us a viable target. But that last part is just my opinion. I don't think we should let ourselves be seen as that week again.

On the other hand, Iraq found a new sense of cooperation and was working to comply with the U2's flying overhead and the threat of war coming around. Of course when France stood up for them and declared they would Veto and UN declaration of War, Hussein and Iraq went back to their evasiveness and disregard for the resolutions. But that's another story, we now know France had billions to lose if we went to war because they were exploiting Iraq's position and making oil deals behind the UN sanctions designed to keep Iraq at bay and make them a less harmful place.

When us "group D" folks point this out, the "group R" folks tend to ask things like, "So, you SUPPORTED Hussein? Huh? Huh?" But c'mon, that's a "have you stopped beating your wife yet" kind of attack. No, of course we didn't. We just don't think attacking Iraq had much to do with stopping Al Qaeda.

Of course it didn't. It had everything to do with stopping something like 9/11 from happening again. As for the supporting Hussein, I guess if you didn't understand the argument, it could be seen that way by people who did understand it. This is one of the biggest fault I have with the current administration. They don't make themselves clear enough and they don't get their word out to everyone. The press doesn't seem to be wanting to support anything they do, you can seriously find a 2 paragraph summery tucked somewhere about the administrations policies and 12 half page ads about how screw up they are. It i

Until they make one a drag queen by gambolt · 2007-09-07 18:07 · Score: 1

GI Joe is still 30 years behind.

Re:Until they make one a drag queen by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 18:37 · Score: 0

I always thought the Baroness was a dude trying to be a Betty Paige impersonator.
Re:Until they make one a drag queen by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 19:03 · Score: 0

Even M*A*S*H had one!
Re:Until they make one a drag queen by VanessaE · 2007-09-07 21:09 · Score: 1

Klinger wasn't a drag queen, he was crossdressing in an attempt to make himself look mentally unfit (and hence 'earn' a section-8 discharge).

GI*Joe should have stayed in the closet by nategoose · 2007-09-07 18:09 · Score: 0

I blame the US's policy against outed homosexual in the military.

Is a cron job running qc at /.? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 18:09 · Score: 0

Clearly, slashdot has forgotten "screening" as part of story submission process. Originally, screening was a method that moderators and administrators used before elevating a story to front page status. However, this highly regarded process that made slashdot what it was has been ruined by "liberal web-2.0..ers" who only care about story popularity, abandoning the real "heroes". Will slashdot stand tall as the pillar of intellectual nerdery on the internet? Or will it go the way of Digg and Reddit? Is nothing sacred anymore?

waste of internet space by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 18:10 · Score: 0

Here's what you could be doing instead of reading some dimwit's blog:

read a book
masturbate
write a love letter to cowboyneal
masturbate to cowboyneal
learn to play guitar, then sing a song about Viagra with your buddies in the garage
masturbate to scuttlemonkey masturbating to cowboyneal

Godwin's Law by Nymz · 2007-09-07 18:13 · Score: 0

(From The Link) - "Godwin's Law does not apply to discussions directly addressing genocide, propaganda, or other mainstays of the Nazi regime."

Next time you want to make a point-by-point flame, try to make sure at least one of your points is accurate. And make extra sure that you don't link to a Wikipedia page on Godwin's law, after finishing off with a Godwin's Law accusation, when you haven't even read the Godwin's Law page that you're linking to.

I'd link to a page telling you to 'get-a-clue' but I doubt you could follow it.

Re:Godwin's Law by UserGoogol · 2007-09-07 18:45 · Score: 1

Yes, the Nazis were well known for trying to play down nationalism.

--
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
Re:Godwin's Law by 1u3hr · 2007-09-07 21:08 · Score: 1

does not apply to discussions directly addressing genocide, propaganda, or other mainstays of the Nazi regime.
But isn't this a discussion about a plastic toy?

GI JOE Movie by Ethanol-fueled · 2007-09-07 18:13 · Score: 1

Sounds like it's going to suck. Still, it'd be worth my while if Duke gets his ass kicked.

What? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 18:14 · Score: 2, Funny

Your comment is nearly incoherent. It looks as if you've been cutting and pasting random quotes from some sort of badly translated alternate history comic book.

modern times call for it by hob42 · 2007-09-07 18:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

Maybe, perhaps, some of us would rather live in a less self-centered world than our ancestors?

Maybe there are a few other souls out there that don't think the American military is the right answer to all of the world's problems? That perhaps cooperation with our fellow beings on this small little planet, not unilateralism, would be a good idea?

Then again, I thought we were only one of several allied nations who won World War II, and don't believe that France should forever worship us for liberating them from Germany. I might just be crazy.

Re:modern times call for it by d12v10 · 2007-09-07 18:59 · Score: 1

You just had to throw in that comment defending the French, didn't you...

For shame.
Re:modern times call for it by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 19:07 · Score: 1, Interesting

Please tell us how cooperation with our fellow beings on this small little planet helped the people of Darfur? How did the cooperation with our fellow beings in the UN save people in Bosnia (NATO took unilateral action there, the UN just stood and watch)?

I have no problem with an idealistic view of the world as something to strive for, but pretending that everything will be alright and the world is peaceful with people hugging and singing koombaya if we blame ourselves for every single thing really pisses me off. If you haven't noticed, cooperation means that other people must want the same thing too and there are all kinds of nasty people, illogical people, indifferent people, and so on out there. Some want you dead or subjugated for no other reason than your not believing in their religion. Some would rather die than accept an act of friendship from you. This is the reality.
Re:modern times call for it by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 19:36 · Score: 0

The French helped train and finance the American Revolution (even if it was just to piss of the British) and we saved them from Hitler I think we're even.
Re:modern times call for it by The+One+and+Only · 2007-09-07 22:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

I don't see anywhere the parent post mentioned the UN--NATO actions in Yugoslavia were indeed taken in concert with fellow nations.

If you haven't noticed, cooperation means that other people must want the same thing too and there are all kinds of nasty people, illogical people, indifferent people, and so on out there.
Yes, and the first part is to not be those people. Until the Americans have mastered the fine art of not being nasty, illogical, and indifferent to the rest of the world, they're in no position to defend it.

--
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Re:modern times call for it by stewbacca · 2007-09-07 23:59 · Score: 0, Troll

Maybe there are a few other souls out there that don't think the American military is the right answer to all of the world's problems?
Yes because NATO and the United Nations have such a stellar track record at intervening and ending conflict? Riiiight. So do you have any alternatives for a World Police that actually have teeth? Well, since you don't (because nobody on the entire planet does), the U.S. Military (and GI Joe) will have to do for now.
It's not the US Military's fault that countries like France don't want to mess up their pedicures (or spend tax money that their governments cherish so much), so take your unilateralism argument elsewhere.
I'd like to hear YOUR solution, because I've been trying to find one for 20 years now, and the world has been trying to find one ever since the Balfour Declaration of 1917.
Re:modern times call for it by budgenator · 2007-09-08 00:47 · Score: 1

It was the United States, Britain, Canada, Russian and Australia; the rest of the World was either conquered or not worth conquering. France fit into the barely worth conquering catagory, they had really shot their wad in WW I and not yet recovered. If you don't think the American Military is the right answer to all of the world's problems, then perhaps you need to get the world's politicians to stop letting the problems get so out of hand that the American Military is the only possible solution.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Re:modern times call for it by arthurpaliden · 2007-09-08 02:12 · Score: 1

Why is it that Americans always forget that if it were not for the help from the French their little revolution in 1776 would have failed.

--
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Re:modern times call for it by arthurpaliden · 2007-09-08 02:18 · Score: 1

Excuse me but Iraq was nicely contained, mostly disarmed and definitly anti Islamic terrorist before the US invaded.

--
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Re:modern times call for it by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 02:53 · Score: 0

Why should I care about the people of Darfur? They sure as hell don't care about me and my problems. Maybe their Muslim pals with all the oil $$$ can lend them a hand.
Re:modern times call for it by RTMFD · 2007-09-08 03:43 · Score: 1

Ahh, the self-styled intellectuals who don't learn from the lessons of history are doomed...

Human history has been a series of wars occasionally punctuated by relatively peaceful times, growing out of the complete annihilation of a set of enemies. Rome vs. Carthage, US vs. Japan and Germany, etc. Any politician, moral leader, etc. who tries to tell you anything different is lying to you.

I really hope you don't consider yourself to be "educated." At the very best, you and the "new castrati" like you are useful idiots.
Re:modern times call for it by sabernet · 2007-09-08 03:47 · Score: 1

Please tell me how arming and training Osama Bin Laden helped the world? Please tell me how financially assisting the Saudi Royal Family helped the world? Please tell me how plunging Iraq into an even worse fate then that of the rule of a Stallin worshiping dictator thus providing yet another thing anti-democratic religious fundamentalists figureheads can spew with their propaganda helped the world?

You see, it works many ways. The world may be fucked, but don't think the US doesn't have a large(if not one of the largest parts) to play in it.

The UN is large and ungainly because it grew while its bureaucracy followed in scale. It's not perfect and certainly very slow(though it produces many fine things like Unicef that people keep glossing over). But I am getting sick and fucking tired of the uneducated with no better plans screaming "We need action now!!" and using the UN as some way to just=ify their own gov'ts complete incompetence in international affairs.
Re:modern times call for it by LoverOfJoy · 2007-09-08 04:53 · Score: 1

I vaguely remember an episode from GI Joe where they teamed up with their Russian counterparts. In the comics they often had to deal with international issues and people from other countries. I don't think GI Joe was about how the American military is the right answer to all the world's problems...just some of them. They even taught about how kids can solve other problems they might face without fighting in their "Knowing is half the battle" schticks.

Why can't GI Joe remain American and be a force for good without saying "American military is the right answer to all the world's problems"? If there was an Italian superhero team would you suggest changing it into an international superhero team because you don't think Italian superheroes is the right answer to all the world's problems?
Re:modern times call for it by Dun+Malg · 2007-09-08 05:23 · Score: 1

Why is it that Americans always forget that if it were not for the help from the French their little revolution in 1776 would have failed. That was pre-revolutionary france, and we were aided by the monarchy because they were at war with the english monarch and wished to encourage this "second front". The french monarchy that aided the revolting british colonists in america had its collective head cut off not long thereafter. So unless "the french" who wish to take credit consider themselves true descendents of the monarchy, they're off their rockers. The french people had no say in foreign policy in 1776. They were too busy starving and grumbling about the taxation to support the enormous war debt.

--
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Re:modern times call for it by arthurpaliden · 2007-09-08 05:41 · Score: 1

Ok so why do the Americans express a general anti French atitude when it is really the French government's desisions you do not like. Remembering of course they, the French political types, like their American counterparts forget all about the general population once they get elected.

--
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo

Re:A novel idea by kad77 · 2007-09-07 18:19 · Score: 1

Like H-Town tackled "Clear and Present Danger"?

Hollywood film version: didn't want to offend those crazy islamic murders and the PC panty-sniffers.
Antagonist: Bionic Nazis, yeah thats the ticket.

The original Tom Clancy novel: basically predicted 9/11, and mapped out the jihadi wet dream for the followup.
Antagonist: Reality, ever more clearly within a decade of publication.

Re:Jesus Fucking Anonymous Coward by Nymz · 2007-09-07 18:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

I for one welcome the mass exodus of our cursing, pointless, threatening, whining-for-attention, anonymous coward overlords!!!

GI, the true meaning by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 18:23 · Score: 0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GI_(military) wikipedia as usual knows, although it fails to understand the real meaning of truth which is not always to do with facts and history but with what people feel.

The most popular meaning of GI is Goverment Issue and is used to show a certain feeling among those who use it that the person is to the powers the be, just an other piece of equipment, expandable and replaceable. For soldiers in prolonged combat this feeling can get very strong as they see comrades die and be replaced from a seemingly endless supply just as readily as you can request a new pair of socks.

You are correct that it wasn't just blond haired males who fought in WW2, but you can get too crazy with political correctness as well. Yes, women, non-whites, non-christians fought just as well and just as hard BUT you shouldn't rape history and put them in places were they were not.

There is a movie starring Clint Eastwood I believe where he plays a real historic sherrif, who in real life was black. Putting a black guy on the beaches of omaha is as much a rape of the truth as that is. Because at least to some of us, the fact you don't see single black guy in any historic or re-created scene on omaha is extremely telling. A country that prosecuted people based on their skin color was liberating the world from a country that prosecuted people based on their religion.

Change this for the sake of current day politics and you are lying about history.

Re:GI, the true meaning by The+One+and+Only · 2007-09-07 22:03 · Score: 1

A country that prosecuted people based on their skin color was liberating the world from a country that prosecuted people based on their religion.
I know of no trials in which the State was the plaintiff where anyone, in Germany or America, was charged with being of a certain race or religion. The word you are looking for is "persecuted". Also, I'm not going to get into how Nazi anti-Semitism was not simply "based on religion" because you aren't likely to be of the intellectual level to understand such distinctions.

--
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Re:GI, the true meaning by Beyond_GoodandEvil · 2007-09-08 15:40 · Score: 1

I know of no trials in which the State was the plaintiff where anyone, in Germany or America, was charged with being of a certain race or religion.
I don't know about that, anti-miscegenation laws did exist on the books, and people were not doubt prosecuted under said laws. Although you are mostly correct GPP probably meant to say persecuted.

--
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
Re:GI, the true meaning by The+One+and+Only · 2007-09-08 16:29 · Score: 1

They were prosecuted for marrying someone of a different race, not for being a member of their own.

--
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2007-09-07 18:26 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

teh warm cooch of liberal-groop think by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 18:30 · Score: 0

nevah leave it, we like you there

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/189302.php

God, I hate it- by Gizzmonic · 2007-09-07 18:35 · Score: 0, Flamebait

When those Hollywood faggots take something PURE and WHITE like G.I. Joe and add niggers and bitches to it. It totally spoils it for me.

God, what fucking pussies those niggers and women are. They can't possibly repel evil! But you know what, I've been playing Dragon Warrior and that REPEL spell works pretty well.

OK, I'm going back to masturbating, crying, and calling myself the Messiah. My complete (new in box!) G.I. Joe collection should help me forget this politically correct incursion.

--
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)

Re:A novel idea by poopdeville · 2007-09-07 18:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

Google for "Project Bojinka." The intelligence community had known about a plan to fly passenger planes into buildings since the early 90s.

--
After all, I am strangely colored.

Grammatical error! by Bieeanda · 2007-09-07 18:36 · Score: 5, Funny

Some random person's screechy blog is news by nerds, not news for nerds.

Ooops. by kad77 · 2007-09-07 18:38 · Score: 1

I fail, you're right. God knows they know where the blow comes from, they wouldn't get that book wrong.

G.I. Joe jumped the shark by iminplaya · 2007-09-07 18:47 · Score: 1

When they cut him down from a manly 12 inches to 8 1/2 in '77 and then really destroyed his self esteem when he was cut down to 3 3/4! Oh! The humanity!

--
What?

Feminazi ? by aepervius · 2007-09-07 18:52 · Score: 1

Feminazi. I knew one of those lady in Germany. She wore those leather boot, leather underwear which left little to imagination, a nine-tail whips, and I asked her to call me animal name, told her I have been a bad boy, etc... Mhhhh.... Although he might not speak about the same type of person actually....

--
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org

Um... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 18:54 · Score: 0

Um kay...

Yes, because the previous incarnation, flaunted in cartoons, and used to sell toys made in Hong Kong, didn't take a steaming dump on our Greatest Generation at all... Nope.. *eyes roll so hard I give myself a concussion*

Netcraft confirms: generation of heroes is dying by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 19:00 · Score: 0

World War II was over in 6 years (by UK measurements; less if you're only counting from when the superpowers joined). A genocidal, fascist country fitting pretty much everyone's definition of evil which had overrun half of Europe was defeated in 6 years. This war was full of heroes displaying courage and valour in a fight for freedom. The Allies then assisted in the rebuilding of the countries that had tried to destroy them, and they did it very well - they saw the value of a rich, stable Germany and Japan.

There is no modern analogy to WWII. The current war in Iraq, which has lasted almost 4.5 years, is not based on defence of any part of the free world; it is not fought speedily with the aim of thoroughly vanquishing the enemy followed by rebuilding a free country under a strict no-military-until-you're-stable policy. Not that these last two steps could make much sense, because there little in the way of united, oppressed civilian population to emancipate and welcome you with open arms.

Put simply, an US soldier in Iraq is not a real American hero; he might have some notion of the WWII soldier's "freedom is not free" mantra, but he is sadly a fool to not have seen the changing nature of American ideals and warfare in the past 60 years. Just because he believes that he is risking his life for a good cause, it does not make him heroic. Worthy of pathos, probably; a signal that there's something rotten in our government, definitely.

How Dare They! by coaxial · 2007-09-07 19:01 · Score: 1

Damn pinkos liberals! Like hell they wussify GI Joe's male make up with multiculturalism!

Now excuse me. I have get back to Quick-Kick, Roadblock, Spirit, and Lady Jaye.

Fuck GI Joe! by coaxial · 2007-09-07 19:04 · Score: 2, Funny

He's no hero. He always let Cobra Commander -- the leader of a ruthless terrorist orgainization determined to rule the world -- get away. A real leader like George W. Bush would never let that happen.

Sacred items.. by cyberjock1980 · 2007-09-07 19:25 · Score: 1

Yes, everything is sacred. DUH! Like... -Net neutrality -Fair use -and now GI Joe Would even THINK of messing with these? They're so sacred! Just ask anyone at slashdot. O wait, you'd better not!

