You have absolutely no idea of what actually went on in Germany during the 30s and 40s
I know one thing that went on was this: a government lying to its citizens to justify invading foreign countries, and then using the "we are at war, and those who aren't with us are against us" argument to justify atrocities abroad, and the destruction of civil rights at home.
Again, you have managed to avoid answering the question. Why are you attacking me personally instead of answering it? I will post it again, and give you one more chance to answer yes, no, or maybe: "Is it wrong to root for your government's defeat, if you sincerely feel its policies are so misguided that their success would lead to much greater harm in the long run than would their failure in the short run?"
If all you can do is tell me how ignorant I am, I'll have to conclude that you have no answer, and are merely incapable of intelligent debate once your buttons have been pushed.
Do you seriously wish to compare the U.S. to Germany as it was in the 30s and 40s?
Yes. Yes I do. While the US has not yet descended to the depths of Germany, there are signs it is headed in an analogous direction. So I ask again, in paraphrase: "Is it wrong to root for your government's defeat, if you sincerely feel its policies are so misguided that their success would lead to much greater harm in the long run than would their failure in the short run?"
To explain things in words of few syllables: It's wrong to root for your country's defeat.
At the risk of incurring the wrath of Godwin, would it have been wrong for German citizens in the 1930's and 1940's to root for their government's defeat? (Note: government != country)
Specifically, Clinton was up to his eyeballs in attacks from Republicans regarding Monica Lewinsky, and didn't have political support to do much about them. If he had done more, he would have been accused of "wagging the dog" to divert attention away from his personal life.
Clinton appointees did their best to separate the FBI and the CIA so information could not be shared.
As was national policy at the time. Perhaps you would have preferred it if they had broken the law instead, a la Iran-Contra?
if he really knows how to fix things and knows what would be best for the country, why doesn't he try running for the White House himself?
That's right, citizens! If you aren't able and willing to quit your life-long chosen career and devote the next 20-30 years to building up political capital for a presidential run, you have NO RIGHT TO CRITICIZE OUR DEAR LEADER BUSH! So shut up, pay your taxes, vote the way we tell you to vote, and let Dubya's grand vision for world peace, democracy, and unlimited oil unfold!
And anyone who agrees with anything he's done must be a mindless conservative dittohead, right?
That's about where the level of debate is these days, alas. Most people would rather set up straw men and knock them down than engage in actual discussion of the issues.
I believe the intent of the message was "I hate Bush and will bitch about anything he does."
Absolutely. Since we know that Bush never makes mistakes, anyone who criticizes him must be an irrational liberal, overcome with mindless partisan rancor. The fact that well-being of the United States and the world have nose-dived straight into the toilet over the last three years is completely coincidental, and has nothing at all to do with Bush's radical ideas about how the foreign policy, the economy and the environment should be handled. Move along citizens, nothing to see here.
Do I keep my eyes open to make sure no one's parking moving trucks in strange locations or wearing heavy winter coats in the middle of Texas in summertime. Sure I do.
Do you keep an eye on your government to make sure it isn't screwing up its foreign policy so badly that years of more terrorism will be the inevitable result?
Except, of course, that this lawsuit has very little to do with preserving the word 'Googol', and a whole lot to do with trying to ca$h in on Google's upcoming IPO. If it was about preserving the word's original meaning, why would they be trying to extort shares of stock?
I personally lean towards Instant Runoff for single-seat elections, and Proportional Representation for multi-seat. But frankly, most any alternative system would beat what we have now.
There is no perfect system of voting... just less flawed ones
Truer words were never spoken. And we would benefit from getting rid of our more flawed system, and replacing it with one of those less flawed ones.
2-party blows, but would you like a Superpower that was REALLY gridlocked by a parliamentary system with no ruling coalition?
A little gridlock can be a good thing -- it would give our country more time to reflect and debate before marching off half-cocked into some ill-considered quagmire on foreign soil.
The President as Commander-in-Chief is sometimes dictatorial (never more so than today), but its really not all that bad since we can (and I hope will) get rid of him after 4 years.
True, and hopefully no future Commander-in-Chief will be as bad, but that's not something I'm willing to count on. It would be better to have an electoral system that allows for more than two parties to participate, because as we have seen, when there is a two-party monopoly on political power, and both parties suck, then our nation is in deep trouble.
