Bullshit. They could have decided not to have forwarded the warrant based on the reason for it, since passing it on contravenes their neutrality on politics and religion. As yourself, would they foward a fatwa disguised as a RED CODE? No they would not, provided they were aware of it. They do not have pass such a thing on - this is why it they are "requested" to forward such warrants.
or Pakistan, or Iran, or northern Nigeria, or Sudan, or.... all of these places are blighted with the same intolerance or free thought, and for the same reason.
And yet, most Muslims are not taught this. Very many Muslims are completely ignorant that Allah is the same as Yahweh is the same as God. They are denied this information because it is politically inconvenient for them to learn it. Some are aware of this (knowing Christians and Jews are also "People of the Book" even without knowing why) - but the masses are not aware, and you must ask yourself why this simple fact (the commonality of God in these religions) is kept hidden from them.
Actually, it is the automobile that is probably the single greatest cause of preventable untimely human death. The single greatest cause of human death is probably heart disease. Mao and Stalin were wankers, but they are amateurs compared to the Grim Reaper (and Big Auto).
True of the situation seven hundred years ago. Now it turns out the roles are totally reversed. The West are no longer the intolerant, ignorant, violent bastards. It is the Islamic World that attacks the West - either by physical or verbal act (many Moslems would never act against the West, but they do sympathize with the motives of those that do). The funny thing is that the Islamic press loves to mention the Crusades and make out that the West is attacking it, when the reality is that it is the Muslims who are repeatedly attacking and killing the Christians (please do some reading about what is going on in Southern Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Nigeria, the Sudan, Europe [Netherlands, France etc]), if you follow the news stories you will quickly see that while many Moslems are good citizens but there is still a disproportionate number of religious attacks against "infidels" - and this is systematic because it is promoted as an idea by their clerics (even non-Wahhabi ones) and in fact by their religion (selectively reading the teachings).
Here's an example for you to consider for your "show me any modern society that would wait a year..." statement. Israel has waited more than a year to respond. It takes rockets on its southern cities nearly every single day - although they are not exciting enough to make the Western news agencies (apparently Whitney Houston dying is far more significant for most of the populace). Israel also has terrorists trying to plant bombs on its borders to kill soldiers patrolling those borders on nearly a daily basis. When Israel does get fed up and try and stop the source of these daily attacks and takes great care to avoid civilian deaths they get a mountain of sh!t from the West, since they are considered to be using "excessive force" to accomplish their objectives so quickly (eg. Operation Cast Lead, where the latest investigations prove that many of the atrocity allegations made against Israel were propaganda based and do not have a factual basis such that the lead UN investigator eventually retired in shame feeling he had been duped into promoting the factually inaccurate anti-Israeli propaganda).
Nope. The reason people are not prosecuted for sodomy in America is that the legal system is not run by churches/clerics. It wasn't so long ago that sodomy was a criminal offense - although stoning was not the required punishment. It would still be a crime if the church was in control, but it turns out that law is set by elected representatives instead. As much as we like to bemoan the crazy corporate-favouring laws currently being floated things have gotten better recently with regards to social rights (relative to even five decades ago).
Its just a political tool. Islam isn't that different from Judaism or Christianity. Plenty of things in those religions are punishable by death, but not many people are getting stoned for sodomy in America.
The Kingdom of Saud is a place where there is no justice. Its like Mexico-- all billionaires and peasants. Life is inherently unjust, so those in power have to make a big show of dispensing 'true' justice.
"God's in his heaven, all's right with the world"
Well, in the countries where Judaism or Christianity is the majority they have separated the Church (that is, religion) from our State (that is, politics). Even if something is an "abomination" (lying down with a goat, coveting thy neighbour's ox, etc etc) you still won't get killed for it. The laws in these countries were once-upon-a-time based on the reglious laws but have now been "corrupted" by secular values (that is, a lot more reasonable and tolerant).