Re:Sacred items.. by Noodlenose · 2007-09-07 20:26 · Score: 1

'Net Neutrality' the movie?
Could be better than that GI-Joe flick.

"Without me, my rifle is nothing." by 6Yankee · 2007-09-07 19:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

"Without my rifle, I am nothing." GI Joe stopped being a hero the day he surrendered his rifle to airport security.

Re:"Without me, my rifle is nothing." by Detritus · 2007-09-07 20:09 · Score: 1

She should have beat them about the head and shoulders with a rubber chicken.
G.I. Joe would have fragged their asses.

--
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat

You couldn't be more wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 19:33 · Score: 0

Particularly about American soldiers in Iraq.

Re:You couldn't be more wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 19:54 · Score: 0

You couldn't be more wrong

Hey, I'm going to the jungles of Africa to wrestle lions for your freedom. Because freedom isn't free, and I might die, and I really believe I'm doing it for your sake, I must be a hero, right?

In a fit of insightfulness, Encyclopaedia Dramatica's "An Hero" entry puts it best: When otherwise normal and rational people fondly eulogize and honor those that have killed themselves before them, that's when "An Hero" is made. Joining the US military today may be a little suicidal - though the stats still weigh heavily in your favour - but it's not heroic!

Having been brought up in the UK but lived/worked in the US and UK, I do understand that the sense of "duty to your country" is infused in US culture: the drum of What It Means To Be American is beaten in the classroom, beaten in the media, beaten in politics. It is, ironically, in the "monarchist" UK that I feel more of a sense of "I value that I can be left alone" - i.e. what freedom of the individual is really about.

I, for one, welcome our new... by bhunachchicken · 2007-09-07 19:39 · Score: 1

Politically Correct overlords, intent on ruining everybody's fun... :)

--
THE HONOUR OF THE KNIGHTS - CC Licensed Sci-Fi Novel

I Don't Know... by Comatose51 · 2007-09-07 19:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Isn't anything sacred to these people"

I don't know... maybe a sense of morality, compassion for other human beings, a desire for learning? Those are pretty important values to me. But more importantly, the freedom to choose my own values and believes are among my most cherished "things". So I guess if plastic dolls is your thing, go for it.

Just don't expect the rest of the grown adults to care about it.

--
EvilCON - Made Famous by /.

American-Centric Words by Nymz · 2007-09-07 19:47 · Score: 1

I suppose some of those terms used in the parent post are American-Centric.

Feminism - the classical definition, refering to the 1960s movement that stood for political and social equality for women.

Feminazi - a newer term, created to preserve the values of the word it's playfully derived from, Feminism. This newer type of 'feminism' holds the belief that men are unreformable, and therefore should be denied politcal and social equality; for example, the choice to become a parent or not (abortion) is to be denied to men.

Limousine Liberal - an oxymoron that refers to the type of activist or politician that preaches one lifestyle for the common folk (you should take a bus to work), but lives in decadent excess themselves (but I'll be taking a limousine, to my private jet, to yet another limousine, to get to my mansion).

Re:American-Centric Words by Lemmy+Caution · 2007-09-07 19:49 · Score: 1

Does that make Larry Craig a limousine liberal? Or Mark Foley? Or all the other social conservatives with mistresses, hookers, or a penchant for anonymous gay sex?
Re:American-Centric Words by Nymz · 2007-09-07 20:21 · Score: 1

Does that make Larry Craig a limousine liberal? Or Mark Foley? Or all the other social conservatives with mistresses, hookers, or a penchant for anonymous gay sex?

Nope, the term was created to represent the unrepentant hypocrite, or those maintaining an elitist attitude.

Specifically, Mark Foley apologized and resigned.

As for Larry Craig, maybe, but it's too soon to say because he plead guilty, but now says he only pleaded guilty to avoid a scandal, then he apologized to friends and family, but then denied being gay. (is that not being gay like saying you didn't have sex with Monica Lewinsky, because she had sex with you, arghhh, please America no more lawyers for President)
Re:American-Centric Words by Loundry · 2007-09-08 03:07 · Score: 1

Does that make Larry Craig a limousine liberal? Or Mark Foley? Or all the other social conservatives with mistresses, hookers, or a penchant for anonymous gay sex?

Translation: "I'm very uncomfortable by these points being defined because there is some truth to them. At the same time, I'm an unrepentant partisan and would do anything to keep my side (the Left) from looking bad. Hence, I'm going to bring up sex scandals (especially gay sex scandals) in Republicans despite my side's values of sexual liberation and gay rights in the effort to embarrass my hated enemies and otherwise derail the conversation from the valid criticisms of the Left."

--
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Re:American-Centric Words by Dun+Malg · 2007-09-08 03:48 · Score: 1

Does that make Larry Craig a limousine liberal? Or Mark Foley? Or all the other social conservatives with mistresses, hookers, or a penchant for anonymous gay sex? Nah, they're some other type of hypocrite. There may be a name for that kind, but I can't find it. Limo Libs are specifically the types who preach asceticism in the abstract (e.g. we need to use more public transit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions) but are sybaritic in practice (e.g. take a private jet to Vegas for a night of drinking and gambling, producing more CO2 than we plebes do in a year driving to work alone). Movie stars are particularly susceptible to this type of behavior.

--
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Re:American-Centric Words by Lemmy+Caution · 2007-09-08 04:48 · Score: 1

I think apologizing only after you've been found out and pressured to resign isn't really the sign of a sincere apology, and if Foley hadn't been caught, I have no reason to believe he would have had this miraculous change of heart.
Re:American-Centric Words by Lemmy+Caution · 2007-09-08 04:52 · Score: 1

That sounds about right - Madonna's environmentalist screeds really do ring hollow when one learns of just how huge her trailer convoys for her shows are.

That said, it strikes my that social conservatives are more likely to be actual hypocrites, advocating chastity and fidelity (and heterosexuality) and abstinence, happily prosecuting poor drug users and prostitutes, yet keeping mistresses on the side, excusing their own drug use, etc.
Re:American-Centric Words by Lemmy+Caution · 2007-09-08 04:56 · Score: 1

No, the definition is crap, because it pretends that it isn't a term that is already partisan.

Environmentalist hypocrisy is a fair criticism - the Greenpeace-sticker-on-a-Land-Rover phenomenon. But the term is really meant to discredit left thinking by characterizing it as elitist and out-of-touch. As far as political hypocrisy goes, however, no one can hold a candle to the right - from Ted Haggard to Mark Foley to Larry Craig, even to the Bush willingness to prosecute drug users by the hundreds in Texas, yet to declare themselves "healed".
Re:American-Centric Words by Loundry · 2007-09-09 06:04 · Score: 1

No, the definition is crap, because it pretends that it isn't a term that is already partisan.

All charges of hypocrisy have their basis in the rejection of a partisan position.

* The greenpeace-sticker-on-a-land-rover sticker that you brought up implies the failure to live up to the partisan position of environmentalism.

* The Evangelical-caught-having-gay-sex implies the failure to live up to the partisan position of Christian morality.

* The limousine liberal implies the failure to live up to the partisan positions of community property and the common good.

As far as political hypocrisy goes, however, no one can hold a candle to the right

That's a value judgment. And you've already shown yourself to be strongly biased toward the left, which is precisely why you want to change the conversation away from the failings of the left and toward the failings of the right.

In other words, you think that the right is the worst because you have defined them that way. What difference should facts make to you? The right is the worst, and that is that! Am I reading you correctly?

--
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.

new low for slashdot front page by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 19:49 · Score: 0

seriously, how did that website link make it to the front page of this site that I use to enjoy reading...

Re:new low for slashdot front page by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 21:34 · Score: 0

Slashdot HOF

5687 comments on Kerry conceding to Bush
4183 comments on the start of the Iraq war
3468 comments on the London bombing
3451 comments bashing religion
3360 comments bashing religion
3315 comments bashing religion
3314 comments on Saddam being captured
3265 comments on an anti-Bush conspiracy propaganda film
3212 comments on Windows
3201 comments on Iraqi WMD

Don't you understand? Trolling politics and religion gets comments and that means ads. Now, what do Slashdotters actually want to read about?

631777 visits regarding the Windows source code being leaked
429330 visits regarding MS asking Slashdot to remove posts
412663 visits regarding google "slashdotting" a site over a fractal 398448 visits regarding the HL2 source being leaked
385597 visits regarding the battle between DirecTV and people who try to leech their stream
369120 visits regarding Hotmail being cracked
363328 visits regarding Columbine by Slashdot's original self promoting troll editor
318420 visits regarding the Queen of England adopting Linux
314314 visits regarding Ralph Nader's replies to a Slashdot interview back in Oct 2000 just as Slashdot began dabbling more in political stories
302396 visits regarding the Scientologists demanding Slashdot remove posts detailing their religious texts

So... just going by the top 10 of each category, it appears Slashdotters want to read tech news but love to bash right wing ideology even though only the echo chamber (and poor suckers like me who get bored and troll the trolls) reads the bashing. Frankly, I come to Slashdot for tech news.... I go to DU, DailyKos, Huffington Post, Lucianne and Free Republic for political opinion. Slashdot can continue to be a decent quality tech news site or it can get itself lost as yet just another place where a political party preaches to the choir. Dabbling in both will only ensure the mediocrity, and thus increasing irrelevance, of the site as it drives people who want tech news and conservatives who get sick of being trolled elsewhere. Actually, without checking the dates on the second set of stories (most visits), my 9 year long visit of Slashdot makes me think they're all pretty old stories and that goes to imply (though not prove) that Slashdot has already lost a lot of readers.

Oh, one of THOSE stories by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 19:51 · Score: 0

One of THOSE stories designed to get the archetypal "HH-HHHH-HHUURRRRRRRRRRRRR" response out of America's alcohol-blooded redneck subculture. I haven't seen a HH-HHHH-HHUURRRRRRRRRRRRR story this HH-HHHH-HHUURRRRRRRRRRRRRy since DON'T MESS WITH FOOTBALL a while back.

Hollywood even tried to make Tomatos "evildoers" by UncleWilly · 2007-09-07 19:51 · Score: 1, Funny

with Attack of the Killer Tomatos

I have to wonder if they've thought this through by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 19:54 · Score: 0

It's understood that G.I. stood for "General Infantry" which was part of the public lexicon--a well known ancronym back in the day. And the Joe part was thrown in.

Seems to me if they are now "reworking" the meaning of G.I., then they are (at the same time) effectively abandoning the original (at least the G.I. part) to anyone who might want to pick it up for...say...the purposes of marketing a twelve-inch tall action figure.

"G.I. John" anyone? It could sell, really it could.

Moreover, I tend to think U.S. courts might even agree that, by this action, the entire moniker "G.I. Joe" effectively becomes "abandonware," (based on the original meaning) and part of the public domain. Certainly the G.I. bit (when used as part name for an action figure) should anyway....

G.I. Joe as he should be remembered by commodoresloat · 2007-09-07 20:02 · Score: 2, Funny

WTF is up with this article? Some wingnut freeper whining in his blog about the demise of G.I. Joe? Get a grip (yeah, like the GI Joe with the Kung Fu Grip). I present you GI Joe's real finest moments:

Re:G.I. Joe as he should be remembered by ziggythehamster · 2007-09-09 03:57 · Score: 1

It surprises me nobody posted a GI Joe PSA sooner. PORKCHOP SANDWICHES!

Re: Doesn't Hollywood Understand? by Nymz · 2007-09-07 20:04 · Score: 1

G.I Joe is a doll

No, he's an Action Figure. And good people cannot understand why Hollywood won't make a movie from an original idea, but will instead buy the rights to a loved American Icon, and then procede to water down and pervert it, all in order to make a little money overseas.

I found a better link by commodoresloat · 2007-09-07 20:05 · Score: 0, Troll

Here's a better link that demonstrates the basic premise of the article.

I agree.. by brghntr · 2007-09-07 20:10 · Score: 1

By what logic did this particular article make it onto Slashdot? Is someone a little mad behind the curtains?

Real Heroes Avoid Killing Like the Plague by itsybitsy · 2007-09-07 20:15 · Score: 1

Real heroes avoid killing like they would avoid the plague. Real heroes solve problems with others by negotiation, by discussion, not using a gun, bombs, or stealth planes to sneak up on people with no honor.

Once you kill you are no longer hero material, you are a killer forever.

It's easy to destroy. What's hard is not fighting the fight that kills. Peace is hard and it's the kind of heroes we need, those that strive for peace without the use of violence and killing.

The problem with killing is that those you kill may have loved ones, or brothers, who will come and do the same to you. As is said, do unto others as you'd have they do unto you. If you want peace, spread that around the world and create real heroes for peace.

Re:Real Heroes Avoid Killing Like the Plague by deft · 2007-09-07 20:33 · Score: 1

reads real good, wouldnt have worked so good as a strategy tocombat the situation in ww2.

sometimes you have to do things.

--

There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
Re:Real Heroes Avoid Killing Like the Plague by itsybitsy · 2007-09-07 21:58 · Score: 1

The problem is that when you kill you become the terrorist.
Re:Real Heroes Avoid Killing Like the Plague by animefanlee · 2007-09-07 23:13 · Score: 0

We tried discussion/peace/appeasement and the holocaust happen
We tried discussion/peace/appeasement and WW2 Happen
We tried discussion/peace/appeasement during Bill Clintons term and 9/11 happen
Grow up get in the real world Appeasement/Niavte caused the holocaust
Gun control laws caused oppression/holocaust
You can not discuss things with madmen like Hitler/Irans leader unless you want suffering/opression
Re:Real Heroes Avoid Killing Like the Plague by stewbacca · 2007-09-07 23:46 · Score: 1

You sir/madame, are a big giant festering coward. Or a college student. Or both.
Besides, everyone knows the real American Hero is the International Man of Mystery: Austin Powers.
Re:Real Heroes Avoid Killing Like the Plague by itsybitsy · 2007-09-08 00:45 · Score: 1

You limit your options and thus become the killer terrorists to others in the world. When you realize that all the people of the Earth are the same you'll realize that to kill is to terrorize. You have a choice, you can choose an alternative path than killing.

The facts of history that you quote are irrelevant and an easy way out. The hard thing is to find the way to peace without killing.
Re:Real Heroes Avoid Killing Like the Plague by itsybitsy · 2007-09-08 00:49 · Score: 1

Ah yes, reducing yourself to ad hominem attacks is the true cowardice.

If you give the people in your government the power to kill then what's to stop them from killing you? If you give them the power to kill then you are killing by proxy which makes you an evil terrorist to those who you kill via your government.

Naturally, if those you kill have people who retaliate then they are also terrorists just like you. Method and motivation are irrelevant; the reality is all that matters; if you kill you are the terrorists and the anti peace people. You are the mad men of our era - if you kill or support killing.
Re:Real Heroes Avoid Killing Like the Plague by stewbacca · 2007-09-08 01:18 · Score: 1

Ah yes, your appeal to authority by using big words is the true cowardice. Yes, because we are the ones who randomly kill Israeli/American/Iraqi/fill-in-the-country citizens on a daily basis without provocation. You win.
Re:Real Heroes Avoid Killing Like the Plague by cdrguru · 2007-09-08 02:00 · Score: 1

You have one flawed assumption at the core of your argument. You assume that other cultures value life on Earth as much as you do.

Purely as an intellectual exercise, you might think about how utterly vain that is. Can you not put your culture ahead of your personal well-being? Can you understand that both your beliefs and the generations to come could possibly be of more value than your life?

Well, some pretty couragous people outside the US believe that their individual lives do not count for much of anything and are clearly willing to sacrifice them in order to achieve goals which may not be realized for generations. You think you can negotiate with these people? Your petty self-centered world view isn't going to change their minds.

The threat of economic sanctions, war, and even nuclear destruction is immaterial to people with beliefs. They will achieve their goals without question if people aren't willing to stand up for what they believe in. Apparently you believe in your life and expect others to have the same courtesy. I expect you to have but one expression on your face when they kill you - astonishment.
Re:Real Heroes Avoid Killing Like the Plague by bbdb · 2007-09-08 03:18 · Score: 1

The problem is when you spout such futile and false banalities, you become a moron, and thus part of a problem, not a solution.

Clausewitz had it right: war is continuation of politics by other means (I might also paraphrase that politics is continuation of war by less violent means). Vegetius had it right, too: if you want peace, prepare for war.

Since nowadays shallow and hypocritical sentimentality and empty self-righteousness like yours have replaced the brains, we have General Public Idiocy on the rise. Effectively, those who want to have peace and no war whatsoever, are thrown by the real world into wars they don't really understand at all, even if they imagine they do. Witness 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq. This is not over, and it's not the fault of "Bushitler", as some leftie morons simply use not very bright president as an evil scapegoat supposedly responsible for everything (Lisa Simpson's "campus" bicycle sticker "U.S. Out Of Everywhere" comes to mind).

--
Python is nice quick and flexible... but it provides so much rope a monkey would hang the whole ecosystem with it. -- in
Re:Real Heroes Avoid Killing Like the Plague by animefanlee · 2007-09-08 05:54 · Score: 0

thank god your not in charge your niave and that niave is dangerous freedom was never gained by talking and being passive. and everybody is the same but not everybody is as nice as you think for example women under islam are slaves and you can be killed simply by not wearing islamilic clothes in iran. tell me when a gay pride march has took place in a muslim country. tell why the news if filled nightly with reports of muslim violence against non muslims. you ideals is nice. but your niave and not fit to lead America America will never bow to the Nazi religion of doom islam american women and men will keep our freedom by any means. Their is no place in america for a person who wants to be a slave
Re:Real Heroes Avoid Killing Like the Plague by itsybitsy · 2007-09-08 08:37 · Score: 1

You have one flawed assumption at the core of your argument. You assume that other cultures value life on Earth as much as you do.
I don't assume that. It is your assumption that I assume that and a mistaken assumption on your part.