They have more bandwidth than the whole of slashdot, especially with school on vacation. And the servers are likely to be a server farm. It is not going down easily.
True, but if we all try really hard, maybe we can do it. C'mon everybody! Click! Reload! Click! Reload! Faster!
My take on this whole thing is that things will have to get worse before they get better.
The problem with that is, we can't afford to let things get too much worse; or we'll enter a state we can't recover from (read: totalitarian government, nuclear war, civil war, etc etc). So the "worse is better" strategy is too risky to try IMHO.
As long as people have this two party mentality nothing will change.
Our current two-party dilemna isn't the result of popular mentality -- it's a mathematical certainty given our rules for elections. The public mentality is only a result of those mathematical phenomena: despite allegedly "living the World's Greatest Democracy", people realize that they aren't being given any real choices, that the system denies them the ability to vote effectively for anyone other than the presented Democrat or Republican. Hence the voter apathy. The only thing that will change that in the long run is a switch to a system that doesn't stack the deck against third parties (e.g Instant Runoff Voting, Condorcet, Approval voting, or the like)
You are a perfect candidate for the Not-Bush crowd. It is not the evidence of Kerry's skill in military and foreign policy which would make you vote for him. It is the thought that ANYONE could do better.
Yes, I suspect I am, and I really do think anyone could do better. The pre-war status quo (Saddam being effectively contained, with UN inspectors' help) was a much better situation than the one we have now (anarchy in Iraq, billions spent, 30,00+ people dead, Al Quaeda supplied with priceless recruiting material, and the loss of the world's support and respect).
Now please tell me what you would do to fight global terrorism? If anyone is better, you are too, right?
I would start by concentrating on eliminating terrorists, rather than invading irrelevant countries and thereby producing more terrorists. Second, and just as important, I would use the Golden Rule while crafting foreign policy, and publicly repudiate the current arrogant policy of American exceptionalism. Specifically, if I were in charge, the US would practice what it preaches other countries should do -- follow international law, tread lightly on the environment, respect human rights, etc. The goodwill generated by respecting the other countries in the world would give us better co-operation in hunting down Al-Quaeda, and would make terrorist attacks less likely, since the USA would once again be seen as a force for good in the world, not a bully to be feared and hated. Lastly, I would take serious steps (not just lip-service or throwing money around) to alleviate poverty where possible -- it is the combination of poverty and political repression that causes the despair and hatred that leads to terrorism.
For instance, how do you deal with Iran, whose dictatorial government is most likely seeking WMD, and also support the student movements for democracy?
I would pressure them to give up their quest for WMD, and furthermore pressure Israel to give up their WMD as well. But pressure alone isn't enough: I would get rid of most of the USA's WMDs as well, as a gesture of good faith. We won't be able to convince other nations to disarm unless we practice what we preach. The student movements will mostly have to fend for themselves -- I think true democracy can only come from within, and things like secret US aid would only discredit their movement and give their government an excuse to crack down on them.
How would you effectively deal with Saudi Arabia's fanatical Islamic schooling, without causing global economic turmoil by interrupting the oil supply?
I would start by weaning the USA off its oil addiction through a "Manhattan Project" style program to develop alternative energy sources as quickly as possible. The more viable alternatives to oil the US has at its disposal, the less beholden we are to countries like Saudi Arabia, and the more free we can be to make the morally correct choices in foreign policy instead of the economically expedient ones. Once our foreign policy is driven by ethics rather than greed, we will no longer be seen as hypocrites, and the impetus for anti-Americanism will diminish.
How do you bring balance to Israel/Palestine, when the terrorist-supporting Arafat refuses moderate deals and refuses to hold a single legitimate election?
First, pressure Israel into giving back all the land that it is illegally occupying. Once that is done, negotiations can begin in good faith; or if negotiations are impossible, Israel's big wall might suffice to stop the suicide bombings (as long as it is located on the legitimate border and not being used as part of a land grab, as the current one is)
How do you bring accountability to the UN for the oil-for-food scandal while making them more involved in Iraq?
If we want the UN to be more involved in Iraq, we need to let go of the goodies -- that means turning over contro
you vote for the lesser of two evils you still end up with evil.