In some Muslim countries there is no separation between Church and State. Criminal law is based on religious law and clerical interpretation (eg. Sharia). This was also how the Western countries also operated five to seven hundred years ago (eg. Catholic Church wielding enormous power, The Inquisitions - of which the Spanish is most famous [and humorous, a la Monty Python:)]). There is not much significant difference between European and Islamic clerical rule if you ignore this seven hundred year gap. You can take your pick on interpretation of this: the West's tolerance may either because they have evolved socially for seven hundred years; or that the West is more corrupted by secular thought. Also note that just over seven hundred years ago the Islamic world was considerably more progressive than the West, but what happened is that the spirit of inquiry threatened the Caliphs, so it was shut down hard and policy made not to question anything (that is, the current relative inflexibility of Islamic societies is taken as being of divine origin, when it was a historical political decision).
Oh, and for us darn foreigners, if we are not thinking about it too hard then the unqualified "Chekhov" means this dude - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Chekhov - not the fictional Pavel Chekhov (although we know and like the Star Trek character).
Lol. If by "foreign" you mean "not from the US" then you have found me out. I is guilty. I forget that many from the US think that the Intertubes are purely a US phenomenon. And anyway, the joke would have been better if it had been made in the original Klingon (just like Shakespeare).
A "sabot" is a shoe (in French), and the association comes from when Dutch workers would place their shows in machinery that was threatening to replace them (eg. these were the French-speaking equivalent of the English Luddites). Hence, "Sabot-age". The Russians have many cool words, but sabotage does not originate with them, Comrade Slashdotter.
Oh yes, the MS stuff snaps together nicely. Shame it doesn't work reliably and is not very customizable for your actual organization. Getting it installed is the easy part. Maintaining it is a hassle - especially once you're on the MS treadmill and you can either fork over wads of cash for an 'upgrade' every two years, or save the coin which means you have to limp along with stuff that MS is not really that interested in supporting anymore (after all, they'd prefer you just buy the new stuff). Try managing a system that has a lot of history and is simply too big to throw away every two years. I can see why an experienced person would avoid this - it's not because MS stuff is all bad, it has good points, but basically there are more than enough pain points with MS stuff that some pinhead's decision to switch from a working environment to 'teh new shiney' is enough to make any experienced guy cringe - even to the point of jumping ship. If you do some research you'll also see that the smarter an organization is, the less MS stuff they use (Google, anyone? hi-tech post-graduate research facilities etc). MS environments are for the common folk.
> The US and the coalition of the willing bear responsibility for having neither a plan nor an intention to secure these important cultural sites. Hussein needed to be removed - he was a murderous and evil bastard, but the invasion was followed by a plan that paid scant attention to Iraq's cultural treasures. Neglecting the security of these institutions, having Bush appointees (in some case, Bible college graduates in their 20s, with no relevant experience) instead of a people actually qualified to manage reconstruction, and banning all Baath party members from participation in the new regime. Party membership didn't mean that someone was a Hussein loyalist. Think Mugabe's policy of indiscriminately removing white farmers that heralded the collapse of agriculture in Zimbabwe.
You have some excellent points. With regard to the above, the US was negligent for thinking about post-invasion civil security. They should have brought more Military Police units and got coalition allies to donate police. I'm not convinced leaving the Baathist institutions in place would have been a good idea. The murders in those units would have accelerated their activities and the US would then have been complicit in this. Regardless of all this, the people ultimately responsible for looting are the Iraqi looters themselves. It is fashionable to claim extenuating circumstances for crimes but essentially the looters committed the crime, not the unwise neocons who didn't see it coming.
You're a non-US citizen, and you now have it on record that I blame you for the stream of hyperbole and nonsense that is post #38925625.
Lol. The hyperbole was intentional and intended to show how all sorts of crazy stuff gets pinned on the West, both by Western factions themselves (eg. the political left love doing this, and folks like you Liam Egan) and non-Western entities with an axe to grind. The nonsense in the post was intended to highlight the nonsense we often hear. I hope the intent is slightly more clear to you know.
Thanks for your post, I can't give you mod points now since I've posted. The case of Liam Egan was very interesting - I haven't heard of him before.