Purely as an intellectual exercise, you might think about how utterly vain that is. Can you not put your culture ahead of your personal well-being? Can you understand that both your beliefs and the generations to come could possibly be of more value than your life?
Of course I wouldn't put my "culture" ahead of my personal well-being! I'm not a "cult-member"! I'm an individual. The problem is people who do in fact put their "culture" ahead of their own well being. They are generally called suicide-bombers by their friends and terrorists by their enemies and many others, although they are also known as freedom fighters. Beliefs have no value at all as all beliefs are suspect and have little to do with reality. The generations to come don't exist yet, they are a fantasy in your mind. They will only exist if people aren't killed and if they have children who aren't killed by "cult-ure" driven fanatics who believe killing is ok.

Well, some pretty couragous people outside the US believe that their individual lives do not count for much of anything and are clearly willing to sacrifice them in order to achieve goals which may not be realized for generations. You think you can negotiate with these people? Your petty self-centered world view isn't going to change their minds.
Courage exists on all sides in a conflict. Courage isn't honorable. Yes there are people outside the US that believe that as there are US people who most certainly believe that - some of them are implementing their beliefs with actions that result in people being killed. Your justification for killing them is that they want to kill you? I don't think that your leaders have even tried to negotiate with those that want to cause harm. It's apparent that many in the US have allowed the killing by their leads to proceed. This fact is what gives much of the justification for your enemies to launch attacks against your country (and others). Your justification for killing them is exactly the same justification that they use to kill back. It's a no win situation and they have the numbers willing to put their "culture" before themselves as suicide bombers, er, terrorists. Just as each of you who goes over there and kills and is killed may be a hero back home over there you are a terrorist in their minds. That is the nature of war and the way to break it is to break the cycle. That starts with YOU. Then it's a process, not easy by any means, of allowing them to break the cycle too. That's the beginning of peace. Alternatively you support a thousands year war of civilizations. That's really foolish.

My view isn't self centered. It's centered on preserving ALL human life everywhere. That's the least self centered viewpoint possible. In fact it's your view that you, or at least your culture, is more important than the people you kill that is self centered!

The threat of economic sanctions, war, and even nuclear destruction is immaterial to people with beliefs. They will achieve their goals without question if people aren't willing to stand up for what they believe in. Apparently you believe in your life and expect others to have the same courtesy. I expect you to have but one expression on your face when they kill you - astonishment.
Standing up for "beliefs" is pure cult member behavior. Beliefs control you like a mind virus (look it up on the net). Standing up and defending yourself is one thing, but invading other countries 6,000 miles from yours is quite another that has nothing to do with self defense! That's pure offensive thinking. It's interesting that that word has "offense" in it, and that's not a coincidence since to the receiving party it is an offense and a crime against humanity to all.

I don't believe in life. Life doesn't need me to believe in it. In fac
Re:Real Heroes Avoid Killing Like the Plague by itsybitsy · 2007-09-08 09:06 · Score: 1

God is a delusion that you and other humans have invented. Grow up and get over it.

I promote true self defense as strength is important. I do not support offensive actions that kill people.

Yes, there are lots of problems in the world. Killing people is never the answer to them as it simply breeds more killing (of members of your cultural group) by their friends and loved ones.

Only strategies that promote peaceful coexistence are viable human and life centered for the long term survival of our species.

Oh, and by the way, doesn't your God order you to: "Thou shall not kill"? Kinda hypocritical of you and your leads isn't it? They are going to hell if the bible has anything to do with reality (which is doesn't but that is an entirely different conversation).
Re:Real Heroes Avoid Killing Like the Plague by itsybitsy · 2007-09-08 09:14 · Score: 1

Ah yes, your appeal to authority by using big words is the true cowardice. Yes, because we are the ones who randomly kill Israeli/American/Iraqi/fill-in-the-country citizens on a daily basis without provocation. You win.

Eh? The meaning of your statements is not clear, except that it sounds like an emotional rant of some sort.

It's also another ad hominem attack. Look it up if you don't know what it means. It's not that big of a word.

I don't get the second sentence at all. Whether or not someone is killed by another randomly or on purpose is irrelevant, they are still killed dead!

Your country kills people. Those people don't like being killed so they kill you back. What part of that don't you get? It's a cycle. Break it for peace. Keep it going and it will simply escalate till a major city is vaporized - yours or theirs. That's the natural progression that you're looking at. It's simple primitive emotional brain reaction to protect oneself and one's "cult-ture", with emphasis on cult. Break the cycle.

A few of your own politicians have the guts to say similar thoughts as I'm expressing. Watch these videos of Ron Paul. http://youtube.com/results?search_query=ron+paul+e lection&search=Search
Re:Real Heroes Avoid Killing Like the Plague by itsybitsy · 2007-09-08 12:00 · Score: 1

This link is pretty good and expresses some of the points I'm making.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=yZ4IW0Y_7WY

As does this one.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=G7d_e9lrcZ8&mode=relate d&search=
Re:Real Heroes Avoid Killing Like the Plague by stewbacca · 2007-09-08 12:57 · Score: 1

"Appeal for Authority" is the opposite of Ad Hominem attack. I was merely pointing out that you are on the opposite extreme. The difference is, my comment is satirical, yet yours is trying to be serious. The fact that you are oversimplifying the entire topic of "conflict" by saying all killing is the same, tells me you do not have a strong grasp of logic. You are an idealist. As a realist, I understand, and fully accept the fact that the US is on the correct side of this conflict. In other words, there are perfect legitimate reasons for killing people, such as religious zealots who want to destroy all of western society. To think otherwise is living in a fantasy world much like yours.
Re:Real Heroes Avoid Killing Like the Plague by animefanlee · 2007-09-08 15:49 · Score: 0

when you grow up and pull your head out of your ass and stop with the pacifistic dreamworld bs get back to me Pacific ism has never stopped wars in fact pacific ism have allowed dictators like Hitler to rape and slaughter you need to go tour the holocaust museum and see where your dream world bs leads to and you liberals need to learn one thing you will never disarm America even with your CAIR buddies
Re:Real Heroes Avoid Killing Like the Plague by itsybitsy · 2007-09-08 20:31 · Score: 1

"Appeal for Authority" is the opposite of Ad Hominem attack. I was merely pointing out that you are on the opposite extreme. The difference is, my comment is satirical, yet yours is trying to be serious.
Nonsense, I'm not appealing to any authority.

The fact that you are oversimplifying the entire topic of "conflict" by saying all killing is the same, tells me you do not have a strong grasp of logic. You are an idealist.
Yes, ideally no one would kill anyone else. However, I'm not suggesting an oversimplification of conflict. I'm getting at the "cult" of killing which you support with your views. Will it ever be possible for there to be no human deaths at the hand of another human being for a period of time even as short as a year? Certainly not with people thinking like you do, that is for sure. It's not about idealism, it's about embracing the reality that the root cause of many conflicts is that people are killed and others seek revenge. It's the reptilian emotional brain that we inherited from our ancestors - it worked for them, why not us? Modern life is now complex with the web of communications and global travel small conflicts can be taken afar and impact the whole world. It's asymmetric warfare where David hits home in an all to real manner even against the so called powers.

That is the reality. I embrace reality in it's full horror with no snuggles or soft emotions. As has been said, "Life is a harsh mistress" and "the universe doesn't care". If the universe doesn't care who does? Only we. It's obvious that you'd rather shoot first and ask questions later; the only problem with that approach is that the people you kill have friends, families, country men, and yes, fellow delusional believers in God (it doesn't matter which God they believe in) ready to kill you back now or in the future after time has tempered their resolve and asymmetric warfare has amplified their capabilities beyond what you've done to them.

As a realist, I understand, and fully accept the fact that the US is on the correct side of this conflict.
First off you're not a realist but a member of a cult that thinks it's on the "correct" side of the conflict. I hate to break it to you but in the full horror of the universe there is no "correct" side of anything - unless we say what is correct it ain't correct. Learn some basic philosophy and how to think critically with your own brain independent of your culture, your family, your tribe; learn to think about all life on Earth not just those in your cult or country. The only realism in your point of view is how real it echoes the propaganda machine of your leaders who want sheep.

In other words, there are perfect legitimate reasons for killing people, such as religious zealots who want to destroy all of western society. To think otherwise is living in a fantasy world much like yours.
In your view that may well be the case. It also means that you are a supporter of killers and the process of killing. It means that you are a killer by proxy and maybe even a direct killer of your fellow human beings. You are an evil person.

You've bought the State and Media propaganda line, hook and sinker. You are not an independent human being committed to life on this planet.

Free your mind, free your thinking from the propaganda machine. Think for yourself.

It's your line of thinking that got us to where we are now.

The solutions to this conflict do not exist at the same level of thinking as the conflict is at. It will take ingenuity to come up with solutions that keep the peace for all.

How about taking up the challenge of asking how can this be solved in a peaceful way by asking questions each day of people around you. How can you solve this peacefully? How can your leaders solve this peacefully?

Real heroes are the ones who don't shoot when given the opportunity. Real heroes are those that save lives rather than take even a single life. Peace is the way of security for all, and have no doubt that if you want security and peace your enemies must also have security and peace. Greater men than I have said this. I simply and humbly stand on their shoulders.

Peace.
Re:Real Heroes Avoid Killing Like the Plague by stewbacca · 2007-09-09 00:37 · Score: 1

Real heroes are the ones who don't shoot when given the opportunity. Real heroes are those that save lives rather than take even a single life. Peace is the way of security for all, and have no doubt that if you want security and peace your enemies must also have security and peace.
Since you obviously have NO IDEA of the reality of the situation on the ground in Iraq let me tell you that you are describing the coalition men an women perfectly with this sentence. Every soldier I worked for was a huge target to the enemy, yet none of them reached for their gun first, nor did any of them go on a seek-and-destroy mission. The average US/UK soldier in Iraq are the REAL heroes, exactly for the reason you described. Do you think US troops are in Iraq to hunt down and kill people? No. Their rules of engagement are pretty clear. They are there to TRY to establish the idealistic peace that you so want. The reason it is the US Military doing this is because the soft European countries don't have the balls or a better solution, and there is no real world organization that has the clout to pull it off. No, those countries are much like yourself; they'd rather sit around philosophizing about peace, letting the evil grow stronger, until the evil destroys them (or, as recent world history goes, the US bails them out). See, America doesn't want to have to save another European country's ass in World War III, so we are taking steps to prevent it now, as opposed to later.
You call me evil? My soldiers and I were saving far more lives than we ever took in Iraq. In stark opposition to the distorted view you get from the news, the average soldier spends 10 hours a day helping families get food, water, clothes and electricity. Multiply my last sentence by 100,000 troops, and that's the real picture in Iraq. The other 20,000 are fighting troops that are there to protect our mission, to find bad people, and yes, KILL them if necessary. We were establishing security and trying to setup a basic infrastructure so those people can live the idealistic life you keep going on about. However, the ignorantly evil segment of that society keeps bringing the fight to us. Stop poking the US military with a stick, and we'd be out of there in 6 months, with a somewhat functional government and society in place.
Good for you that you study philosophy. I went to college too, so yeah, I had that class. But again, you live in a fantasy land, because the real world doesn't operate on philosophy. You can sit around all you want pondering life, but what really matters is that there is true evil in the world, and because of people like you, that evil goes unchecked and continues to thrive. In other words, there IS a right and a wrong, and my judgement is not distorted by my culture/tribe/village. I am an expert in Middle Eastern Affairs and know more about the Middle East than I do my own country in some respects. If anything, I'm biased towards Arabism, since it has been my career for the past 15 years. I just happen to be a realist and understand that ANY culture ANYWHERE in the world with as much of a broken social structure and miserable education system will breed evil. For you to dismiss radical fundamentalist terrorism as the equivalent to unchecked US occupation is ridiculous and you fail to see right from wrong. And since you keep doing it, allow me: "AS THEY SAY", you will fall on the wrong side of history.
Re:Real Heroes Avoid Killing Like the Plague by itsybitsy · 2007-09-09 15:21 · Score: 1

Since you obviously have NO IDEA of the reality of the situation on the ground in Iraq let me tell you that you are describing the coalition men an women perfectly with this sentence.
Ridiculous. You and your country have killed hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq over the decade or more. That is pure evil and bordering on genocidal. Certainly it is a crime against human beings and your leaders should be prosecuted for war crimes.

Every soldier I worked for was a huge target to the enemy, yet none of them reached for their gun first, nor did any of them go on a seek-and-destroy mission.
That's not relevant. You went into Iraq illegally under false pretenses and lies told you your leaders and the neo-cons. Also, many people were killed by your side in this conflict which makes you evil killers and, in the eyes of those you killed, terrorists.

The average US/UK soldier in Iraq are the REAL heroes, exactly for the reason you described.
Nonsense. You are there to use force by any means necessary. You are acting for big brother and are carrying out evil actions.

Do you think US troops are in Iraq to hunt down and kill people? No.
Well, the casualty reports would dispute your statement.

Their rules of engagement are pretty clear.
Irrelevant you are there to kill when needed. You are the invaders.

They are there to TRY to establish the idealistic peace that you so want.
Then leave them alone.

The reason it is the US Military doing this is because the soft European countries don't have the balls or a better solution, and there is no real world organization that has the clout to pull it off. No, those countries are much like yourself; they'd rather sit around philosophizing about peace, letting the evil grow stronger, until the evil destroys them (or, as recent world history goes, the US bails them out). See, America doesn't want to have to save another European country's ass in World War III, so we are taking steps to prevent it now, as opposed to later.
You are really so deep into the "cult" that you can't even see the evil that you are causing over there.

You call me evil? My soldiers and I were saving far more lives than we ever took in Iraq.
So you admit to taking lives. Yes, if you took lives as part of your involvement over there then you are evil incarnate. You are a terrorist in the eyes of those you killed. You are anti-peace. You are an evil killer.

In stark opposition to the distorted view you get from the news, the average soldier spends 10 hours a day helping families get food, water, clothes and electricity. Multiply my last sentence by 100,000 troops, and that's the real picture in Iraq.
You invaded under false pretenses. You took offensive action and killed. That is evil. Bringing death to people around the world is evil - no matter the purpose.

The other 20,000 are fighting troops that are there to protect our mission, to find bad people, and yes, KILL them if necessary.
Yes, an evil killing force men and women. From the bad people's point of view you are the bad people that they are there to find and get rid of. It's a vicious circle and you are completing it for the next spin of death.

We were establishing security and trying to setup a basic infrastructure so those people can live the idealistic life you keep going on about.
Not relevant.

However, the ignorantly evil segment of that society keeps bringing the fight to us.
Yes, they are evil for their actions as well. All the groups fighting over there are evil if they kill towards their aims - and they are all terrorists.

Stop poking the US military with a stick, and we'd be out of there in 6 months, with a somewhat functional government and society in place.
I'm not poking anyone with a stick. I'm simply pointing out the observation that your actions over there won't solve the problems you think they will. It will just make things worse, and at

Interesting misuse of the word "coed" by Torodung · 2007-09-07 20:21 · Score: 1

Unless, of course, this task force is a training group enrolled in a ROTC program.

The use of the term "coed" dates the author in the first place. At this point, even the Citadel is "coed," the term has been obsolete for about a decade as there are no all-male schools worth mentioning, and this guy really needs to upgrade his vocabulary to a more current version.

--
Toro

Chuck by chiller2 · 2007-09-07 20:23 · Score: 2, Funny

So they emasculated GI Joe? We still have Chuck Norris. Balls of steel!

--
--- Commission free trading & free stock up to $500 - use http://share.robinhood.com/kelvinp6 :)

Ha! Now the boot's on the other foot... by Goth+Biker+Babe · 2007-09-07 20:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

For decades Hollywood has been changing European history or having the US taking claim for discoveries, victories and so on (capturing the Enigma machine, changing a brave member of crew on the Titanic in to a villain, etc). Where was the outcry. Now this is happening and you're all up in arms...

Tough. It's just the movies. Stop crying in your weak chemical beer and live with it.

New /. low by TiggertheMad · 2007-09-07 20:23 · Score: 1

I was always under the impression that the point of libratarian phillosophy was about liberty. (Hence the name.) If it doesn't hurt anyone else, it is fair game. The anti-government streak comes from the fact that centralized government seems to have a tendency to try to regulate everything it can sink its tentacles into.

Any true libratarian will look at this, as was suggested above, and say, 'Oh. They own the rights, ergo, they can do whatever they want with it, since changing the toys that I have memories associated with isn't really HURTING me."

The article is somewhere between idiotic right wing spew and idiotic fanboy spew, with no real substance from either angle.

--

HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!

Re:New /. low by flynns · 2007-09-07 20:30 · Score: 1

As a libertarian (little L) I feel obligated to respond.

Any true libratarian will look at this, as was suggested above, and say, 'Oh. They own the rights, ergo, they can do whatever they want with it, since changing the toys that I have memories associated with isn't really HURTING me."

Yes, but purely from a government-legislation standpoint. (and really particularly from a Federal government standpoint.) I don't think the jerks who are making what will probably be a lousy movie should be prosecuted. I don't think there should be Federal standards regulating movie quality, substance, censorship, etc.

Doesn't mean I won't hate the movie, or complain about it, or refuse to go see it. It just means I think the company ought to have the legal right to make a lousy movie.

