"That's almost exactly the same thought as expressed by most Britons when Germany invaded Poland".
You have got this exactly the wrong way around. The UK and France declared war on Germany the moment Germany invaded Poland. They did so simply because they had signed a treaty promising to do so. It was much to their disadvantage, and didn't help Poland in the slightest - especially since the USSR joined Germany in conquering Poland.
Had the UK and France not declared war on Germany, it is unlikely that Germany would have attacked and conquered Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France. Instead, the Germans might have focused on the perceived threat from the USSR; or, as Hitler expected, they might just have settled down to enjoy a period of peace. (While, admittedly, arming themselves for later).
In short, "You damn Americans! You stay when we want you to come, and go when we want you to stay."
If you say so. But is it entirely unreasonable for nations that are to be invaded, and perhaps partially or wholly destroyed, to be allowed some say in the matter?
When the Soviet Union moved SS-20 missiles into Eastern Europe there were few protests in Western Europe. When NATO agreed and the US deployed Pershing and cruise missiles to counter the Soviet missiles there were protests in Western Europe... largely against the US.
Perhaps because we felt the USSR was arming and defending its allies - just as the USA has always done and does today. Israel, anyone? UK, Saudi Arabia, any Gulf state of your choice... Ukraine? As for the US missiles in the UK and elsewhere, maybe we didn't want to become targets. Especially since many of us rather doubted whether the Soviets really had plans to conquer the universe. Anyone with a smattering of history could see that, having always been surrounded by enemies, and recently having lost one in seven of its people - all its people, not just its soldiers - to a foreign attack, Russia would be apt to err on the side of security.
(Moscow was paying for the "peace movement." )
Evidence? Thank goodness the US government, at least, has never paid troublemakers to foment agitation in any foreign country. You may be astonished to learn that there are people who prefer peace to war, just on general grounds, without having to be paid.
It was only after those weapons were deployed that the Soviets agreed to real negotiations to reduce nuclear weapons in Europe.
That is questionable. Both sides produced a lot of propaganda to show that they were the innocent victims of planned aggression. But the Russians had a far more convincing case that they felt threatened. When was the USA last invaded and one in seven of its population killed?
When Saddam's Iraq invaded and annexed Kuwait there weren't protests in Europe. When the US, UK, and other nations formed a coalition to remove Saddam's army from Kuwait there were large protests in Western Europe.
Perhaps because it was a long way off, and Kuwait had historically been a province of Iraq anyway. (Not that I'd expect you to know that: as Ambrose Bierce remarked, "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography"). Funny how nations like Iraq and Russia are expected to accept the loss of parts of their territory and population, while the USA fought a war that killed well over half a million people to prevent the Confederacy from seceding. (Not to mention the vast territory, including Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Caifornia - did I leave any out?) stolen from Mexico.
... they ousted Yanukovich (2014) during Maidan Protests for attempting to amend the constitution, sacking and stacking judicial branch, and pillaging treasury to build his palaces..
So when are the American people going to do the same to Obama?
- attempting to amend the constitution: check (actually, just ignoring it altogether which is a great deal simpler and easier). - sacking and stacking judicial branch: check (actually, just stacking but that is all that's needed) - pillaging treasury to build his palaces: check (actually, to conduct warfare pretty well everywhere in the world; building a few palaces would be infinitely cheaper and less harmful).
In the USA, I suppose the answer would be "Never, because you can't just remove a democratically elected president because you don't like his policies (even if they are entirely different from the policies he promised in order to get elected)".
"Of all enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germs of every other. War is the parent of armies: from these proceed debt and taxes. And armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended. Its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds are added to those of subduing the force of the people No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare". - James Madison
"The most extravagant idea that can be born in the head of a political thinker is to believe that it suffices for people to enter, weapons in hand, among a foreign people and expect to have one's laws and constitution embraced. It is in the nature of things that the progress of Reason is slow and no one loves armed missionaries; the first lesson of nature and prudence is to repulse them as enemies. "One can encourage freedom, never create it by an invading force". - Maximilien Robespierre
"War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses". - Thomas Jefferson
"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests. "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop". - George Washington
"No one nation has a right to sit in judgment over another". - Thomas Jefferson
"We wish not to meddle with the internal affairs of any country, nor with the general affairs of Europe". - Thomas Jefferson
For the hundredth time, please recall that the USA did not enter WW2 until the Axis powers declared war on it (or attacked it in the case of Japan). Hitler personally declared war on the USA while the latter was STILL mulling its options several days after Pearl Harbor.
The obvious moral of that particular period of history is that the USA is always willing to beat up weaker nations, but maintains a prudent neutrality in the face of anyone of its own size.
the UN Fundamental Declaration of Human Rights (article 16) declares that "men and women of full age... have the right to marry and to found a family." It's pretty totalitarian to suggest otherwise... which you really should try to be more aware of, lest it damage your pitch...