That's true. I don't think leaving the Iraqi police, army or republican guard units active would have been a good idea (as suggested by some), but bringing a lot more Military Police units and trying to get allies to contribute police forces should have been thought about ahead of time.
Don't you get it. That was *60* years ago. A *lot* has happened since then, but if you are stuck on something done in the past you will never move forward. In contrast the English and Germans are civil to each other - apart from a few cultural jibes - despite the massive destruction inflicted on each other. The Russians may not have forgotten what the Germans did 70 years ago but they still work with them (the Germans being one of Russia's closer links in Western Europe). In short, if you can't get over events then you are destined to have always trouble, effectively fscking yourself up (the same is true of personal relationships too). It is always so much easier and more convenient to blame someone else than to look at your own reaction and behaviour (as a society or as an individual). The West is still like this too, but has wisened up a lot and disputes are settled in a structured and civil manner.
From my tours of the Middle East I can say that some of the problems there (from a Western point of view) is not because the people are ignorant and apathetic (a common misconception), it is because of the exact opposite - the people there care way too much about politics, perceived insults, one-upmanship of neighbours, and getting ahead by taking everything you can (since you know your neighbour would do the same). Unfortunately it is not part of their culture to have a barbeque with some beers and chill out, even with folks they're not too keen on (which you often learn are decent enough). If their culture valued forgiveness then it would go so way to helping (instead, such things are seen as weakness in the Middle East; when Israel offers a concession for peace it is not taken as a start of quid-pro-quo, as would be done in compromising societies, it is instead taken as a sign of weakness and therefore an opportunity to demand more - which is why negotiations will never work until there is a fundamental change of mindset).
Stuff got looted in Iraq with or without a US invasion. I understand you disagree with the reasons for going to war in Iraq but ffs you can't pretend Iraq was a paradise - not by a long way. The US may have bungled the war and left a mess behind, but it is still far far better than if Saddam had of stayed in power. Don't let your antipathy to the US blind you to the reality of what Iraq was actually like and would have remaind if not given an unwelcome (by the ruling Tikriti's; the majority of Iraqis didn't like the US, but actually tolerated them as an end to a means - most of the real trouble came from Sunni-Shia sectarian violence) course-correction this decade.
That's right Saddam was a saint. What a crock. Sure, Saddam was not guilty of some of the things that circulate about him - but has was a bad azz. Removing him was a good thing - especially for his own citizens (the numbers killed in the Iraqi Civil War are still less than the numbers killed by Saddam during the Shia Uprising).
Agree completely. Everyone (including many in the US) seems to blame the US for everything.
Looters ransacking universities - oh, that's the fault of the US. Oh, Iranians being cantankerous - well, that's the fault of the US for proviking them. Pirates in the Indian Ocean - that's the fault of the US for not going ashore and pacifying Somalia. Problems in Somalia - that's the fault of the US for going in to Mogadishu in the 90's. Terrorists running around the World blowing innocent folks up - well, that's gotta be the fault of the US for doing nothing or too much (take your pick).
I'm a non-US citizen and see that the US gets treated as a punching bag by many (even, unfortunately, by my own countrymen). I mean, the US does enough bad stuff by itself (****ACTA!***) that there is no need to go blaming them for stuff that actually isn't their fault. I mean, how come people can't take personal responsibility for themselves and see that others also need to do the same (eg. the looters in this case). This "crying wolf" that the US is (allegedly) at fault for all the sh1t going on is getting lame (unfortunately that lameness doesn't even mean it will stop soon).
> Right we only lost in the only way that is relevant because the entire goal of the Vietnam conflict was not to lose South Vietnam to Communism. That goal was not achieved. We lost.
From the geopolitical strategic perspective the objective was not to "save" South Vietnam. The objective was to stop a Communist "Domino Effect". To this end it was successful. The US didn't actually care about Vietnam, for them the war was a necessary evil to contain the spread of communism. To this end it was quite successful. Like I said, the "conventional" interpretation of that war is full of fallacies when considered from today's perspective (much of the interpretations of "fail" came from the counter-culture of the time who were opposed to the war and declared it a failure well before the US withdrawal, let alone the North Vietnamese invasion). In short, 'you' won, and this was another victory along the road to the eventual fall of the Soviet Union (which had been the goal all along - thanks to the insights of George F Kennan).