And, as so many people have pointed out, GI Joe has been multinational/multicultural/non-real-nation-fighti ng for YEARS.

Yes, the article sucks. And it's spelled "libertarian". We're not advocates of Libratay. ;)

--
'If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.'
Re:New /. low by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 22:11 · Score: 0

IANAL (i am not a libertarian), but wouldn't true libertarians be opposed to "intellectual property" too? Then it would be 'they can to what they want, if someone wants an american style one, they can make their own'
Re:New /. low by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 10:33 · Score: 0

No. Libertarians are opposed to forcing people to stop doing whatever they're doing. Protesting, boycotting and anything else short of harassment is fine, because you aren't hurting them either. You can swing your fist all you like, so long as it doesn't touch their nose.

Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 20:25 · Score: 0

WTB: standards for what goes on Slashdot's frontpage. PST

I cant believe this is on slashdot by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 20:28 · Score: 0

i cant believe this is on slashdot

be fair now.. by rucs_hack · 2007-09-07 20:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

So what about the fundamentalists Christians who want to impose their religion on the rest of the world?

You can't criticize Muslim extremism without realizing that it's just their build of a tool we also employ, and have so employed for many centuries. Only in the past we had no competition that mattered (to those doing the conversions by force anyhow).

They're using bombs and stuff (we've done that), killing themselves to kill others (ok, we haven't usually done that one), but that's because they believe that this is a proper way to die, and their god approves. Odd then that the Koran makes no such claim.

Re:be fair now.. by iamacat · 2007-09-07 21:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

So what about the fundamentalists Christians who want to impose their religion on the rest of the world?

They should be likewise contained. Fortunately, if there are US christians who openly advocated violence against other countries in order to convert their population, they are not in positions of power. I understand that things were different during crusades.

As for Koran, it advocates killing people who commit adultery weather or not they want to follow Islam. While I also consider the Bible to be a work of fiction, any reasonable reading implies that since coming of Jesus killing is questionable even as a self defense. Bush and any proponents of death penalty or abortion doctor killing should be immediately expelled from their Church. From a civilian standpoint though, war, even a strategic war rather than straightforward self-defense, is sometimes necessary to prevent a greater evil.
Re:be fair now.. by BobTheLawyer · 2007-09-07 21:48 · Score: 2

Is that right? Plenty of people have read the bible to show that Jesus permits killing in a wide range of circumstances, and plenty of other people have read the bible to show that Jesus forbids killing, even in self defence...
Re:be fair now.. by rucs_hack · 2007-09-07 22:27 · Score: 1

The bible is fiction, I agree there. I do believe that jesus existed, but I think he was closer to what we might call a revolutionary (or in the bush parlance, a terrorist in the eyes of the jewish leadership), not a religious leader. His legacy was likely co-opted by people who saw a means to gain power by its manipulation.

I certainly don't think that anything jesus had to say is relevant to us, two thousand years later and in an utterly different world.

This sets me apart from religious types, who always seem ready to fight the crusades over again. An odd ideal, since the crusades were a disaster for the Christians by any real measure.
Re:be fair now.. by hasbeard · 2007-09-07 22:46 · Score: 1

Well, I believe Jesus is the Son of God, so we disagree there. If you will read what Jesus said in the Gospels you will find it is extremely relevant to what is happening today. Jesus and the writers of the New Testament gave a description of the evil in the human race that's just as applicable now as it was then.
Re:be fair now.. by rucs_hack · 2007-09-07 23:23 · Score: 1

evil is a relative term, it varies according to culture. Some people for example believe it is evil for a woman to express a desire for independence. This is nonsensical for other people, but usually accepted as fact by religious groups.

The term evil is most often used as a means to differentiate one group from another, most often when the groups involved want what the other has.

The gospels are fine if what you want is a rigidly controlled society. History has shown us that such cultures rarely thrive.
Re:be fair now.. by Pumpkin+Tuna · 2007-09-07 23:29 · Score: 1

Suprising as seems to me, I gotta help Jesus out on this one. I seriously doubt he was divine or anything but he did say some great things about brotherhood and love and turning the other cheek. Granted, his philosopy was based on loving those who believed what he did, but it still is less violent than the rest of the bible and can be extended to modern times when we could all do with a little more empathy. Pity that most of Jesus' biggest fans are the ones with the least empathy.
Re:be fair now.. by MysteriousPreacher · 2007-09-07 23:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

Definitely. Timothy 6:1 is very relevant to me, assuming that slavery is permitted and I find myself serving another. I find the advice on the handling of demonic possession to be pretty useful as long as there happens to be a nearby herd of pigs.

You'll find similar relevence if read Homer's Odyssey or The Epic of Gilgamesh. Simple reason is because they are all stories about men that were written by men (I use the term men to refer to the species, not the gender). Also, you may be inspired by the text, particularly if you can convince yourself that Homer was the son of Zeus or that The Epic of Gilgamesh was written by followers of Kumarbi.

--
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Re:be fair now.. by SLi · 2007-09-08 00:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

While I also consider the Bible to be a work of fiction, any reasonable reading implies that since coming of Jesus killing is questionable even as a self defense. Bush and any proponents of death penalty or abortion doctor killing should be immediately expelled from their Church.

Really? I'm a pacifist Christian who opposes the death penalty and Bush, so let me respond from my point of view.

I do not believe the Bible condemns fighting in a war, at least not clearly. The New Testament talks a lot about (Roman) soldiers, and neither Jesus or the Apostles had anything bad to say about them. A centurion even converted to Christianity, and there's nothing there about him having to leave his job. As much as I consider myself pacifist, I do not attribute that to Christianity.

Death penalty is a punishment for a wide variety of crimes in the Old Testament. That's where it says, "Thou shalt not kill". From what is told in the OT, it seems obvious to me that the alternative rendering of "Thou shalt not murder" captures the intent better. All sides in the Old Testament fight lots of wars and kill a lot, there are even death penalties, and no bad words about that by any profets or anyone else.

In one sense you might be right. You talk about self defense, and that's an issue that's not so clear in Bible. It would be, in my opinion, a fair reading that you should not resort to killing even for self defense. But when commanded by your legitimate king (who got his authority from God, as did all authorities), I believe the Bible tells you to follow the orders of your king unless the orders are in direct contradiction with the Bible - and that would be the Bible as it stands, and you have to weigh what it is credible it means instead of reading into it stuff you'd like to be there, like in my case pacifism and opposition to death penalty.

As much as I'd like to say the Bible condemns wars and the death penalty, I cannot.
Re:be fair now.. by Attila+Dimedici · 2007-09-08 00:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

evil is a relative term, it varies according to culture. Some people for example believe it is evil for a woman to express a desire for independence. This is nonsensical for other people, but usually accepted as fact by religious groups.

The term evil is most often used as a means to differentiate one group from another, most often when the groups involved want what the other has.

The gospels are fine if what you want is a rigidly controlled society. History has shown us that such cultures rarely thrive. Sorry, but the gospels do not promote a rigidly controlled society. In order to promote a rigidly controlled society from the Bible you must place greater emphasis on other parts of the Bible than the Gospels. As for evil being relative, C.S. Lewis did a great job of demonstrating that, if you look closely, while one culture may view an act as evil and another view it as good, that is a result of different understandings of what that act means and what motivates it. If one looks at what the two cultures view as evil in a more abstract sense, one discovers that it is the same. If I remembered which of his books it was in, I would go pull it off the shelf and give a better summation of the argument.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:be fair now.. by rucs_hack · 2007-09-08 01:34 · Score: 1

are you for real? Of course the gospels promote rigid control. If you want it spelled out, those who enforce the gospels as universal truth use them to promote rigid control. Or are you so enamored of sermons that you neglect to study on your own.

I'm not speaking as a lifelong atheist here, I was a catholic once.

Every time someone has tried to lessen the effect of religious control on any society they have been persecuted. This is a fact that cannot be disputed by proper research.

Evil has always been, and will remain, predominantly 'that which causes people to behave in a manner other then I wish them to behave'. On some levels societies agree on evil. It's usually bad to murder. In India its acceptable to some that females be killed if they 'harm the family honor', but they are appalled by murder if it involves a man or a 'good wife'. The roman catholic church honored genital mutilation until earlier this century. Muslim religions still consider it appropriate for females.

One universal feature of evil is that religions take it upon themselves to define it. You'd be amazed how frequently evil is ascribed to people who are 'not of the faithful', or are female. I certainly was.
Re:be fair now.. by rucs_hack · 2007-09-08 01:37 · Score: 1

You make I giggle...
Re:be fair now.. by rucs_hack · 2007-09-08 01:40 · Score: 1

Let me clarify. I don't think he was violent. I just said he was a revolutionary. I happen to think he had some good idea's. At least those that can be parsed from the religious bollocks that pervades the bible.

I will never believe he was the son of god. I can see no reason why someone capable of creating an infinite universe would be interested in making a human. We just aren't that special, we are, when it comes down to it, apes that can make things.
Re:be fair now.. by thesandtiger · 2007-09-08 01:44 · Score: 1

They're using bombs and stuff (we've done that), killing themselves to kill others (ok, we haven't usually done that one), but that's because they believe that this is a proper way to die, and their god approves. Odd then that the Koran makes no such claim.

I don't disagree with your general point, but I do disagree with your assessment of why they blow themselves up. The reason they do it and we don't isn't because of a strange read of the Koran, it's because of a massive disparity between the strength of relative forces. Suicide bombing is a *very* effective tool for waging psychological warfare and also has a disproportionate effect on the morale and productive ability of the target forces.

For the most part, suicide attacks are going to be limited to parties in an unfavorable position, and they will be used then as desperate, last ditch efforts. The religification of it is just to make it palatable to the people doing it. It's a cynical tool used to get pawns to sacrifice themselves. And, on the other side, people here use it as a way to rally up support for anti-islamic sentiment. "They will never stop! Their 'god' tells them to do this!" and similar nonsense.

And it works, somewhat. I mean, there's something horrifying about the notion that someone could just walk right up to you and blow themselves up - the "enemy" is THAT dedicated, THAT willing to sacrifice themselves, etc. It's a more gruesome and personal version of the Tet offensive - they show that they're willing to sacrifice staggering numbers or just do incredibly gruesome shit that we don't have the stomach for, and they hope we back down. It also fails in that regard because it gives the hyper-militant types an excuse to push for total war because they have a seemingly reasonable argument that there's no way to make peace with an enemy that'll blow themselves up to make a point.

Anyway, I'm just saying that I don't think anyone but the people blowing themselves up (and possibly, often, even not them) or people who desperately need to understand why someone did it and unable to accept the cynical but true answer (most probably the families of the suicide bombers) thinks it's actually religious really - it's just used as a tool.

--
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Re:be fair now.. by rucs_hack · 2007-09-08 01:47 · Score: 1

The new testament was written once many romans were willingly converting to Christianity. Therefore it would have been a seriously bad idea to say much on the subject of hating the romans.
Re:be fair now.. by RobotRunAmok · 2007-09-08 03:16 · Score: 1

So what about the fundamentalists Christians who want to impose their religion on the rest of the world?

They're about as numerous today as the Vegans and PETAns who want to impose their religion on the rest of the world, except that the Vegans and PETAns are more organized. Really, what Christian sect advocates violence? Name a Christian cleric today who exhorts his flock to criminality -- other than Rev. Al Sharpton? You can't. Or if you google around enough, you find some lone nut job who bombs a mosque or abortion clinic, only to see every Roman collar within a hundred mile radius of the crime piling on him in the press like he was Lucifer himself.

When was the last time any Muslim cleric of any prominence went on record as denouncing the violence done in Allah's name?

Sure, Middle Ages, Witch Burning, Spanish Inquisition, Oliver Cromwell massacring the Catholics (do you count that?)... but that was centuries ago, bro'! We're living in the 21st Century, and a *significantly* large sect of far-right religious fundamentalists are *actively* and *unabashedly* looking to blow up people who worship a god different than their own, and the apologists among their potential victims are looking to shield them in public opinion by pretending they're no worse than bible-thumping evangelists who organize letter campaigns to ban video games. I mean, life is short, Bunky, and if you want to spend a part of yours hammering away at religious right-wingers, that's your call, but why don't you "blog" about the ones who conceal their women in burkhas, riot over cartoons, and strap C4 vests onto children; and save the guys who edit down and re-distribute R-rated movies and march around peacefully in front of abortion clinics for a time when that scimitar isn't pointed at your neck?

And the sad thing is, Muslim society was, once upon a time, way more civilized than the Christian West of the same era. But they dropped the ball, or at the very least took their eyes off it, and now they clamor to re-claim their former glory. With bombs and bullets. Fuck that.
Re:be fair now.. by Scrameustache · 2007-09-08 03:31 · Score: 3, Informative

Fortunately, if there are US christians who openly advocated violence against other countries in order to convert their population, they are not in positions of power. "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."

Mr Bush, who became a born-again Christian at 40, is one of the most overtly religious leaders to occupy the White House, a fact which brings him much support in middle America.

--
You can't take the sky from me...
Re:be fair now.. by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 03:44 · Score: 0

I believe he also said that Atheists have no place in society as it is one nation under god.

Also have a look at the documentary "Gods Next Army" (Channel 4). Not in a place of power? They have been for years.
Re:be fair now.. by stdarg · 2007-09-08 03:54 · Score: 1

Hmm I don't really get what you're saying. Your farcical example of how relevant the Bible is implies that you don't find it relevant, but your examples of the Odyssey and Gilgamesh seem sincere. At least, I've always thought those stories had relevance to today. Did I misinterpret your feelings about the Bible?

Anyway, I think Timothy isn't part of the Gospels. Isn't it just Mark, John, Luke, Matthew?
Re:be fair now.. by stdarg · 2007-09-08 04:00 · Score: 1

I don't know, are you thinking of the Gospels (the books chronicling the life of Jesus) or the rest of the Bible, which is full of "God's laws" and all that? I don't see how healing the sick and raising the dead is related to a strictly controlled society.
Re:be fair now.. by stdarg · 2007-09-08 04:07 · Score: 1

Just because Jesus didn't say "Don't kill people!" to every soldier doesn't mean he condoned it. I mean, according to the Bible doesn't everybody sin? And yet Jesus didn't go around saying "I know you cheated on your wife, that's bad. I know you didn't pay for that bread, that's bad." etc. It would really detract from the flow of the story because he'd constantly be talking. :)

I recently read a book that made the case that "Thou shalt not kill" has been mistranslated and should be more like "Thou shalt not murder." In other words, there are times when killing a person is justified and times when it's not. Jesus probably wouldn't kill anybody, and from what he said it seems like revenge is generally not justification. But wars, self defense, protection of your family usually aren't considered "murder" so maybe God thinks they're okay too.
Re:be fair now.. by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 04:19 · Score: 1, Informative

They should be likewise contained. Fortunately, if there are US christians who openly advocated violence against other countries in order to convert their population, they are not in positions of power.

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
- George W. Bush
Re:be fair now.. by brouski · 2007-09-08 04:32 · Score: 1

First, all we have are second and third hand accounts of what Bush actually said in this meeting.

Second, I'd be willing to bet the people that keep these quotes handy don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth most of the time, so why do these same people assume he was being sincere here?

--
Proud member of the American Non Sequitur Society. We might not make much sense, but boy do we love pizza!
Re:be fair now.. by stdarg · 2007-09-08 04:34 · Score: 1

I wish you were right but I think support for terrorists is more widespread than you think. Don't you remember this poll that said something like 6% of British Muslims (nearly 100000 people) fully condoned the London tube attacks? And another 20% or something had at least some sympathy for them? And that was very soon after the attacks, when 99.9% of British Muslims should have been wanting to distance themselves from a statement like that (and indeed, I'm sure the actual number is higher than reported since there's gotta be some fear of retaliation when saying something like that).
Re:be fair now.. by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 05:04 · Score: 0

>>I certainly don't think that anything jesus had to say is relevant to us, two thousand years later and in an utterly different world.

Right. Telling people to love one another and all that old crap has no place in the modern world.
Re:be fair now.. by meta-monkey · 2007-09-08 05:50 · Score: 1

Bravo. Couldn't have said it better myself.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Re:be fair now.. by thesandtiger · 2007-09-08 05:51 · Score: 1

There's a difference between supporting the attacks and thinking that the reason for them is religious. But, I do agree that people *should* want to distance themselves from such statements.

What I'd be interested in seeing would be a similar poll amongst USian Christians asking whether or not they'd support nuking Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc. From the number of "glass parking lot" comments I see in various forums and the right-wing AM radio diatribes that I hear from time to time, I would guess that there would be at least 6% supporting such a statement. That doesn't mean that they think it's a tenet of Christianity to nuke people - it just means that they're in favor of using that particular tactic to address what they think is a big issue.

--
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Re:be fair now.. by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 06:34 · Score: 0

Actually, that was his daddy, George H. W. Bush.
Re:be fair now.. by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 07:13 · Score: 0

That was his father: "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
Re:be fair now.. by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 09:54 · Score: 0

Sooo... how many people are murdered in the name of Jesus on a monthly basis, vs, say, Allah? Yes your absolutely right, it's teh scary Christians that are going to hurt us :'(

Seriously, WTF are you smoking? There's far more crazy misguided people doing things that are "written in the Koran" vs any Christian group. We might as well declare war on extreme Enivromental groups in that case while we're at it.

Sigh... I'm waiting to hear how Christians eat babies next.
Re:be fair now.. by Descalzo · 2007-09-08 11:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

so why do these same people assume he was being sincere here?
Well, it definitely suits them to believe it in this case.