But if you don't vote for the lesser of two evils, the greater of two evils is more likely to get elected, and then you're even worse off. (Note that I'm a Green Party member myself... I just know a rigged system when I see one. Winner-takes-all elections are undemocratic and should be replaced by something better that doesn't allow 'spoiled elections')
How about, whose idiotic idea was it to invade and occupy Iraq in the first place? The Iraq debacle may not have a good resolution by this point, but one step in the right direction would be to remove the squad of morons who put us in this mess, so that they don't have the opportunity to make more stupid decisions in the future. If you are grossly negligent while driving and cause a nasty avoidable accident, you should lose your license -- the same logic applies when running a country.
If I can sum up this story in two words "marketing lied"
Actually, a better summation would be "EPA mandated tests are inaccurate for hybrids". Given that by law only EPA numbers can be used in marketing, I don't see what marketing could have done differently here.
So you are proposing lowering the current gas taxes to only $0.75/gallon?
Nah, raising them by $0.75/gallon. Perhaps they could take the money raised and put it into a fund to support our next invasion of an oil-rich country.
And probably a deathtrap if you get hit by an SUV. That's why my next vehicle will be a huge SUV.
Your huge SUV will then encourage other people to buy huge SUVs as well, to be "safe" from you -- making you less safe again. At the end of the game, we will all be driving gigantic monstrosities that get 5 miles per gallon, and nobody will be any safer than before -- pedestrians, bicyclists, and everyone else not in an SUV will be much less safe.
Okay, so we are in agreement that trying to view the world in black and white is a misleading oversimplification, no matter which side you're on. If only we had more thoughtful, reality-based analysis and less knee-jerk political idealism, our world would be a better-run place.
[Environmental effects of PV production] is the central question to the debate, and they have not addressed it, but merely changed the debate to a question of whether their industrial process is worse than other industries with the same process.
Actually, the real question is whether the chemical waste of PV production does enough harm to offset the benefits of moving the customer to a renewable energy solution. I'm not qualified to answer that question, but I note that eventually it will be a moot point. Once non-renewable resources are exhausted, renewable resources will be the only option, no matter whether they are "dirty" or not.
They also did not address the issue of environmental impact of the batteries that you need with the photo cells.
Actually, they did. First off, the recommend using a grid-connected system where possible, since that system doesn't require batteries. By selling excess storage to the grid and buying back extra energy from the grid when necessary, it uses the grid itself for energy storage. Second, it notes that lead-acid batteries are highly recyclable (and indeed are required by law to be recycled IIRC)
Again, as a solar supporter I'm sure you run into hostile questioning
I'm not here to be a solar advocate today; I'm just someone who read the article. If you want hard numbers you can google for them yourself.
They already have to upgrade their car to take advantage of this as 99.99999% of the cars out there don't have the capability to use anything but petrochemical fuels.
Yes, of course. My point was, after all the cars are upgraded to run on hydrogen, then we are free to switch to any method of hydrogen production we like, as often as we like, without having to upgrade all the cars again each time.
Nice try, thanks for playing.
Don't be such an ass. Sometimes when things don't make sense, it's because you didn't understand the post, not because the post was wrong.
The problem is that the emissions are sitll there (and probably worse, actually), they have just been moved to the coal plant instead of the exhaust on my car.
Even this relatively pessimistic scenario would still be a big win for the environment: it's much easier to add anti-pollution technology to a few large coal plants than it is to get every single car-owner to upgrade their car. Plus, when renewable energy sources do finally become a cheaper way to produce hydrogen, it will then be a painless transition because most everything will already be hydrogen-compatible.
I'm still waiting for the announcement that someone made a useful cell that doesn't take more power to create than will ever be generated in its lifetime.
Myth: It takes more energy to build PVs than they can ever produce.
Some skeptics of solar energy claim that it takes more
energy to make a photovoltaic module (PV) than it can ever
produce in its lifetime. The truth is that PVs typically recoup
their embodied energy in two to four years. According to an
article published by the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL), today's single and multicrystalline
modules have an energy payback of about four years, and
thin-film modules about two years.
Most PV modules in the field are made from hyper-pure
crystalline silicon. Purifying and crystallizing the silicon
consumes the most energy in making these PVs. Thin-film
PVs are made from considerably less semiconductor
material, and therefore have less embodied energy in them.
Most of the energy consumed is in the thin-film surface. The
aluminum frame on any PV accounts for about six months
of its payback time.