It is a fallacy that the US lost in Vietnam, although they did later "lose" Vietnam itself (there is a difference). If you read the history you'll see that the US destroyed the Viet Cong in South Vietnam and then pursued a policy of "Vietnamization" where the South Vietnamese became responsible for their own defense. Several years later the North Vietnamese Army invaded and conquered South Vietnam - a straight out civil war where the south (backed by the US) lost to the north (backed by China and the Soviet Union). So, South Vietnam was lost to US interests but the US forces were actually unbeaten in the field when they left, and had destroyed the Viet Cong (but were not permitted to destroy the North Vietnamese Army for political reasons, although it was well within US capabilities). It is good you know about My Lai. Time to read more on the bigger picture methinks.
These are the circles I move in, here is someone talking about their setup: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1390782#post1390782
It is good lots of people like BF3, it is a good game. However, the original argument was not a lame "Is BF3 the bestest game out there" debate but was an assertion that an old video card is good enough. I said that there are people out there (eg. myself and the other folks playing in my genre, as with the person listed above) for which video cards can't ever have enough power. I never said we were the majority of gamers, I simply said that we have needs that an old video card simply cannot meet - which mean I considered the original post about old video cards being good enough as bunk for some of us.
For your loach fix try Armed Assault II (btw, you'll need a decent video card for the post-processing effects and push visibility out to 10 km:) ). The DCS:Ka-50 is a light attack chopper with full realism (it is derived from a simulator delivered to the Russian Air Force to train their pilots). Oh, and check out IL-2 Cliffs of Dover sometime - the graphics and sim are fantastic, but again you need a good rig to run it well.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit. They could have decided not to have forwarded the warrant based on the reason for it, since passing it on contravenes their neutrality on politics and religion. As yourself, would they foward a fatwa disguised as a RED CODE? No they would not, provided they were aware of it. They do not have pass such a thing on - this is why it they are "requested" to forward such warrants.
or Pakistan, or Iran, or northern Nigeria, or Sudan, or .... all of these places are blighted with the same intolerance or free thought, and for the same reason.
And yet, most Muslims are not taught this. Very many Muslims are completely ignorant that Allah is the same as Yahweh is the same as God. They are denied this information because it is politically inconvenient for them to learn it. Some are aware of this (knowing Christians and Jews are also "People of the Book" even without knowing why) - but the masses are not aware, and you must ask yourself why this simple fact (the commonality of God in these religions) is kept hidden from them.
Actually, it is the automobile that is probably the single greatest cause of preventable untimely human death. The single greatest cause of human death is probably heart disease. Mao and Stalin were wankers, but they are amateurs compared to the Grim Reaper (and Big Auto).
True of the situation seven hundred years ago. Now it turns out the roles are totally reversed. The West are no longer the intolerant, ignorant, violent bastards. It is the Islamic World that attacks the West - either by physical or verbal act (many Moslems would never act against the West, but they do sympathize with the motives of those that do). The funny thing is that the Islamic press loves to mention the Crusades and make out that the West is attacking it, when the reality is that it is the Muslims who are repeatedly attacking and killing the Christians (please do some reading about what is going on in Southern Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Nigeria, the Sudan, Europe [Netherlands, France etc]), if you follow the news stories you will quickly see that while many Moslems are good citizens but there is still a disproportionate number of religious attacks against "infidels" - and this is systematic because it is promoted as an idea by their clerics (even non-Wahhabi ones) and in fact by their religion (selectively reading the teachings).