--
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
Re:be fair now.. by MysteriousPreacher · 2007-09-08 12:51 · Score: 1

Some parts of The Bible are definitely relevent today, in fact many parts contain pretty good, if unoriginal advice. The problems begin when people believe The Bible to be the word of God. As well as the sensible advice, there are plenty of delusions and downright nasty things.

We can compare The Bible to the Star Wars series of films.

I watch Star Wars and think that there are some good moral messages in there. That's good and well but what happens if I believe that Star Wars is factual?

If I accept it as factual, I get a lot more than the 'good will overcome evil' message. I will have to believe in the existence of wookies, star destroyers and Darth Vader. Since Darth Vader's redemption was completed by his death, I might apply that to others. John, my next door neighbour, seems a bit evil to me so I'd better kill him in order to save him from the dark side. Obi Wan became 'more powerful than you can possibly imagine' when he was killed by Darth Vader. With that in mind, I'll go get myself killed so I can become powerful. When you look at what the religious are doing, this silly example doesn't seem very funny. The Bible may have served a purpose in the past but we have better ways to teach good moral behaviour.

Timothy isn't one of the gospels but it's certainly part of the New Testament - presumably because God wants it there.

--
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Re:be fair now.. by denttford · 2007-09-08 19:24 · Score: 1

That's where it says, "Thou shalt not kill". From what is told in the OT, it seems obvious to me that the alternative rendering of "Thou shalt not murder" captures the intent better.

Damn, it's not a preference in rendering, it's blatantly a mistranslation. Common biblical Hebrew verb root h.r.g, to cause something to die, roughly, to kill : irrespective of morality (Eccl. 3:3, Ex. 13:15, and Ps. 136:18 vs. Gen. 4:8 and a whole host of others), or even sentience of subject (Is. 22:13).

The verb in question (Ex. 20 / Deut. 5) is of the root r.tz.ch., which roughly translates in modern English into murder. The use of the term can also encompass what would be thought of as manslaughter today, where there was some liability but no intent. Most examples of this verb root imply nasty actions, where the evil of the actor is blatant : those who kill (h.r.g) non-Israelite residents/converts and widows and murder (r.tz.ch) orphans (Ps. 94:6), etc.

However, the section on cities of refuge uses the root repeatedly, to describe a murderer (Num. 35:16,17,18), one who committed manslaughter (Num 35:25), and the victim's "blood avenger," which the text exonerates (Num 35:27), but as one might think the intentional killing is wrong, the verb is used there as well. (As an aside, the other death verb used (and usually underlying the translation of "shall surely die") is m.w.t, in a causative construct - to cause to die. (Yes, this is the same root as Mot. Some Stargate characters are also common Hebrew words.)

Yes, OT (pun intended) but I cannot believe that this still gets repeated as if it is of some great theological consequence. Asserting that someone suffers from cognitive dissonance because they derive value from the Bible and support, I dunno, the death penalty, is wrong - at least on the basis of "Thou shalt not kill." Christ, how people can invest so much of their belief in the divinity of a text and then use a fucking translation is beyond me.

It's also well documented and easily explained. Doesn't make it any less frustrating. Back to my drink.

--

Leben Sie jetzt die Fragen.
Re:be fair now.. by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 19:41 · Score: 0

"So what about the fundamentalists Christians who want to impose their religion on the rest of the world?"

That's a rather curious characterization. Care to share any recent examples that might support such a serious charge? I would sooner count on a Christian fundamentalist than a "Christian" that feels compelled to reinterpret the Bible every time there is a cultural shift.

"You can't criticize Muslim extremism without realizing that it's just their build of a tool we also employ, and have so employed for many centuries. Only in the past we had no competition that mattered (to those doing the conversions by force anyhow)."

Yes, we can! When was the last time a Human Rights watch group *seriously* criticized Iran or Syria for their active roles in supporting and funding terrorism? They much rather jump on isolated incidents of atrocities by sick individuals in the U.S. military than criticize Syria's complacency with flying terrorists from Damascus to Baghdad. Besides, your logic is utterly absurd! If our own history invalidates our right to defend our freedom than all of humanity is lost, because the same precedent would hold true for others who dare to do the same for themselves!

"Odd then that the Koran makes no such claim."

I would think that most people would find the literal interpretations of most religious texts to be boring. Scholars wishing to discredit major religions won't have trouble poking holes or finding contradictions in the literal religious text, but will predictably fail to accomplish their objective, because they underestimate the human desire for spirituality. What really matters is the interpretation.

regards,
anonymous-kwood
Re:be fair now.. by Attila+Dimedici · 2007-09-09 03:16 · Score: 1

I have read the Bible through several times and I believe that, taken in context, it promotes thinking for oneself. However, it is possible to use certain parts to promote rigid controls. It is not possible to use the four Gospels to promote rigid control. Repeatedly in the Gospels, Jesus condemns people who insist on rigid control. You mention that you were catholic (I assume by this that you mean a member of the Roman Catholic Church, not that you were universal), one of the major flaws of the Catholic Church is that its structure allows priests who wish control to encourage people to not study on their own, but merely listen to the priest's interpretation. The New Testament strongly encourages people to study on their own (it also encourages them to temper their conclusions by discussing with others).

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:be fair now.. by Descalzo · 2007-09-09 08:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

evil is a relative term, it varies according to culture. Some people for example believe it is evil for a woman to express a desire for independence. This is nonsensical for other people, but usually accepted as fact by religious groups.
It depends on what you mean. Evil is decidedly not relative. Slavery was always evil, especially the way it was practiced in the US. It just took the world a long time to discover that it was evil.
Where I think that you are correct is that cultures have different understandings of what constitutes evil. Some cultures recognize it, others don't. People disagree about what is evil all the time. But to insist that there is no such thing as evil, independent of what you or I believe constitutes evil, is a terrible thing. Such insistence may not be evil, but it certainly assists evil.
There IS a moral high ground, and we should all try to occupy it. We absolutely must judge other cultures and societies (not to mention our own!) on how well they adhere to good and reject evil. Otherwise, if I want to belong to a culture in which, say, murder is acceptable, all I need to do is find one or start one. Then murder would not be evil.
Judging from the rest of your post, I doubt you were really saying that there was no such thing as evil. I also agree with what you seemed to be saying: just because a religion says it is good doesn't make it good.

--
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
Re:be fair now.. by tehcyder · 2007-09-09 22:53 · Score: 1

if there are US christians who openly advocated violence against other countries in order to convert their population, they are not in positions of power.
*cough* Bush *cough*

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:be fair now.. by stdarg · 2007-09-10 09:49 · Score: 1

That's a good point, although I believe separating religious and political motivations in Islam is pretty much impossible since it was started and spread as not just a personal religion but a State.

Anyway, to explain a bit more about what I meant, I agree that the actual technique of suicide bombing is inspired by their disadvantage in terms of force. If they had the advantage, I'm sure they wouldn't be doing it. But my understanding of your post was that you took that a step further and said that only the bombers and a few others believed that it was "actually religious", which I guess I interpreted as you saying suicide bombing isn't condoned by Islam or other Muslims. I think that for the most part, though, it is condoned and encouraged in exactly these types of situations (when Allah wants to scare the enemy because a simple victory isn't in their grasp).
Re:be fair now.. by Scrameustache · 2007-09-10 13:28 · Score: 1

Fortunately, if there are US christians who openly advocated violence against other countries in order to convert their population, they are not in positions of power. [duh, Bush]

so why do these same people assume he was being sincere here?

Well, it definitely suits them to believe it in this case. Who said anything about sincerity? He's clearly pandering.
It doesn't matter if he really believes Jesus wants him to bomb numerous countries (!), it matters if people vote for him because he says so.

--
You can't take the sky from me...

Re:Jesus Fucking Anonymous Coward by PCM2 · 2007-09-07 20:54 · Score: 1

I for one welcome the mass exodus of our cursing, pointless, threatening, whining-for-attention, anonymous coward overlords!!!

Indeed! Back to Soviet Russia ... where the overlords welcome YOU!

--
Breakfast served all day!

Re:Ha! Now the boot's on the other foot... by Polumna · 2007-09-07 20:56 · Score: 1

Hey. I don't know where all these accusations that we Americans learn bad history from movies. I just watched a fine film, based on true events, where we bombed the crap out of those Hungarians to liberate the French (for like the billionth time) from their Polish neighbors in the Great War of the World of 1812. Now I know all about the Geneva treaty, which was of course written in Austria when our brave soldiers stopped by because weed is legal there.

You've got us on the beer though. That stuff is swill.

Too late by DerekLyons · 2007-09-07 21:00 · Score: 1

Maybe the blog author missed the 1980's... The decade where those of us who grew up with the orignal G.I. Joe had our memories and childhood pissed on by Hollywood and it's politically correct and multicultural cartoon.

national SOCIALIST WORKERS party by sanman2 · 2007-09-07 21:11 · Score: 1

They were quite famous for their socialism, which meant that their nationalism quickly veered into nationalization (ie. confiscation of private sector assets for the 'public good')

Re:national SOCIALIST WORKERS party by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 07:02 · Score: 0

They were quite famous for their socialism,

You're a fucking retard. I'm sorry to call you that, but the name of something and what it is are two separate things, especially in politics, and anyone who can't grasp that, should just stay the hell away from political discussions...

The Nazis presented themselves as an anti-communist party from the get-go. However, they kept losing elections as they were seen as the ignorant hick party, so to shore up their image, they formed an alliance with a number of prominent German socialists, forming the National Socialist Workers Party with the stated promise of supporting worker's rights, while at the same time opposing the communists attempts to reshape society. This got them a lot more votes in the working class, and made the party respectable enough for the upper class to accept.

This was all nothing more than a publicity stunt, however, and as soon as the party's rule was secure, they began MURDERING their socialist members. In keeping with the rule that the right is evil and the left is dumb, many of these socialists were shocked and uncomprehending up until the moment of their own deaths.
"Why would they turn on us? We're on the same side, against the communist thre--UURRRK!"

Truth, Justice... by SMacD · 2007-09-07 21:14 · Score: 1

reminds me of the "controversy" over Superman Returns.

Truth, Justice, and... all that stuff.

On one hand, they're screwing over the canon, the history of the character/story. On the other hand, they have a worldwide market to appeal to, and the rest of the world hates us. (mostly because they want to BE us... jealous, but whatever)

Re:Truth, Justice... by damburger · 2007-09-07 21:59 · Score: 1

I'm english, and I can safely say nobody I know whats to be an American. Your society is largely viewed with contempt, not jealousy, but Europeans

--
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Re:Truth, Justice... by Haiyadragon · 2007-09-08 02:02 · Score: 1

No, we just plain old hate you.
Re:Truth, Justice... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 03:46 · Score: 0

Did you happen to be educated in a U.S. public school, though? Your writing certainly could pass for that of my countrymen.

Regardless by Retting · 2007-09-07 21:14 · Score: 0

No matter how you feel about the US now, you are still shitting on people who rescued the world from tyranny. Hollywood is very fortunate that generation is almost dead. WWII won't have to be taught in school now. Instead lets teach our kids about African tribes and memorizing the names of various baskets. O wait lets install feet washing things in colleges across the US. Or better yet remove all reference to holocaust from text books because some people might get upset. Its funny most of you act as if everyone wants piece. But forget there are buttons that make continents disappear and everyone dies. Yah thats it people got to mutually assured annihilation because we wanted piece.

Feeding a troll ... by hachete · 2007-09-07 21:14 · Score: 1

This feels like feeding a troll, but G.I. Joe is a brand name owned by Hasbro.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.I._Joe

As owners, and good American capitalists, they can do what they want with the brand-name. They've already entered into the realm of multiculturalism by celebrating the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Airmen, black airmen who fought during www2.

--
Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious

Re:Feeding a troll ... by MysteriousPreacher · 2007-09-08 00:05 · Score: 1

They've already entered into the realm of multiculturalism by celebrating the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Airmen, black airmen who fought during www2.

I suspect that had the blogger been writing 30 years ago, he'd be pretty annoyed about having Good 'ol G.I. Joe associatin' with them coloured folks. Still can't decide whether the blog is real or a parody though.

--
-- Using the preview button since 2005

From Fox News by mr100percent · 2007-09-07 21:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's source is a Fox News piece. You remember them, they're the ones who claimed beloved children's television host "Mr Rogers destroyed an entire generation of children's lives."

Once I got to "Hollywood limousine liberals" in the article, my eyes started to glaze over. The blogger is like The Rude Pundit, only not being as sarcastic.

To the merits of the discussion: Hollywood does not like to get too mired in political controversies. Show me a pro-Palestine movie from Hollywood. They may be socially liberal, but know that certain things won't make them money and will only bring trouble. Still, they support the troops, and get outraged when someone tries to blame the troops. Maybe the fact that the troops have changed in demographics, becoming more black and hispanic and female, means that the G.I. Joe is no longer that representative?

Re:From Fox News by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 03:37 · Score: 0

To the merits of the discussion: Hollywood does not like to get too mired in political controversies. Show me a pro-Palestine movie from Hollywood. They may be socially liberal, but know that certain things won't make them money and will only bring trouble.
Steven Spielberg's Munich.
Re:From Fox News by ProfBooty · 2007-09-08 04:14 · Score: 1

Munich?

--
Bring back the old version of slashdot.

Re:Plastic Toy by Nymz · 2007-09-07 21:24 · Score: 1

But isn't this a discussion about a plastic toy?

No, the toy arrived a couple decades later in the 1960s, World War II happened in the 30s-40s.

Re:Plastic Toy by 1u3hr · 2007-09-07 21:38 · Score: 1

I know when WWII happened. But this discussion is about a cartoon and a toy, and though I'm no expert, I believe it's 60 years since Nazis were part of any GI Joe story. Joe has been fighting aliens and costumed villains since then. So to get apoplectic about the descration of the Nazi-fighting "Greatest Generation" symbol as TFA does is ludicrous.

spam by Zulu · 2007-09-07 21:49 · Score: 0

Is slashdot turning into the new digg? Hey guys lets spam our blogs?! :LOL-ADWORDS:
ffs.

Oxymoron meter has pegged!!!! by rts008 · 2007-09-07 21:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you are going to base your argument on made up parameters, then what's to stop the other side from doing the same?....Where does it stop? (I know, in this case it stops at your opinion).

Here, let me spell it out for you:

The basic formula (long ago established) is:
1. Rape
2. Pillage (modern def.:loot,physical destruction/vandalize, derisive graffiti,lewd gestures, etc.)
3. Burn
4. ????
5. Profit (hey!, this is /.!)

So, to correct your post:

'At least the greenpeace protesters would have pimped the fourteen year old girl(and her mom- I've seen those web sites!), pissed in their well, spray-painted gang signs on their front door, and then kill and burn her entire family, and invent a story that they were under attack when it all happened...self-made film at 11!'

I had a run in with you people once. I was a Vet Tech at a major Mid-West Veterinary college.
The tree-huggers (yes, Greenpeace and PETA- a joint effort) decided that we would NOT perform euthanasia on the research sheep!!!!!
(sports medicine research-basically the doctor surgically 'hole-punched'[yes, an actual office type hole punch I had sterilized!] the Achilles' Heel(hock)on the sheep, and tried different healing protocols to determine the best treatment method for torn tendons/ligaments.

Before you and your ilk made their unwelcome presence, we used to use the (appropriate!) research animals as the centerpiece of a big cook-out/party, or, if more PRACTICAL, we would 'donate' the critter to a seemingly worthy person(donate-meaning a 'warranty' on the critter-free health care). Thanks to you, now all that can be done is to rely on euthanasia.

Back to the story....PETA and Greenpeace marching in the doors as I am clocking in at 0800...
Dr. H:
What are we going to do? I have to euthanise the research sheep today or get crosswise with the terms!

Me: How quick can you get the 'blue juice'? (VERY concentrated barbituate used to put critters 'to sleep')

Dr. H.: They're coming in the front door!

Me: How quick can you get me the blue juice?

Dr. H. I have it in my pocket, why?

Me: GIVE! *fills 6 syringes- 6 sheep(Yeah I know..say this 6 times fast...), enters pen holding sheep- grabs sheep #1...injects in jugular....rinse and repeat 5 more times- in 55 seconds*

Dr. H. *meets delegation of tree-huggers, and falls back to my position in defense*

FW's (short for Fsck Wads, ie:tree huggers and their ilk): We will not allow the murder of these research animals...they are only poor sheep!

Dr. H.: Hhmm, errhh, it seems my assistant has already sent these poor sheep to heaven while we were heading this way.

Me:*coming out of pen, stuffing syringes in pockets, give a two thumbs up to Dr. H., and attempt to go on my way*

FW's: Hey! Wait a minute! Those sheep are already dead! We just got here!

Me: Yes, they were scheduled to be euthanised at 0805 today.

FW's: Yes, but it's only 8:06!!??!

Me: Yes, 6 sheep means: "Gone In 60 Seconds" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0187078/)

All joking aside, it was very easy to catch, expose jugular vein, and inject blue juice into all 6 sheep in less than a minute. (10 ft.x 10 ft. pen, and the sheep still a bit groggy from the last surgery to evaluate the treatment protocols)....And yes, I am a wolf!