Solar energy is an amazing technology considering that
PVs go on to produce clean, pollution-free energy for at least
25 to 30 years after they have achieved payback. For more
information on energy payback, see the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory's Web site (www.nrel.gov) and Karl
Knapp & Theresa Jester's article titled "MPV Payback" in HP80.
So, the law of war only applies when there is a war in progress.
That would be pretty classic, coming from the same government that claims the right to hold even US citizens indefinitely without access to legal council, because there is a "war against terror" in progress. Apparently the state of war is a genie that the US government can summon whenever they find it convenient, and then banish again just as quickly when it suits their purpose. (Personally, I would consider any situation with dozens of occupying forces and hundreds of local people dying in shootouts every week to be pretty obviously "war in progress", but maybe that's just me...)
Slashdot Mirror
I know one thing that went on was this: a government lying to its citizens to justify invading foreign countries, and then using the "we are at war, and those who aren't with us are against us" argument to justify atrocities abroad, and the destruction of civil rights at home.
Again, you have managed to avoid answering the question. Why are you attacking me personally instead of answering it? I will post it again, and give you one more chance to answer yes, no, or maybe: "Is it wrong to root for your government's defeat, if you sincerely feel its policies are so misguided that their success would lead to much greater harm in the long run than would their failure in the short run?"
If all you can do is tell me how ignorant I am, I'll have to conclude that you have no answer, and are merely incapable of intelligent debate once your buttons have been pushed.
Yes. Yes I do. While the US has not yet descended to the depths of Germany, there are signs it is headed in an analogous direction. So I ask again, in paraphrase: "Is it wrong to root for your government's defeat, if you sincerely feel its policies are so misguided that their success would lead to much greater harm in the long run than would their failure in the short run?"
At the risk of incurring the wrath of Godwin, would it have been wrong for German citizens in the 1930's and 1940's to root for their government's defeat? (Note: government != country)
Specifically, Clinton was up to his eyeballs in attacks from Republicans regarding Monica Lewinsky, and didn't have political support to do much about them. If he had done more, he would have been accused of "wagging the dog" to divert attention away from his personal life.
Clinton appointees did their best to separate the FBI and the CIA so information could not be shared.
As was national policy at the time. Perhaps you would have preferred it if they had broken the law instead, a la Iran-Contra?
That's right, citizens! If you aren't able and willing to quit your life-long chosen career and devote the next 20-30 years to building up political capital for a presidential run, you have NO RIGHT TO CRITICIZE OUR DEAR LEADER BUSH! So shut up, pay your taxes, vote the way we tell you to vote, and let Dubya's grand vision for world peace, democracy, and unlimited oil unfold!
That's about where the level of debate is these days, alas. Most people would rather set up straw men and knock them down than engage in actual discussion of the issues.
Absolutely. Since we know that Bush never makes mistakes, anyone who criticizes him must be an irrational liberal, overcome with mindless partisan rancor. The fact that well-being of the United States and the world have nose-dived straight into the toilet over the last three years is completely coincidental, and has nothing at all to do with Bush's radical ideas about how the foreign policy, the economy and the environment should be handled. Move along citizens, nothing to see here.
Do you keep an eye on your government to make sure it isn't screwing up its foreign policy so badly that years of more terrorism will be the inevitable result?
Except, of course, that this lawsuit has very little to do with preserving the word 'Googol', and a whole lot to do with trying to ca$h in on Google's upcoming IPO. If it was about preserving the word's original meaning, why would they be trying to extort shares of stock?
I personally lean towards Instant Runoff for single-seat elections, and Proportional Representation for multi-seat. But frankly, most any alternative system would beat what we have now.
There is no perfect system of voting... just less flawed ones
Truer words were never spoken. And we would benefit from getting rid of our more flawed system, and replacing it with one of those less flawed ones.
2-party blows, but would you like a Superpower that was REALLY gridlocked by a parliamentary system with no ruling coalition?
A little gridlock can be a good thing -- it would give our country more time to reflect and debate before marching off half-cocked into some ill-considered quagmire on foreign soil.
The President as Commander-in-Chief is sometimes dictatorial (never more so than today), but its really not all that bad since we can (and I hope will) get rid of him after 4 years.