Here's an example for you to consider for your "show me any modern society that would wait a year ..." statement. Israel has waited more than a year to respond. It takes rockets on its southern cities nearly every single day - although they are not exciting enough to make the Western news agencies (apparently Whitney Houston dying is far more significant for most of the populace). Israel also has terrorists trying to plant bombs on its borders to kill soldiers patrolling those borders on nearly a daily basis. When Israel does get fed up and try and stop the source of these daily attacks and takes great care to avoid civilian deaths they get a mountain of sh!t from the West, since they are considered to be using "excessive force" to accomplish their objectives so quickly (eg. Operation Cast Lead, where the latest investigations prove that many of the atrocity allegations made against Israel were propaganda based and do not have a factual basis such that the lead UN investigator eventually retired in shame feeling he had been duped into promoting the factually inaccurate anti-Israeli propaganda).
Nope. The reason people are not prosecuted for sodomy in America is that the legal system is not run by churches/clerics. It wasn't so long ago that sodomy was a criminal offense - although stoning was not the required punishment. It would still be a crime if the church was in control, but it turns out that law is set by elected representatives instead. As much as we like to bemoan the crazy corporate-favouring laws currently being floated things have gotten better recently with regards to social rights (relative to even five decades ago).
Its just a political tool. Islam isn't that different from Judaism or Christianity. Plenty of things in those religions are punishable by death, but not many people are getting stoned for sodomy in America. The Kingdom of Saud is a place where there is no justice. Its like Mexico-- all billionaires and peasants. Life is inherently unjust, so those in power have to make a big show of dispensing 'true' justice. "God's in his heaven, all's right with the world"
Well, in the countries where Judaism or Christianity is the majority they have separated the Church (that is, religion) from our State (that is, politics). Even if something is an "abomination" (lying down with a goat, coveting thy neighbour's ox, etc etc) you still won't get killed for it. The laws in these countries were once-upon-a-time based on the reglious laws but have now been "corrupted" by secular values (that is, a lot more reasonable and tolerant).
In some Muslim countries there is no separation between Church and State. Criminal law is based on religious law and clerical interpretation (eg. Sharia). This was also how the Western countries also operated five to seven hundred years ago (eg. Catholic Church wielding enormous power, The Inquisitions - of which the Spanish is most famous [and humorous, a la Monty Python :)]). There is not much significant difference between European and Islamic clerical rule if you ignore this seven hundred year gap. You can take your pick on interpretation of this: the West's tolerance may either because they have evolved socially for seven hundred years; or that the West is more corrupted by secular thought. Also note that just over seven hundred years ago the Islamic world was considerably more progressive than the West, but what happened is that the spirit of inquiry threatened the Caliphs, so it was shut down hard and policy made not to question anything (that is, the current relative inflexibility of Islamic societies is taken as being of divine origin, when it was a historical political decision).
Oh, and for us darn foreigners, if we are not thinking about it too hard then the unqualified "Chekhov" means this dude - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Chekhov - not the fictional Pavel Chekhov (although we know and like the Star Trek character).
Lol. If by "foreign" you mean "not from the US" then you have found me out. I is guilty. I forget that many from the US think that the Intertubes are purely a US phenomenon. And anyway, the joke would have been better if it had been made in the original Klingon (just like Shakespeare).
+6 Funny
Lol. "Sabotage" comes from French, not Russian.
A "sabot" is a shoe (in French), and the association comes from when Dutch workers would place their shows in machinery that was threatening to replace them (eg. these were the French-speaking equivalent of the English Luddites). Hence, "Sabot-age". The Russians have many cool words, but sabotage does not originate with them, Comrade Slashdotter.
Oh yes, the MS stuff snaps together nicely. Shame it doesn't work reliably and is not very customizable for your actual organization. Getting it installed is the easy part. Maintaining it is a hassle - especially once you're on the MS treadmill and you can either fork over wads of cash for an 'upgrade' every two years, or save the coin which means you have to limp along with stuff that MS is not really that interested in supporting anymore (after all, they'd prefer you just buy the new stuff). Try managing a system that has a lot of history and is simply too big to throw away every two years. I can see why an experienced person would avoid this - it's not because MS stuff is all bad, it has good points, but basically there are more than enough pain points with MS stuff that some pinhead's decision to switch from a working environment to 'teh new shiney' is enough to make any experienced guy cringe - even to the point of jumping ship. If you do some research you'll also see that the smarter an organization is, the less MS stuff they use (Google, anyone? hi-tech post-graduate research facilities etc). MS environments are for the common folk.