Remember kiddies: if it bleeds, you can kill it! (props to the movie 'Predator' for this gem)

--
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti

Re:Oxymoron meter has pegged!!!! by Lemmy+Caution · 2007-09-08 05:06 · Score: 1

I'm no fan of PETA, but as to your original point:

You are aware of the case of US soldiers in Iraq doing exactly what the GP described, aren't you? It's not a hypothetical. There really is a difference in the behavior between peace activists, even when they are being irrational and rude, and military forces of occupation.
Re:Oxymoron meter has pegged!!!! by meta-monkey · 2007-09-08 06:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

Here's an amazing insight for you: some individuals, despite group identification, are, in fact, bad. I know, crazy stuff. I should write a book.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Re:Oxymoron meter has pegged!!!! by Lemmy+Caution · 2007-09-08 06:25 · Score: 1

But they're not evenly bad. The distribution of "bad people" is not the same within the Hell's Angels as it is within the Peace Corps. And different groups produce different norms of behavior.

The whole "there's always some bad people" line strikes me as hand-waving.
Re:Oxymoron meter has pegged!!!! by DavidShor · 2007-09-08 09:17 · Score: 1

Ok, so a sample self selected on the ability and will to kill, happens to be more violent than the norm. Surprised?
Re:Oxymoron meter has pegged!!!! by Lemmy+Caution · 2007-09-08 10:52 · Score: 1

No, but I'm not canonizing these people like many are wont to do, either.
Re:Oxymoron meter has pegged!!!! by Oldav · 2007-09-09 17:38 · Score: 0

You are a asshole of the highest order, you sound proud of the actions you took. 1 greenpeace member is worth 100 of the likes of you. which part of the US are you from again? Pity they didnt give you the blue stuff too.
Re:Oxymoron meter has pegged!!!! by tehcyder · 2007-09-09 21:55 · Score: 1

Ok, so a sample self selected on the ability and will to kill, happens to be more violent than the norm. Surprised?
No, and that's why you have such things as rules of engagemnt, military discipline, the Geneva convention and so on.
The military shouldn't let things get to the stage where soldiers can think that rape and murder are acceptable, once you believe that then you're no better than the likes of Saddam Hussein.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Oxymoron meter has pegged!!!! by DavidShor · 2007-09-10 04:41 · Score: 1

Agreed.

Re:Plastic Toy by Nymz · 2007-09-07 22:00 · Score: 1

I know when WWII happened. But this discussion is about a cartoon and a toy

Sorry, I thought we were discussing the summary or the article, and they both refer to the 'American WWII soldier' and the 'Real American Hero G.I. Joe'. They say absolutely nothing about a 'toy' which I only now realize is your area of intense interest, which would explain why you have zero empathy for others.

Re:A novel idea by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 22:12 · Score: 1

It's not like it was quasi doomed from the start. Look at Transformers they wittled down the cast of robots in disguise to a handful, still kicked my childhood in the nuts (Prowler was the cop car Michael Bay, you fucking hack), and got a pass on character development because of special effects, low expectations for robots, and Megan Fox being a stone fox. All that and they still barely made the hurdle.

Now instead of a robot from another world, insert ridiculous characters like Scarlet fighitng with a crossbow in high heels no less, a 2-Der John Wayne copy, a lady who shoots down jet planes with javalins, and Shipwreck (my favorite) a career barnacle scraper who crashes his F-14 so he can eject, paracute in and punch-out Zartan. And let's not get started on Tomax and Xamot.

The only way to do a GI Joe and have it even moderately palettable would be to have it as an origins story. Snake Eyes, Flint, Roadblock and two less ridiculous characters are all brought together by COBRA's nefferious plot. Sadly, the only guy who might be able to pull it off who would even consider trying to pull it off would be Bay. Then throw 200 million at it and hope that it comes off like the best A-Team episode ever, where it's so charming, everyone overlooks the flaws.

Poor G.I. Joe. by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 22:18 · Score: 0

And even now, the soul of G.I. Joe is being misused by unscrupulous bloggers to drive advertising. They write about G.I. Joe under the guise of concern for his health - but they're just looking for ad delivery.

Maybe the blogger and advertisers involved will donate their income directly to G.I. Joe's family, who are obviously in great need during these difficult times.

Good Start by coyote4til7 · 2007-09-07 22:21 · Score: 1

And about damn time they celebrated people like the Tuskegee Airmen.

Making GI Joe into something that isn't about kicking whatever non-American butt is handy is a good second step. A better step would be to assign him to kick Dick Cheney's butt ... hehehe!

--

the clock on the wall says 4 til 7

The mormon game by rucs_hack · 2007-09-07 22:23 · Score: 1

I used to own a mormon bible from someone who strangely believed that giving it to me would result in instant conversion. They were rather wrong..

I used to make small bets (of the 'you buy the next round' type), that it was impossible to open it randomly and not find a reference to violence. I never lost.

Back then it was a laugh, but in recent years that fact has given me pause for thought. Is there such a thing as a non violent religion? I honestly can't think of one. Even those that aren't seem to hold the seeds for violence if they got real power.

Re:The mormon game by Nimey · 2007-09-08 01:59 · Score: 1

Is there such a thing as a non violent religion?

Discordianism. Quakerism. The Sufis? I think also the Amish.

Someone else can come up with other examples, I'm sure.

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem
Re:The mormon game by Danathar · 2007-09-08 02:35 · Score: 1

Yes...Zen Buddhism...IF you consider it a religion.
Re:The mormon game by MysteriousPreacher · 2007-09-08 13:10 · Score: 1

Heh heh. I've done the same thing with The Koran and it's pretty difficult to find a page that doesn't mention violence or provide guidance on how to deal with unbelievers. I'm hard pushed to come up with a non-violent religion, at least among the Abrahamic faiths.
Even the elderly woman sitting at her parish meeting is following a religion based on one of the most violent books ever compiled. It's quite funny to raise some of more dodgy sections of The Bible and find that they didn't even know they were in there. Jesus may be portrayed as this nice bearded guy but his dad is a total arse hole.

--
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Re:The mormon game by swalker42 · 2007-09-08 15:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

I used to own a mormon bible
Interesting...
The 'mormon bible' that I own is the King James version - the one that most of the Christian world accepts as canon
Not that you accept that as canon either - not that I think you should - to each his own

Even those that aren't seem to hold the seeds for violence if they got real power.
You find what you are looking for in anything you read or watch - if you're looking for violence you will find it.
I think what you've discovered is that people are violent and they will use whatever means they can to justify it.

--
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means
Re:The mormon game by sumdumass · 2007-09-09 18:30 · Score: 1

I'm interested in these more dodgy sections of The Bible. Could you reference a couple.

The Bible is more or less a collection of short stories that to some degree are historical representations mixed in with some fables and attempts to explain the unknown. I think this is where the "morals" that society strives for comes from, it was intended to show a way of life with a moral to the stories. But at the same time, it was intended to get everyone on the same page about the morals.

I have read the bible several times and have noticed that with more readings you tend to understand things more. It also helps to have an understanding of some of the original greek, roman, and hebrew words that the king james version have been translated through. Some of the dodgy sections tend to have meanings beyond face value. Sometimes it changes the context and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it justifies outrageous event and sometimes it shows the wrath of the religion.
Re:The mormon game by MysteriousPreacher · 2007-09-10 20:06 · Score: 1

I'm at work so It's not safe for me to look up references. I'd consider the following areas a bit dodgy though.

Lot's repeated drunken incest.
The concubine that was dismembered and popped in to the post.
The kind gentlemen who gave his daughter to an angry mob to save two angels from being soddomised.
Jesus telling us to give away our posessions if asked to do so.
Jesus, rather coldly refusing to help a woman whose child was posessed until she convinced him with a clever argument.
Numerous executions for petty infractions, such a gathering firewood on the sabbath
Pillage, rape and kidnapping - all cheered on by God

The main reason I'd label them dodgy is that most Christians I meet fall in to the 'Jesus loves us and he's a swell guy' category. Most of them are ignoring the behaviour of their god, as described in The Bible. I went through a Catholic education and grew up thinking that God was a nice guy but when I actually read The Bible for myself, that illusion was totally shattered and it was a genuinally upsetting experience. There are some good morals to be found in The Bible but overall, it's a poor source of moral guidance.

--
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Re:The mormon game by sumdumass · 2007-09-11 04:20 · Score: 1

Some of those I have heard before. It should be interesting to note that not everything in the bible is don't by an act of god. What I mean by that is some of the stories have what others are doing to build up to a point or moral. Like the end result of the "The kind gentlemen who gave his daughter to an angry mob to save two angels from being soddomised." was that the two cities were destroyed and the kind gentleman along with his family were led away first. (well, except the pillar of salt part)

Some of them I will have to look up. I don't specifically remember those parts. But yea, from an straight forward looking, they do seem to be dodgy.
The main reason I'd label them dodgy is that most Christians I meet fall in to the 'Jesus loves us and he's a swell guy' category. Most of them are ignoring the behaviour of their god, as described in The Bible. I went through a Catholic education and grew up thinking that God was a nice guy but when I actually read The Bible for myself, that illusion was totally shattered and it was a genuinally upsetting experience. There are some good morals to be found in The Bible but overall, it's a poor source of moral guidance.
I would agree to a point.

The main purpose of the bible it to show how a god decided to rule with love an compassion after an iron fist didn't seem to be working. But one of the premises about the bible, and many other religions, is free will. It seems to be a source of power to the gods. It is almost like they expel energy to force their will onto people but gain strength from them voluntarily coming around.

Maybe what you are seeing with all this violence is how the bible builds up to the compassionate and loving god. But yes, there is a transformation in there.

Now to preface what I have said, I'm not really a religious person. I don't believe one religion to be more correct over another and nor do I care that some people don't believe in a religion to the point it becomes a religion of it's own right (I'm talking about atheism here).

I never had a formal church environment or anything like you had. But I like to see what makes other tick. Reading and understanding the bible and stuff seems to be a good way into that. There are a lot of people who are brainwashed into believing things because it is the popular thing to do or because their parents told them or or a host of other reasons. They do seem to be shattered emotionally when you tell them something they don't want to believe. I remember the reactions I got when I told some people that "Jesus was a Jew". They about blew a gasket. I also remember being called a racist and antisemitism because I had a bumper sticker that said "My boss is a jewish carpenter" beside another sticker that said "I get paid weekly, very weakly". (They came with the car, I just never scraped them off. I didn't care enough about it to mess with it).

As for the morals. It is all in the context of them. It your not reading and understanding the context, you will get the wrong understanding of them. I think this is set off when organized religions attempt to use specific verses to justify things rather then the specific chapter/book. There is little to know lead up and often even the learned people who claim to be above us in the understanding, don't realize that we don't know the foundation they are coming from or the context in which the verse needs to be applied. There is a passage I used to throw at the holly thumpers who complained about my drinking, Ecclesiastes 9:7Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works. and Jeremiah 25:27 Therefore thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Drink ye, and be drunken, and spue, and fall, and rise no more, because of the sword which I will send among you. And then offer that Jesus turned water into wine for a reason. In all the situations, it wasn't God saying get drunk but I was able to use it to my advantage. It just illustrates how out of context conceptions can mislead on the intent of the wording.

Anyways, Good day and thanks for the references.
Re:The mormon game by MysteriousPreacher · 2007-09-11 05:01 · Score: 1

Cheers, very good response there. I agree with you that there is definitely a lot of background knowledge needed to understand the meaning of what is in those books, the biggest problem being that the learned experts often disagree among themselves.

If there is a God, I really hope he releases a revised version of the Bible in pamphlet form with very clear instructions.

--
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Re:The mormon game by sumdumass · 2007-09-11 06:32 · Score: 1

If there is a God, I really hope he releases a revised version of the Bible in pamphlet form with very clear instructions.
If there is a god, and he is all powerful and knowing, it is likely that any attempt to honor him however misguided by the fools presenting themselves as the ultimate authority, would probably be acknowledged and accepted by him. I think it has more to do with the free will thing then being beaten into submission. Although you could be fooled by something evil attempting to impersonate god just like you could be fooled into supporting a candidate that say one thing to get elected just to do the opposite once in office. Thats why need to study his word.

I have seen where pastors have said that your intent means more then your actions in this as long as you take an action. They more or less claim that if you think you are worshiping god and god's word and end up at a satanic ritual, god still gets the credit. It is also known that when two or more people discus the word of god, you have a church. which sort of reinforces that measure. I have seen this in response to discussions and questions about all the different denominations and which one is the true religion and what happens if you end up in a cult.

I think just reading the bible and trying to understand it is enough to please him. But that is just what I think.

Slashdigg by fastest+fascist · 2007-09-07 22:31 · Score: 1

Where's the damn 'bury' button?!

My GI Joe toes as a kid by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 22:46 · Score: 0

Had Canadian Flag stickers, not American.

Even Older News (Re:Old News) by zosa · 2007-09-07 22:56 · Score: 1

In the 70's GI Joe, partly due to the Vietnam War era zeitgeist, was recast in the same way as the head of a non-descript "Adventure Team"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gi_joe#The_70s

Re:Jesus Fucking Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 23:00 · Score: 0

Glad someone welcomed me now that I'm leaving.

GI joe and Vietnam by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 23:11 · Score: 0

Audience loves only winners. I Guess GI Joe was not very popular in aftermath of lost Vietnam War either.

the darn feet. by cabazorro · 2007-09-07 23:21 · Score: 1

People got tired of having to pry the foot out of the boot each time you wanted to take the combat boots off. Good med training though, for the wars to come.

--
- these are not the droids you are looking for -

Re:Plastic Toy by 1u3hr · 2007-09-07 23:29 · Score: 1

which I only now realize is your area of intense interest, which would explain why you have zero empathy for others.

You're so perceptive.

There was no 'Real American Hero G.I. Joe'. It was a comic and later a toy, then a cartoon, and now a movie. Not reality. So I should feel empathy for a fictional creation?

'Action Force' in the UK by DocTee · 2007-09-07 23:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

Or at least, that's what they were when I grew up playing with them in the 80s!

Action Force.

I find it amusing that the "coordination facility of the government of the United Kingdom [..] activated in cases of national or regional emergency or crisis" is called... COBRA.

--
- doctea

Hollywood... by dzurn · 2007-09-07 23:37 · Score: 1

Hollywood: Stealing your Childhood, breaking off the good parts, and selling you back the broken pieces.

I am always surprised by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 23:45 · Score: 0

that so many Americans take that type of articles serious. If you can't see the world correctly, you can't react correctly. That's why americans die in Iraque

sane liberetarian by monopole · 2007-09-07 23:48 · Score: 1

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Flamebait?! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-07 23:51 · Score: 0

no more flamebait than TFA and the dumb-ass blog. Since when am I a pussy for not carrying a gun? What a weird country you have.

Let's be realistic by Omniskio · 2007-09-08 00:00 · Score: 1

G.I. Joe is a doll made for little boys of all ages who cannot imagine coming back from war looking like Ty Ziegel, http://www.ninaberman.com/index3.php?pag=prt&dir=m arine, rather than "John Triton", http://www.movieweb.com/movies/film/55/3755/gal248 3/08.php.

Isn't anything sacred to these people? by pedantic+bore · 2007-09-08 00:19 · Score: 1

No.

And where have you been living for the past twenty years or so, that this is still a question in your mind? I ask because I'd like to live there...

--
Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?

WWII Generation? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 00:20 · Score: 0

You are too fucking stupid to understand.

Jesus Christ by dcollins · 2007-09-08 00:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

What a fucking idiotic fruitcake. The G.I. Joe toyline was only U.S. military-specific for an extremely brief time in the 1960's.

By 1970, when I had my own G.I. Joe, they'd translated him to -- get this -- an international "adventure team" of explorers. Anyone who's ever mentioned "Kung Fu Grip" is talking about this line of G.I. Joe's. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.I._Joe_Adventure_Te am ).

This editorial is almost 40 full years out of date! Excellent case study on the fact-challenged neanderthal-ism of the right wing psychos who've stolen our country. And thanks for the sidebar offer to sign up for super-cunty Anne Coulter's email newsletter, I'll pass, thanks.

--
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes

Re:Jesus Christ by cwmaxson · 2007-09-08 03:42 · Score: 1

And thanks for the sidebar offer to sign up for super-cunty Anne Coulter's email newsletter...

Just a polite suggestion, don't talk like her or you validate her existence.
Re:Jesus Christ by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 07:30 · Score: 0

And thanks for the sidebar offer to sign up for super-cunty Anne Coulter's email newsletter...

Just a polite suggestion, don't talk like her or you validate her existence. Uh, what is that, cretin-jitsu?
When Some Guy On Slashdot (tm) gets invited to 24-hour news networks, gets multi-million-dollar book deals, and does the rounds on talk show circuits, all thanks to a vast network of crazyfuck Slashdot thinktanks throwing money at or around him, THEN maybe he'll be 'validating' Ann Coulter's existence.
'Till then, I'm with Some Guy On Slashdot (tm) -- Ann Coulter's a crazy fucking bitch, who ought to be ignored even though she won't, 'cause crazyfuck think tanks with money just keep stuffing her under our noses and will continue to do so as long as they have shitloads of money and a crazyfuck agenda to push.
(Side note: I work at a book store, and I have NEVER seen anyone buy one of her books. I've asked everyone else who works there. Even the owner. Going back 8 years, I think we've sold two copies in all that time. We threw out a ton of her older books and now we don't stock so many. I used to wonder how she hit the best-seller list, until I found out that most of her sales are in lots. Yes, that means someone with $$ to burn buys whole pallets of her book at a time, to boost her sales figures so she ends up in the best seller list, and gets auto-invited to various tv shows to talk about her "best-selling" new book.)
Re:Jesus Christ by identity0 · 2007-09-08 11:28 · Score: 1

Not to mention Action Force http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_Force, a catoon series that re-edited the 1980s GI Joe series into a "International heroes" team with no specific references to them being the US in dialogue, for the British audience.