True, and hopefully no future Commander-in-Chief will be as bad, but that's not something I'm willing to count on. It would be better to have an electoral system that allows for more than two parties to participate, because as we have seen, when there is a two-party monopoly on political power, and both parties suck, then our nation is in deep trouble.
True, but if we all try really hard, maybe we can do it. C'mon everybody! Click! Reload! Click! Reload! Faster!
The problem with that is, we can't afford to let things get too much worse; or we'll enter a state we can't recover from (read: totalitarian government, nuclear war, civil war, etc etc). So the "worse is better" strategy is too risky to try IMHO.
As long as people have this two party mentality nothing will change.
Our current two-party dilemna isn't the result of popular mentality -- it's a mathematical certainty given our rules for elections. The public mentality is only a result of those mathematical phenomena: despite allegedly "living the World's Greatest Democracy", people realize that they aren't being given any real choices, that the system denies them the ability to vote effectively for anyone other than the presented Democrat or Republican. Hence the voter apathy. The only thing that will change that in the long run is a switch to a system that doesn't stack the deck against third parties (e.g Instant Runoff Voting, Condorcet, Approval voting, or the like)
Yes, I suspect I am, and I really do think anyone could do better. The pre-war status quo (Saddam being effectively contained, with UN inspectors' help) was a much better situation than the one we have now (anarchy in Iraq, billions spent, 30,00+ people dead, Al Quaeda supplied with priceless recruiting material, and the loss of the world's support and respect).
Now please tell me what you would do to fight global terrorism? If anyone is better, you are too, right?
I would start by concentrating on eliminating terrorists, rather than invading irrelevant countries and thereby producing more terrorists. Second, and just as important, I would use the Golden Rule while crafting foreign policy, and publicly repudiate the current arrogant policy of American exceptionalism. Specifically, if I were in charge, the US would practice what it preaches other countries should do -- follow international law, tread lightly on the environment, respect human rights, etc. The goodwill generated by respecting the other countries in the world would give us better co-operation in hunting down Al-Quaeda, and would make terrorist attacks less likely, since the USA would once again be seen as a force for good in the world, not a bully to be feared and hated. Lastly, I would take serious steps (not just lip-service or throwing money around) to alleviate poverty where possible -- it is the combination of poverty and political repression that causes the despair and hatred that leads to terrorism.
For instance, how do you deal with Iran, whose dictatorial government is most likely seeking WMD, and also support the student movements for democracy?
I would pressure them to give up their quest for WMD, and furthermore pressure Israel to give up their WMD as well. But pressure alone isn't enough: I would get rid of most of the USA's WMDs as well, as a gesture of good faith. We won't be able to convince other nations to disarm unless we practice what we preach. The student movements will mostly have to fend for themselves -- I think true democracy can only come from within, and things like secret US aid would only discredit their movement and give their government an excuse to crack down on them.
How would you effectively deal with Saudi Arabia's fanatical Islamic schooling, without causing global economic turmoil by interrupting the oil supply?
I would start by weaning the USA off its oil addiction through a "Manhattan Project" style program to develop alternative energy sources as quickly as possible. The more viable alternatives to oil the US has at its disposal, the less beholden we are to countries like Saudi Arabia, and the more free we can be to make the morally correct choices in foreign policy instead of the economically expedient ones. Once our foreign policy is driven by ethics rather than greed, we will no longer be seen as hypocrites, and the impetus for anti-Americanism will diminish.
How do you bring balance to Israel/Palestine, when the terrorist-supporting Arafat refuses moderate deals and refuses to hold a single legitimate election?
First, pressure Israel into giving back all the land that it is illegally occupying. Once that is done, negotiations can begin in good faith; or if negotiations are impossible, Israel's big wall might suffice to stop the suicide bombings (as long as it is located on the legitimate border and not being used as part of a land grab, as the current one is)
How do you bring accountability to the UN for the oil-for-food scandal while making them more involved in Iraq?
If we want the UN to be more involved in Iraq, we need to let go of the goodies -- that means turning over contro
But if you don't vote for the lesser of two evils, the greater of two evils is more likely to get elected, and then you're even worse off. (Note that I'm a Green Party member myself... I just know a rigged system when I see one. Winner-takes-all elections are undemocratic and should be replaced by something better that doesn't allow 'spoiled elections')
1) Who will win in Iraq?