It is not a clone, not even close to the F-22 in capabilities (eg. front aspect stealth only etc).
Mod this +6 interesting! Thanks for posting your eyewitness view of things.
> The US and the coalition of the willing bear responsibility for having neither a plan nor an intention to secure these important cultural sites. Hussein needed to be removed - he was a murderous and evil bastard, but the invasion was followed by a plan that paid scant attention to Iraq's cultural treasures. Neglecting the security of these institutions, having Bush appointees (in some case, Bible college graduates in their 20s, with no relevant experience) instead of a people actually qualified to manage reconstruction, and banning all Baath party members from participation in the new regime. Party membership didn't mean that someone was a Hussein loyalist. Think Mugabe's policy of indiscriminately removing white farmers that heralded the collapse of agriculture in Zimbabwe.
You have some excellent points. With regard to the above, the US was negligent for thinking about post-invasion civil security. They should have brought more Military Police units and got coalition allies to donate police. I'm not convinced leaving the Baathist institutions in place would have been a good idea. The murders in those units would have accelerated their activities and the US would then have been complicit in this. Regardless of all this, the people ultimately responsible for looting are the Iraqi looters themselves. It is fashionable to claim extenuating circumstances for crimes but essentially the looters committed the crime, not the unwise neocons who didn't see it coming.
You're a non-US citizen, and you now have it on record that I blame you for the stream of hyperbole and nonsense that is post #38925625.
Lol. The hyperbole was intentional and intended to show how all sorts of crazy stuff gets pinned on the West, both by Western factions themselves (eg. the political left love doing this, and folks like you Liam Egan) and non-Western entities with an axe to grind. The nonsense in the post was intended to highlight the nonsense we often hear. I hope the intent is slightly more clear to you know.
Thanks for your post, I can't give you mod points now since I've posted. The case of Liam Egan was very interesting - I haven't heard of him before.
That's true. I don't think leaving the Iraqi police, army or republican guard units active would have been a good idea (as suggested by some), but bringing a lot more Military Police units and trying to get allies to contribute police forces should have been thought about ahead of time.
Don't you get it. That was *60* years ago. A *lot* has happened since then, but if you are stuck on something done in the past you will never move forward. In contrast the English and Germans are civil to each other - apart from a few cultural jibes - despite the massive destruction inflicted on each other. The Russians may not have forgotten what the Germans did 70 years ago but they still work with them (the Germans being one of Russia's closer links in Western Europe). In short, if you can't get over events then you are destined to have always trouble, effectively fscking yourself up (the same is true of personal relationships too). It is always so much easier and more convenient to blame someone else than to look at your own reaction and behaviour (as a society or as an individual). The West is still like this too, but has wisened up a lot and disputes are settled in a structured and civil manner.
From my tours of the Middle East I can say that some of the problems there (from a Western point of view) is not because the people are ignorant and apathetic (a common misconception), it is because of the exact opposite - the people there care way too much about politics, perceived insults, one-upmanship of neighbours, and getting ahead by taking everything you can (since you know your neighbour would do the same). Unfortunately it is not part of their culture to have a barbeque with some beers and chill out, even with folks they're not too keen on (which you often learn are decent enough). If their culture valued forgiveness then it would go so way to helping (instead, such things are seen as weakness in the Middle East; when Israel offers a concession for peace it is not taken as a start of quid-pro-quo, as would be done in compromising societies, it is instead taken as a sign of weakness and therefore an opportunity to demand more - which is why negotiations will never work until there is a fundamental change of mindset).
When you don't have the strength (or will) to do some things you do what you can, right? That is what happened.