For extra LOLs, check out their openings: They removed the "American hero" part from the dub, but they still have rather prominent American flags and landmarks in the animation.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=BRf4c-p6VWg
http://youtube.com/watch?v=eCaoBYYj3_I

The concept is based on the British equivalent to the old GI Joe, Action Man.

You ned to think about this more. by bigtallmofo · 2007-09-08 00:37 · Score: 1

In WW II, everyone sacrificed for the war effort.

In the current Iraq war, you're free to sit on your lazy ass and mouth off about the laziness and greed of other people.

I respectfully submit you need to do a little more research and think about this a little more. If the WW II generation was not the greatest generation, history could have been very different. They rose to the challenge of their time. Other people might not have been able to do it. I doubt my generation could.

--
I'm a big tall mofo.

Anyone shocked by this? by SengirV · 2007-09-08 00:53 · Score: 1

Hollyweird is about as anti-American as you can get. That's what makes Team America World Police so funny, BEAUSE IT'S ALL TRUE!!!

--

Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"

ScuttleMonkey's a Sissy by Doc+Ruby · 2007-09-08 01:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

Who is ScuttleMonkey? A Slashdot editor who will post a story about "feminazis" from a site featuring a Climate Change denier "cartoon" charging _The Weather Channel_ with some kind of paranoid conspiracy. A weekend Midnight shift Slashdot drudge.

Sure ScuttleMonkey's in love with GI Joe, and the myth of the "Greatest Generation". Why does he think the rest of us share their fetish?

--

--
make install -not war

Re:ScuttleMonkey's a Sissy by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 12:44 · Score: 0

kdawson puts up post after post that make Slashdot seem like a lefty blog without you complaining, but Scuttlemonkey puts up a link to an occasional righty article and he's gone over the line? What a load of bullshit.
Re:ScuttleMonkey's a Sissy by Doc+Ruby · 2007-09-09 12:56 · Score: 1

Anonymous rightwing Coward wants me to do extra mod and criticism work because they can't trollMod enough on their own. Total bullshit.

--
--
make install -not war

Hey, ScuttleMonkey! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 01:14 · Score: 0

Do you know what's a hero?

It is not (and it never was) a professional soldier doing his job, even if risking his life. That is only part of his job description.

Hero is someone who does what is right, not just what he's told to do.

There can be soldier heroes -- those who celebrated Christmas in WW One were REAL heroes, and REAL men.

In fact, its arguable today that most heroes are those defying their governments and wanting to die for peace and not against an enemy.

Like Yitzhak Rabin. He died fighting for a better future for his fellow countrymen -- and for the enemy.

If you think those "GI Joes" should deserve any hero qualification just by doing their job, well, sorry... once one is knowingly part of a scheme, what's the point in faking to be a good person?

How this got posted as news? by kb0hae · 2007-09-08 01:15 · Score: 1

Slow news day!

you dont get it by unity100 · 2007-09-08 01:19 · Score: 1

wwii was really a struggle in which the political/social system of the victor nations would be the norm.

had the allies lost, today the 'modern' type of government would be dictatorship/fascism, and extreme nationalism and discrimination to the point of slavery would be marks of 'patriotism'.

yes the entire world owes much to the generations that took part in the struggle. im not discounting their flaws here, but, despite im turkish and my nation didnt join ww2 by any means, i owe my thanks to the generations that fought within the side of democracy.

--
Read radical news here

Re:Jesus Fucking Anonymous Coward by MindspanConsultants · 2007-09-08 01:19 · Score: 1

Mod me down if you must -- but I think the whole vitriolic treatment of ACs on Slashdot is a bunch of BS. Any time privacy issues are brought up, the Slashdot crowd goes into an apoplexy. They rant with much fervor bordering on the religious about how privacy is now gone and bemoan the current state of the world as applies to free speech etc. Yet when anyone exercises their Slashdot granted rights of posting anonymously, suddenly they become pinko commie Windows lovers who buy Zunes and couldn't code a shopping list. You can't have it both ways folks.

G.I. Joe... or HULK HOGAN!!! by TimTheFoolMan · 2007-09-08 01:47 · Score: 1

No way. Hulk Hogan is a real American hero.

Tim

Re:G.I. Joe... or HULK HOGAN!!! by DragonTHC · 2007-09-08 03:05 · Score: 1

It was Sgt. Slaughter who was a G.I. Joe you tool!

--
They're using their grammar skills there.
Re:G.I. Joe... or HULK HOGAN!!! by TimTheFoolMan · 2007-09-08 03:34 · Score: 1

I didn't suggest that Hogan was a G.I.

I suggested that he is the "REAL AMERICAN HERO." After all, he now has his own ultimate grilling machine, his own TV show, can wear a fanny pack to the gym and not be ridiculed, and has the perfect way to deal with male pattern baldness.

Did Slaughter ever give us the demandments: train, say your prayers, eat your vitamins, be true to yourself, be true to your country be a real American? Have you seen Slaughter lately? Would a REAL AMERICAN allow himself to fall into such a state of disrepair?

And you call yourself a patriot?

Tim

Really Old News, its been that way since 1966 by arthurpaliden · 2007-09-08 02:06 · Score: 2, Informative

GIJoe has always been multi-national and multi-gender.

In 1966's you could get the 12" G.I. Joe SOLDIERS OF THE WORLD SERIES which included:German, Japanees, Russian, British , Australian, Canadian and French

In 1967 you could get the Action Nurse (Female)

In 1967 he was also a race car driver and state trooper.

In 1967 he was also a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police

--
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo

Re:Really Old News, its been that way since 1966 by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 19:47 · Score: 0

"In 1966's you could get"...

I wasn't alive then, but how many 1966's were there?

Re:Jesus Fucking Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 02:22 · Score: 0

>> You can't have it both ways folks.

and yet, history teaches us otherwise...

Sigh. by stonecypher · 2007-09-08 02:52 · Score: 2, Informative

GI Joe was just the American branch of the Joes, has been since the 1970s. They're not dropping the Americanism, they're just aiming the camera higher up the tree. We got a dozen Joes (and Viper the matching villains) from other countries, including every eight year olds' favorite opponents, Storm Shadow and Snake Eyes. If you're going to be nationalistic about the history of a toy series, at least know the history of the toy series. (Indeed, in the 1980s cartoon block about the energy pyramids, several people comment that there aren't that many Americans on the group, and ask Duke why he's still calling them GIs.)

If you think calling GI Joe an American is "sacred," you really need to read some books.

--
StoneCypher is Full of BS

And Jordan Carlos, as "Alan" by Scrameustache · 2007-09-08 03:10 · Score: 3, Funny

I can't help but shudder at the thought of complaints from minority groups if there weren't any token blacks/Hispanics/etc. Personally, I find characters whose sole purpose is to stand up and scream "look at me, I'm not white!" to be rather annoying. That's why the black guy always dies first: they didn't want him in the first place.

On the flipside, Lando WAS awesome, as a space pimp ought to be.

--

You can't take the sky from me...

Blame It on Globalization! by sciop101 · 2007-09-08 03:15 · Score: 1

First, the jobs left the USA!

Buy American became an obscene phrase and gesture.

Then patriotism left the USA! Pride in the USA ended at the first manned lunar landing.

Now G.I. Joe is multi-cultural, multi-national, and multi-character.

The major foe will be xenocentric, egocentric, and geocentric.

--
The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]

Re:Jesus Fucking Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 03:34 · Score: 0

I don't know, I think the fun part about people whining about anonymous posters is the sheer volume of insipid shit people with accounts post anyway. You know, as if generating some random Yahoo account for signing up with a name like sincospimonoidmagma imbues the same idiot with reserve and keen insight into issues he doesn't even bother reading before participating in the comments.

I've read Slashdot for ten years. I didn't obtain an account originally because I never thought that the site would catch on--it was full of lololziinstalledloonix and watch anime gibberish. I don't have one now because there's nothing in it for me. I know, that makes me an idiot. I'm ok with my limitations.

Some large percentage of males are always vying for status, and the males here are no different. Their comment histories (oooh), or the vague online identities (ahhh) no one recalls anyway, are just another non sequitur to point to when their arguments were composed sans any research. Someone should stand up any remind them that a link to the other drivel you've posted doesn't count as a reference, and no one thinks about zombiehamsandwich's exposition on Java viz-a-viz C# after they've closed the tab.

One final amusement in all of this: the quest for the top of the hierarchy continues across-site. Slashdotters flame Diggers for being stupid. programming.reddit.com people flame Slashdotters and Diggers for being stupid. Somewhere out there, there's a link magnet run by people that think they're geniuses because they're interested in computers that looks down on the winners at the programming reddit that think monad tutorial links are news. Humans are sad.

Re:Plastic Toy by Dun+Malg · 2007-09-08 03:37 · Score: 1

can Hero G.I. Joe'. It was a comic and later a toy, then a cartoon, and now a movie. Not reality. So I should feel empathy for a fictional creation? Soldiers in WW2 were referred to as "GI's". David Breger did a comic strip for the US military during World War 2, in which the main character was a "GI" named Joe. Until the action figure appeared in 1964, "GI Joe" essentially meant an everyman soldier in WW2. The article's author is using this reference. It's remarkable how the world makes more sense when you do a little research and learn a little more than just what you remember seeing on TV as a kid.

--
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.

Down with the NWO! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 03:50 · Score: 0

It is nothing short of NWO/One-World-Government indoctrination for the children. With environmentalism as the new religion. Makes me fuckin' sick.

Re:Ha! Now the boot's on the other foot... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 03:59 · Score: 0

Dear Goth Biker Babe,

Goth + Biker + Babe = Ugly Overweight Skank Loser. You can't fool Mother Nature.

regards,

The Moderators

Re:Plastic Toy by 1u3hr · 2007-09-08 04:15 · Score: 1

It's remarkable how the world makes more sense when you do a little research

It's amazing you feel so smug because you think you know something I don't.

I know where the name came from. Twenty years ago in Sumatra the locals would say "Hello Joe" to me because I had a white face, a linguistic relic of the Pacific War.

Nevertheless, the "GI Joe" in this story is NOT A REAL SOLDIER. It is about a TOY, based on a cartoon. So if you think that deserves reverence, feel free to genuflect, but don't expect anyone else, aside from that loonie who wrote the blog this foolish story was based on, to do anything but snicker. The "GI Joe" character lost any connection to reality half a century ago.

A little more realism wouldn't hurt by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 04:21 · Score: 0

Lets have him be a real GI: Helping out in the firebombing of Dresden. Dropping nukes on two civilian cities in Japan. Napalming Vietnamese villagers. Ousting democratically elected governments in South America. Dropping delepleted uranium on the Iraqis while they were fleeing Kuwait in 1991. Torturing people in Guano Bay, Cuba. Being a part of the hunt for those invisible WMD in Iraq and causing the deaths of 600K+ in the latest of America's continuous and never-ending parade of wars.

Also better tool up the plastic moulds for the bunker buster nuking of Iran, since the sabres have been rattling a fair bit there recently. Democrats or Republicans in charge, America will start its wars regardless.

One difference. by nlitement · 2007-09-08 04:22 · Score: 1

One slight difference: the Catholic Church was nice enough to apologize for the crusades. Now ask some Muslim head to do it, haha, you will get an answHOLY SHIT IT'S A BOMB

Can you blame Hollywood? by FBodyJim · 2007-09-08 04:45 · Score: 1

Is it really just Hollywood has forgotten? Go to your local Toys-R-Us, look at where GI Joe is made. The Real American Hero, made in China. yuck.

Re:Plastic Toy by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 04:55 · Score: 0

Yes. You insensitive clod. Toys have feelings too. You're like that kid in Toy Story who neglected his toys, and tortured them. You disgust me. There's a special place in Hell for you.

Hard thing? Impossible thing sometimes. by HornWumpus · 2007-09-08 05:16 · Score: 1

e.g. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Osama, Hillary.

Granted sometimes the best strategy isn't direct confrontation but containment. But it still involves a fair amount of killing.

The real trick is recognizing when someone just needs killing.

Finally history is irrelevant? WTF. People have not changed. History is never irrelevant. For you to support you position you should suggest a way to find find peace without killing for each historical situation. Otherwise you're just dreaming like a middle schooler.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

Re:Hard thing? Impossible thing sometimes. by itsybitsy · 2007-09-08 09:01 · Score: 1

The real trick is recognizing when someone just needs killing.

With a mentality like that it's no wonder that they think the same about you.

Yes, history is irrelevant since it's just a memory of the past. If you project your future out of your past all you'll get is further events mirroring past events. There are alternatives that are based in peace. You just aren't even thinking in terms of peace as you and your culture are too busy deciding who "needs killing". Sign, and you wonder why they are after you.
Re:Hard thing? Impossible thing sometimes. by HornWumpus · 2007-09-08 09:24 · Score: 1

History is irrelevant...like I said. Middle schooler!
If you think you are any less an enemy of islam because you are bent over, greased up and ready for them you are crazy.
Civilizations can only afford to be so 'civilized'. You need someone to watch over you or the first uncivilized fellow with a funny 'stash will own you.
I don't wounder why they are after us at all. They want what we got (read money and all that can be bought with it, especially power). At the end of the day it's that simple. That's fine, we've taken down far tougher foes then Islamic religious nuts. Once MTV owns their kids it's all over. Same M.O. as brought down the iron curtain.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Hard thing? Impossible thing sometimes. by itsybitsy · 2007-09-08 11:51 · Score: 1

History is irrelevant...like I said. Middle schooler!
Another ad hominem attack. Your so attack happy that's all you and your culture knows.

You classify people, for example "middle schooler", as a way of not having to actually argue and debate in real terms. Grow up and learn to think for yourself outside of your collective.

If you think you are any less an enemy of islam because you are bent over, greased up and ready for them you are crazy.
True self defense is perfectly fine. Offensive attacks aren't since they make things worse.

Civilizations can only afford to be so 'civilized'. You need someone to watch over you or the first uncivilized fellow with a funny 'stash will own you.
Nonsense. Racism. Cultism. You are so embedded in your own culture that you can't see the evil in your own thoughts.

I don't wounder why they are after us at all. They want what we got (read money and all that can be bought with it, especially power). At the end of the day it's that simple. That's fine, we've taken down far tougher foes then Islamic religious nuts.
You mention history, how about reading it! The USA has been attacking many countries and controlling throughout the middle east. Your enemies want you to stop killing them. They have said so. As for wealth, they've got oil wealth so your argument is flawed propaganda from the noe-conservative nuts and you've bought and eaten it so you can't see it.

Once MTV owns their kids it's all over. Same M.O. as brought down the iron curtain.
Now you are beginning to make some sense. MTV is a cult of it's own. It's also a disruptive influence upon their cult-ure. Another reason that they attack which they have also stated. Western culture was working until the noe-conservatives went on their revenge based retaliation. Revenge is never the answer and always breeds counter-revenge and counter-counter-revenge and so on and so on and so on for potentially hundreds of years or in this case potentially thousands of years as long as we have people who think like you. Change your thinking to peace based ways forward. Each person is a step towards progress. Peace is the answer.

Mod Parent -1, Troll by mrobin604 · 2007-09-08 05:43 · Score: 1

NT

hy is this even on slashdot? by Jeremy_Bee · 2007-09-08 06:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

What happens to our favorite childhood toys is definitely "stuff that matters" to any (male) nerd, but one look at the front page of the site this story comes from immediately begs the question as to why this inflammatory, hate site should be taken seriously by anyone at all and why it's posted on slashdot.

Unless it's satire (that I missed because I left in disgust too soon), the author of this piece is a raving loon and the site seems angled towards the gun-toting, "bunker in the basement" crowd. I mean he (and I feel 100% safe in assuming this is a "he"), manages to refer to Hollywood liberals, Socialists, and "Femi-Nazi's" before he even gets out of the first paragraph. Do you think he might have a bit of a bias there?

I would expect to find a link to such a site as backup to a Digg story, but as entertaining as the raving might be to some, it doesn't belong here. Free speech is a great thing, but allowing crazy people to have their own web-site, and promoting that craziness as "news" and trying to engage the lunatics in a debate on a science related news site are two totally different things. I wouldn't ban it, but the very fact that this kind of tripe can be posted to slashdot and commented on as if it's just another web site is distasteful at best.

Kudos for the (aprox. 20% of) posters that recognise this hate-speech drivel for what it is and a big thumbs down for the other 80% that think this garbage is worthy of engaging in a debate.

Re:hy is this even on slashdot? by bbdb · 2007-09-08 23:31 · Score: 1

State your politics up front instead of writing such "subliminal" drivel.

--
Python is nice quick and flexible... but it provides so much rope a monkey would hang the whole ecosystem with it. -- in

Re:A novel idea by meta-monkey · 2007-09-08 06:20 · Score: 1

Shipwreck (my favorite) a career barnacle scraper who crashes his F-14 so he can eject, paracute in and punch-out Zartan.

And now I can't stop laughing, thanks. You wouldn't happen to have a youtube clip of that? It would completely make my day.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.

Wow is right by Von+Rex · 2007-09-08 06:44 · Score: 1

He questions why a silly article about GI Joe written by political zealots is on the front page and somehow you take from that the opportunity to tar him as a socialist? Which of course in American wingnut lingo is just a weasel word for "communist".

In your case your professors should be issuing refunds, not just apologies.

Re:Wow is right by sumdumass · 2007-09-08 06:58 · Score: 1

No, the comment was appropriate according to the comments the GP made on it.