How about, whose idiotic idea was it to invade and occupy Iraq in the first place? The Iraq debacle may not have a good resolution by this point, but one step in the right direction would be to remove the squad of morons who put us in this mess, so that they don't have the opportunity to make more stupid decisions in the future. If you are grossly negligent while driving and cause a nasty avoidable accident, you should lose your license -- the same logic applies when running a country.
Actually, a better summation would be "EPA mandated tests are inaccurate for hybrids". Given that by law only EPA numbers can be used in marketing, I don't see what marketing could have done differently here.
Nah, raising them by $0.75/gallon. Perhaps they could take the money raised and put it into a fund to support our next invasion of an oil-rich country.
Your huge SUV will then encourage other people to buy huge SUVs as well, to be "safe" from you -- making you less safe again. At the end of the game, we will all be driving gigantic monstrosities that get 5 miles per gallon, and nobody will be any safer than before -- pedestrians, bicyclists, and everyone else not in an SUV will be much less safe.
And the real irony is, this whole arms race is based on a fallacy: SUVs are not safer than passenger cars.
Okay, so we are in agreement that trying to view the world in black and white is a misleading oversimplification, no matter which side you're on. If only we had more thoughtful, reality-based analysis and less knee-jerk political idealism, our world would be a better-run place.
Actually, the real question is whether the chemical waste of PV production does enough harm to offset the benefits of moving the customer to a renewable energy solution. I'm not qualified to answer that question, but I note that eventually it will be a moot point. Once non-renewable resources are exhausted, renewable resources will be the only option, no matter whether they are "dirty" or not.
They also did not address the issue of environmental impact of the batteries that you need with the photo cells.
Actually, they did. First off, the recommend using a grid-connected system where possible, since that system doesn't require batteries. By selling excess storage to the grid and buying back extra energy from the grid when necessary, it uses the grid itself for energy storage. Second, it notes that lead-acid batteries are highly recyclable (and indeed are required by law to be recycled IIRC)
Again, as a solar supporter I'm sure you run into hostile questioning
I'm not here to be a solar advocate today; I'm just someone who read the article. If you want hard numbers you can google for them yourself.
Is that still true after all the environmental and health care costs are factored in? How much is the ability to breathe clean air worth to you?
Yes, of course. My point was, after all the cars are upgraded to run on hydrogen, then we are free to switch to any method of hydrogen production we like, as often as we like, without having to upgrade all the cars again each time.
Nice try, thanks for playing.
Don't be such an ass. Sometimes when things don't make sense, it's because you didn't understand the post, not because the post was wrong.
Even this relatively pessimistic scenario would still be a big win for the environment: it's much easier to add anti-pollution technology to a few large coal plants than it is to get every single car-owner to upgrade their car. Plus, when renewable energy sources do finally become a cheaper way to produce hydrogen, it will then be a painless transition because most everything will already be hydrogen-compatible.
Then your wait is over. From the Renewable Energy Myths Debunked article at homepower.com:
Myth: It takes more energy to build PVs than they can ever produce.
Some skeptics of solar energy claim that it takes more energy to make a photovoltaic module (PV) than it can ever produce in its lifetime. The truth is that PVs typically recoup their embodied energy in two to four years. According to an article published by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), today's single and multicrystalline modules have an energy payback of about four years, and thin-film modules about two years.
Most PV modules in the field are made from hyper-pure crystalline silicon. Purifying and crystallizing the silicon consumes the most energy in making these PVs. Thin-film PVs are made from considerably less semiconductor material, and therefore have less embodied energy in them. Most of the energy consumed is in the thin-film surface. The aluminum frame on any PV accounts for about six months of its payback time.
Solar energy is an amazing technology considering that PVs go on to produce clean, pollution-free energy for at least 25 to 30 years after they have achieved payback. For more information on energy payback, see the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's Web site (www.nrel.gov) and Karl Knapp & Theresa Jester's article titled "MPV Payback" in HP80.
That would be pretty classic, coming from the same government that claims the right to hold even US citizens indefinitely without access to legal council, because there is a "war against terror" in progress. Apparently the state of war is a genie that the US government can summon whenever they find it convenient, and then banish again just as quickly when it suits their purpose. (Personally, I would consider any situation with dozens of occupying forces and hundreds of local people dying in shootouts every week to be pretty obviously "war in progress", but maybe that's just me...)