Stuff got looted in Iraq with or without a US invasion. I understand you disagree with the reasons for going to war in Iraq but ffs you can't pretend Iraq was a paradise - not by a long way. The US may have bungled the war and left a mess behind, but it is still far far better than if Saddam had of stayed in power. Don't let your antipathy to the US blind you to the reality of what Iraq was actually like and would have remaind if not given an unwelcome (by the ruling Tikriti's; the majority of Iraqis didn't like the US, but actually tolerated them as an end to a means - most of the real trouble came from Sunni-Shia sectarian violence) course-correction this decade.
That's right Saddam was a saint. What a crock. Sure, Saddam was not guilty of some of the things that circulate about him - but has was a bad azz. Removing him was a good thing - especially for his own citizens (the numbers killed in the Iraqi Civil War are still less than the numbers killed by Saddam during the Shia Uprising).
Agree completely. Everyone (including many in the US) seems to blame the US for everything.
Looters ransacking universities - oh, that's the fault of the US. Oh, Iranians being cantankerous - well, that's the fault of the US for proviking them. Pirates in the Indian Ocean - that's the fault of the US for not going ashore and pacifying Somalia. Problems in Somalia - that's the fault of the US for going in to Mogadishu in the 90's. Terrorists running around the World blowing innocent folks up - well, that's gotta be the fault of the US for doing nothing or too much (take your pick).
I'm a non-US citizen and see that the US gets treated as a punching bag by many (even, unfortunately, by my own countrymen). I mean, the US does enough bad stuff by itself (****ACTA!***) that there is no need to go blaming them for stuff that actually isn't their fault. I mean, how come people can't take personal responsibility for themselves and see that others also need to do the same (eg. the looters in this case). This "crying wolf" that the US is (allegedly) at fault for all the sh1t going on is getting lame (unfortunately that lameness doesn't even mean it will stop soon).
> Right we only lost in the only way that is relevant because the entire goal of the Vietnam conflict was not to lose South Vietnam to Communism. That goal was not achieved. We lost.
From the geopolitical strategic perspective the objective was not to "save" South Vietnam. The objective was to stop a Communist "Domino Effect". To this end it was successful. The US didn't actually care about Vietnam, for them the war was a necessary evil to contain the spread of communism. To this end it was quite successful. Like I said, the "conventional" interpretation of that war is full of fallacies when considered from today's perspective (much of the interpretations of "fail" came from the counter-culture of the time who were opposed to the war and declared it a failure well before the US withdrawal, let alone the North Vietnamese invasion). In short, 'you' won, and this was another victory along the road to the eventual fall of the Soviet Union (which had been the goal all along - thanks to the insights of George F Kennan).
It is a fallacy that the US lost in Vietnam, although they did later "lose" Vietnam itself (there is a difference). If you read the history you'll see that the US destroyed the Viet Cong in South Vietnam and then pursued a policy of "Vietnamization" where the South Vietnamese became responsible for their own defense. Several years later the North Vietnamese Army invaded and conquered South Vietnam - a straight out civil war where the south (backed by the US) lost to the north (backed by China and the Soviet Union). So, South Vietnam was lost to US interests but the US forces were actually unbeaten in the field when they left, and had destroyed the Viet Cong (but were not permitted to destroy the North Vietnamese Army for political reasons, although it was well within US capabilities). It is good you know about My Lai. Time to read more on the bigger picture methinks.
These are the circles I move in, here is someone talking about their setup:
http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1390782#post1390782
It is good lots of people like BF3, it is a good game. However, the original argument was not a lame "Is BF3 the bestest game out there" debate but was an assertion that an old video card is good enough. I said that there are people out there (eg. myself and the other folks playing in my genre, as with the person listed above) for which video cards can't ever have enough power. I never said we were the majority of gamers, I simply said that we have needs that an old video card simply cannot meet - which mean I considered the original post about old video cards being good enough as bunk for some of us.
For your loach fix try Armed Assault II (btw, you'll need a decent video card for the post-processing effects and push visibility out to 10 km :) ). The DCS:Ka-50 is a light attack chopper with full realism (it is derived from a simulator delivered to the Russian Air Force to train their pilots). Oh, and check out IL-2 Cliffs of Dover sometime - the graphics and sim are fantastic, but again you need a good rig to run it well.