It wasn't like what was said couldn't have been said without certain keywords. Saying that company treats it customers poorly has the same meaning as that evil company rapes their customers mentally and financially. The difference is in the type of response you invite back. In this case, the response was appropriate to the parent post.

That's right by Von+Rex · 2007-09-08 06:51 · Score: 1

Because it's currently the Muslims that are invading countries and attempting to mold them into clones of their own nations, trying to get others to adopt their political, legal, and economic systems, right? It's those damn Muslims who have their soldiers' boots in other countries telling the people there how to live, isn't it?

And you're also clearly correct about Israel. It's obvious that the Muslim world does not care about what happens in Israel and Palestine so we should all just "stay the course" there. After all, there's no profit in changing any of our policies there.

I applaud you for your insight and acumen. Your +5 insightful modifier is fully deserved.

This is what made them the greatest generation by Von+Rex · 2007-09-08 06:56 · Score: 1

They went to war, lived through hell, watched their friends die, and then came back and told their own sons that if they didn't march in any war, any time, for any reason, whenever the government told them to, they would no longer be any sons of theirs. This willingness to see their children die for no reason just because they had to go to war themselves is what makes them the greatest generation. They ensured a steady stream of cannon fodder for America's wars. They enshrined the principle that to question your government is to be a traitor, and that it's every young man's duty to risk death in a foreign war. And if it wasn't for those two streams of thought in American society, we wouldn't have the glorious war in Iraq, would we? And the coming wars in Iran, Syria, and, hopefully, Pakistan, Sudan, and Saudi Arabia.

Onward Christian soldiers! by Von+Rex · 2007-09-08 07:04 · Score: 1

"Fortunately, if there are US christians who openly advocated violence against other countries in order to convert their population, they are not in positions of power."

Other than your commander-in-chief, who said that God directly told him to bring war to the Muslims. And your Lt. Gen. William G. 'Jerry' Boykin, who was put in charge of hunting down Osama himself, who said "I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol." And your 100,000 strong, Christian mercenary group Blackwater, currently providing "security" in Iraq, and ready to also provide "security" in the USA in the event of "civil emergencies". And your various neocon celebrities who meet at prayer breakfasts, break bread, and discuss plans to increase the world wide body count of Muslims.

Jesus would approve.

Yay for SM! by belgar · 2007-09-08 07:13 · Score: 1

Once again, I see that the number of stories was overwhelming Scuttlemonkey, and he reverted to the "blindfold/dartboard" method of greenlighting without RTFA.

--
What does it mean to wake out of a dream
and be wearing someone else's shorts?
BNL, Born on a Pirate Ship (1998)

What's wrong with this... by RobertM1968 · 2007-09-08 07:46 · Score: 1

...assuming the /. article poster's phrasing is accurate, what's wrong with evolving GIJoe into something showing a WORLD united with a WORLDWIDE task force to ensure that EVERYONE's freedom and liberty is protected? god forbid that someone could be so forward thinking to think of the WORLD instead of just our tiny part of it.

--
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!

Say it aint so by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 08:04 · Score: 0

How can this be? Doesn't the G.I. in G.I. Joe stand for "Government Issue"?

Grandma never told me that :-p by Scrameustache · 2007-09-08 08:06 · Score: 1

Hmmm...interesting. I hit [reply] because I was pretty darn sure the ladies of WWII talking about dancing with GIs meant general infantrymen on leave, and not government issued dance partners, but as it turns out, they meant to dance with galvanized iron robot dansotrons! From beyond the moon!

--

You can't take the sky from me...

MegaForce by PeeBeR · 2007-09-08 08:22 · Score: 1

Despite official denials by leaders of the free world, sources now confirm the existence of MegaForce, a phantom army of super-elite fighting men, whose weapons are the most powerful science can devise. Their mission: to preserve freedom and justice, battling the forces of tyranny and evil in every corner of the globe.

PC to the extreme by nurb432 · 2007-09-08 09:20 · Score: 1

I dont care what your political affiliations are, or how you feel about the war, this is just wrong.

Neutering the age old toy ( any more then they did in the 70's.. that was bad enough ) is insulting. I suggest a boycott.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

RE: G.I. Joe No Longer the Real American Hero? by Cardiakke · 2007-09-08 10:03 · Score: 0

No surprise there! All the Hollywood types are members of the Democrat Party so their heroes are Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and all the other anti-American nutcases.

be biblical now.. by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 10:42 · Score: 0

"It would really detract from the flow of the story because he'd constantly be talking. :)"

It's already a given that humanity has sinned and is imperfect, and hence will do sinful things. What he wants us to do is to become a new person (salvation) and to let him help us find the strength to not do sinful things.

"In other words, there are times when killing a person is justified and times when it's not. Jesus probably wouldn't kill anybody, and from what he said it seems like revenge is generally not justification. But wars, self defense, protection of your family usually aren't considered "murder" so maybe God thinks they're okay too."

Well I certainly don't speak for God, but I think the point he's making is that if you call on him, and depend on him to handle things. Then wars aren't necessary. Self-defense to a point isn't necessary. Same with your family. Humanity gets into trouble because it says "I don't need you. I'll handle this my own way", with the expected results.

Rainbow Warrior by Descalzo · 2007-09-08 11:05 · Score: 1

It's the University of Hawaii mascot, no?

Go Warriors!

--
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.

Another brainwashed lefty by sco08y · 2007-09-08 11:30 · Score: 1

I'll just pass on reading your blog and instead ask the moderators why the Hell this article was accepted at all (let alone promoted to front page material).

Wow, someone struck a nerve. And, not surprisingly, it's the "ignore and censor any contrary views" nerve.

Re:Another brainwashed lefty by Watts+Martin · 2007-09-09 07:42 · Score: 1

While I can't speak for the OP, for me, this article hits the "why are they posting something whose only point is to be political flamebait" nerve. The only -- the only -- possible outcome of posting a link to a fiery blog post which boils down to "They're making G.I. Joe politically correct! Man the battle stations!" is to create a long frothing argument between liberals, conservatives and libertarians over everything from the size of the government to the war in Iraq. They're not even attempting to make this sound like news: the Slashdot link could have been titled with, "New G.I. Joe team to be 'multicultural'," which would bring out nearly the same level of frothiness but the headline/summary would at least be pretending to be objective. But no, they wrote the headline to say, point blank, that G.I. Joe's status as an American icon is under attack.

I don't think one needs to be politically left-of-center to find this to just be exasperating shit. Most of the complaints about poor editorial judgment and general irrelevance on Slashdot are greatly exaggerated, but when someone wants to make a serious case for Slashdot's decline, this article is going to be one of the examples they use.
Re:Another brainwashed lefty by sco08y · 2007-09-10 01:30 · Score: 1

I don't think one needs to be politically left-of-center to find this to just be exasperating shit. Most of the complaints about poor editorial judgment and general irrelevance on Slashdot are greatly exaggerated, but when someone wants to make a serious case for Slashdot's decline, this article is going to be one of the examples they use.

On reflection, I tend to agree with you.

What is this, a comedy routine? by Master+of+Transhuman · 2007-09-08 11:47 · Score: 1

I go to that site and it's a rant about "GI Joe" from somebody who probably hasn't read the goddamn comic for thirty years!

GI Joe has been a multi-gender, multi-national (Japanese ninjas, for Christsticks) force for years now! They've even worked with - horrors! - their RUSSIAN counterparts!

Somebody clue this guy in. Nobody gives a shit about "WWII GI Joe"!

Go rent "Kelly's Heroes" if you want to see who "GI Joe" REALLY was!

--
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!

Re:Hollywood even tried to make Tomatos "evildoers by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 13:28 · Score: 0

Ketchup is a vegetable according to the Ronnie Reagan's Junta.

Re:Jesus Fucking Soviet by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 16:38 · Score: 0

In Soviet Russia, people like you drive slashdot away!

Can I get a ruling on this? by clubby · 2007-09-08 16:39 · Score: 1

FTA:

... the name G.I. Joe will become an acronym for Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity an international, coed task force charged with defeating bad guys. It will no longer stand for government issued, as in issued by the American government.

I thought it stood for General Infantry. Because Joe wasn't government issue, even if all his accessories were. Right?

Have you noticed.. by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-08 17:41 · Score: 0

that Ken and Barbie now come with permanent underwear instead of an actual ass and a lump (in Kens case) where is package should be?

I wonder if the new "multicultural" G.I. Joe will have permanent underwear and a lack of manhood too?

Or maybe I'm just a pervert? :)

Not the first time by Parafilmus · 2007-09-08 19:12 · Score: 1

The GI Joe toys first disassociated themselves from the US military during the Vietnam War.

The military was unpopular, so GI Joe formed a not-explicitly-military "adventure team."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.I._Joe_Adventure_Te am

Re:Jesus Fucking Anonymous Coward by nahdude812 · 2007-09-09 00:27 · Score: 1

Well, it's possible these are different groups of people within the Slashdot community. That's the interesting thing about communities, they can have dichotomous opinions, and you can't really ding them for inconsistency unless you can demonstrate individuals which have inconsistent or hypocritical opinions.

Also I think generally the complaint about anonymous cowards comes not from people exercising their right to anonymity to participate in insightful commentary, or perhaps informative but potentially personally damaging information (such as the dissemination of information which could get the person into trouble in real life, but which should be said anyway, such as the HD DVD key a few months back).

Instead it's complaining about people who post vitriolic whiny complaints but don't want to pony up to the consequences (slight though they may be) of voicing sentiments such as "I mean, really, Slashdot. I understand the need to compete with Digg, and the whole firehose thing, but, really, shit like this is ridiculous and it only works to drive people like me away," which doesn't really contribute in any meaningful way to anything but is some random guy/gal just wanting to get their whiny rocks off, make vague or perhaps specific but meaningless threats, and otherwise just exercise their right (however annoying) to act like a spoiled rich kid and think that anyone really cares whether or not they leave.

I echo the gp sentiment - if your use of AC status is to fail to advance the discussion in any way, but instead to throw yourself to the ground and slam your fists and feet, then you've abused that status (you would also have abused your account, but at least we would be able to tell you so), and any threats of leaving should be encouraged since it will better the community as a whole. Making such comments under the AC cover just takes any value you could have conveyed with your statement, and converts it into whining since we can't really challenge the statement of an AC and expect any response.

--
Slay a dragon... over lunch!

G.I. Joe did not beat the Nazis -- the allies did by ofcourseyouare · 2007-09-09 00:50 · Score: 1

G.I. Joe will become an acronym for ""Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity" -- an international, coed task force charged with defeating bad guys... Evidently, they are worried that the rest of the world would not accept an American soldier movie. Well, if we look at the facts, the rest of the world would be controlled by Nazis if it were not for the G. I. Joe.

* I have the greatest respect for the US Heroes who served so selflessly in WW2, but if we "look at the facts" the Nazis were *not* defeated by the US Army acting alone; the Nazis were defeated by an alliance of the USSR, the US, the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the free Poles, French, etc, etc. At the time they were called "the allies", but you could almost call such an alliance, well, a "Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity".

* If one insists on selecting one nation from the Allies who did the most to defeat Hitler, that would have to be the USSR. The turning point of the war in Europe was not D-Day, it was Stalingrad (as Wikipedia, says, "The battle of Stalingrad was the largest single battle in human history.") The battle of Kursk was another key moment ("the largest armored engagement and the most costly single day of aerial warfare to date." - Wikipedia). Auschwitz was not liberated by the US, but by the Red Army. Want more facts? Look at the numbers of military deaths: 407,300 US; 382,600 UK; 10,700,000 USSR.

* This is not to deny that Stalin was a monster -- of course he was. But sometimes history fails to fall into neat moral boxes.

* This also does nothing to contradict the selfless heroism of the US soliders who served in Europe. But to claim that such solders acting alone were primarily responsible for defeating the Nazis is clearly incorrect. Indeed, ironically it is the view of history that comes from watching "American soldier movies" rather than reading history books: much as I love "Saving Private Ryan", "Band of Brothers" etc, and scrupulously accurate though they are about the stories they tell, overall they can give a rather warped view of what happened in WW2.

* So what? Why is it important to correct the warped view of history expressed in TFA? Partly because the incorrect notion that the US *acting alone* defeated the Nazis has become a dangerous political weapon -- for example, I remember a Wall Street Journal editorial before the invasion of Iraq which all but claimed that Germany had no right to oppose the US plan to invade Iraq because the US had saved Germany from the Nazis. Would they have said that Germany had no right to oppose a decision made by Russia for the same reason? I think not.

* If you want to find a war where the US forces *were* primarily responsible for victory, then look at the Pacific theatre in WW2. Again, they were helped by the Australians etc -- but there's no doubt the US did the heavy lifting in the Pacific.

* Want another war the US primarily won? The cold war -- IMHO, the greatest victory in history, because if the war had been bungled it would have been the worst catastrophe in human history. How was it won? Okay, of course there were lapses, but overall, to generalise, I think you could say it won by stealth, cunning, having the better technology, the better ideas, (usually) holding the moral high ground, acting with prudence and patience, etc. And also by building alliances like NATO which again you could almost describe as a "Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity". Perhaps the guys making this new G.I. Joe movie know more about how to win wars in the real world than the author of TFA...

Re:Ha! Now the boot's on the other foot... by Goth+Biker+Babe · 2007-09-09 05:47 · Score: 1

Dear Anonymous Coward,

The name says it all doesn't it. For your information I'm quite cute, ask my three lovers, I earn good money, and I have the high score on the arcade machine down my local club ;-)

Sorry GI Joe by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 10:09 · Score: 0

Sorry GI Joe, Ron Paul is a true American hero unlike your CFR sellout ass.

GI JOE THEME SONG LYRICS - UPDATE :) by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 12:59 · Score: 0

He will fight for freedom, where ever there's trouble, GI Joe is there! GI Joe is there.

It's GI Joe, against Cobra (Al Qaeda?) and Destro (Bin Laden?). Fighting to save the day! He never gives up, he's always there. Fighting for freedom, over land and air!

GI Joe is the code name, for America's top-secret, special fighting force. It's mission? To fight for freedom and destroy Cobra (Al Qaeda?) - a ruthless terrorist organization, determined to rule the world.

He never gives up, he STAYS TILL THE FIGHT'S WON, GI Joe will dare. GI Joe. A Real American Hero. GI JOE!

Porkchop Sandwiches! by Chris+Shannon · 2007-09-10 06:13 · Score: 1

A parody of And knowing is half the battle.

Cracks me up every time I watch it.

All the episodes

--
"Follow me" the wise man said, but he walked behind.

I think I see a bit of a bais.... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-10 06:28 · Score: 0

Ann Coulter Banner add? Biased much?

We have reduced miltary spending by unassimilatible · 2007-09-10 07:27 · Score: 1

as a percentage of GDP. And maybe that's why, after cutting 10 divisions during the Clinton years, we don't have enough troops to win a prolonged war.

In the early 1960s the Department of Defense constituted 45 percent of federal spending, whereas this year it will constitute an estimated 17 percent, according to the Office of Management and Budget. At the same time that percentage shrank, the percentage devoted to entitlements rose. This is reflected in money allocated to the Department of Health and Human Services: It skyrocketed from just over 3 percent of federal expenditures four decades ago to an estimated 25 percent this year. Source: Triumph of the redistributionist left.

Funny how all of you lefties want to cut the things the Constitution actually requires the government to do, not the preposterous entitlements that are not mentioned in the Constitution, and are bankrupting America.

--
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you

Re:We have reduced miltary spending by Mr.+Slippery · 2007-09-10 13:13 · Score: 1

as a percentage of GDP. And maybe that's why, after cutting 10 divisions during the Clinton years, we don't have enough troops to win a prolonged war.

Percentage of GDP is irrelevant. How does a bigger GDP imply we need a bigger military?
And we had enough troops to easily win the wars against the Taliban's Afghanistan and Saddam's Iraq. We don't have enough troops to turn either nation into a instant peaceful democracy, any more than we have enough gasoline to put out the latest forest fires - you can never have enough of a tool that does the opposite of your goal. Every day we occupy Iraq, we might as well be printing recruitment posters for Al Qaeda.
In the early 1960s the Department of Defense constituted 45 percent of federal spending, whereas this year it will constitute an estimated 17 percent, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

Except that that's wrong. When you add in war spending (not accounted for in the budget), veteran's health and retirement benefits, and interest on debt accrued for defense spending, annual military spending makes about about a trillion dollars.
Funny how all of you lefties want to cut the things the Constitution actually requires the government to do, not the preposterous entitlements that are not mentioned in the Constitution, and are bankrupting America.

Funny how all of you righties want to lump several very different things under the rubric of "entitlements: support to the elderly and disabled in the form of Social Security and Medicare; the veteran's and military benefits that should be rightly understood as part of defense spending; other federal retirement spending; and support to poor people. We can only meaningfully deal with reform when these are understood individually.

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood

They're no Megaforce.... by elrous0 · 2007-09-10 08:15 · Score: 1

Screw G.I. Joe, the only international fighting force for freedom that ever mattered was Megaforce. They were made up of representatives from all free nations, were all male, and hung out in gold lamé spandex outfits in the desert. And, just like Senator Craig, they were not gay--honest.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.

Rebuttal by TiggertheMad · 2007-09-10 10:35 · Score: 1

And it's spelled "libertarian".

Don't impose your ideas about spelling on my spelling, libertarian hypocrite. ;-)

--

HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!

Go home, Ms Malkin. by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-15 18:19 · Score: 0

N/T

Slashdot Mirror

G.I. Joe No Longer the Real American Hero?

548 comments