Unfortunately, the universe is "pretty totalitarian". In fact, it doesn't give a rat's ass for human rights. Fighting reality is not a promising occupation.
"Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity isn't a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity". - Lazarus Long, in “Time Enough for Love” (Robert A Heinlein)
The analogy is not "flawed" except in that it is an analogy.
analogy n noun (plural analogies) a comparison between one thing and another made for the purpose of explanation or clarification. Øthe process of making such a comparison. Øa thing regarded as analogous to another; an analogue.
In an analogy, you suggest that one thing is LIKE another - not identical. If they were identical, they would be THE SAME THING.
The marble/rubber sheet analogy is helpful in some ways; I have always found it so, at any rate. It never occurred to me for a moment to test its exact physical behaviour, because I wouldn't expect it to be identical. The purpose of the analogy is to guide one's imagination and help it to grasp the kind of phenomenon being described. One might as well condemn Bohr's model of the atom because electrons don't behave exactly like planets.
More to the point, WHY would he write a letter? What would it accomplish? He is not going to get his instruments back, and the only likely result of writing to the bureaucrats is a reply explaining in tedious condescending terms why they were right to do what they did.
Bottom line: any government can do whatever it pleases to anyone within its borders. (Some aren't limited to their own borders, of course). Read Hobbes' "Leviathan", a very realistic description of state power, whatever you think of its theoretical value.
The Web is a great example. An even more dramatic one is the number system: the digits, the algorithms of arithmetic, etc. If those had just recently been invented, you can bet they would be legally wrapped up as tight as a Monsanto GM seed. And the whole field of science - up until the point where it, too, became a "corporate asset" not to be shared (except in return for a "revenue stream", of course).
If those dodos even knew what it takes to make an adult "well nourished", I might be more disposed to believe them. But they don't. The official party line from most scientists, doctors, and governments is still that fat is bad for you and so you need to fill up with carbohydrates. However, all the evidence points to the opposite conclusion: it's carbohydrates (most of all sugar and wheat) that cause many "Western" diseases such as atherosclerosis, heart disease, diabetes, and even cancer.
Since they persist in saying that unhealthy foods are healthy, and healthy foods are unhealthy, only a simpleton would pay attention to their conclusions about vitamins and minerals. Once NuSI reports in, we'll have a better idea about what's healthy and what isn't.
1. As far as I know, the DoJ hasn't brought legal proceedings against any of the people detained at Guantanamo.
2. The President has publicly claimed (and regularly exercises) the right to order anyone, anywhere, to be killed any time he chooses. Just because he deems it fit.
So I wouldn't put too much store in anything the DoJ says. Because, you know, they don't have the final say.
Thanks for your polite persistence in bringing these unpleasant facts home to me. I apologize for my intemperate language. As an admirer of Russell, I had no idea that he could ever have made such a horrible suggestion. Like so many other pure thinkers, it seems he had little understanding of human motivation and political realities. (however, I am still sure the idea of a preemptive strike based on game theory originated with von Neumann).
Russell is quoted as saying he had supported appeasement in the 1930s but now (in the 1950s) could see that he had been completely wrong in the 1930s. But that did not seem to have suggested to him that he might be completely wrong again in the 1950s! It seems the main thing Russell and Einstein agreed about was that the USSR could not be left to its own devices - which is what happened, and led fairly soon to its downfall.
In fact despite the huge increases in population, the American death total in the Middle East is quite low compared to that of the Crusades and of the Roman/Greek eras.
If they are an enemy, you use all the tools you have available to eradicate them.
And if you think they might be an enemy, do the same to be on the safe side. After all, their surviving relatives and friends can't harm you so where's the downside?
Bertrand Russel, later a famous antinuclear protester and leading member of CND, advocated a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union. It was only when the SU developed their own nukes that Russel changed his stance on this; to him it was just a simple matter of game theory.
That is poisonous rubbish, and a horrible libel on a great (and peaceful) man. You are thinking of John von Neumann. Russell had nothing to do with game theory, and abhorred all violence: see his Wikipedia entry which makes it crystal clear that Russell was an active and courageous pacifist as early as 1916.
"During the First World War, Russell was one of the very few people to engage in active pacifist activities, and in 1916, he was dismissed from Trinity College following his conviction under the Defence of the Realm Act.
"He was charged a fine of £100, which he refused to pay, hoping that he would be sent to prison. However, his books were sold at auction to raise the money. The books were bought by friends; he later treasured his copy of the King James Bible that was stamped "Confiscated by Cambridge Police."
"A later conviction for publicly lecturing against inviting the US to enter the war on Britain's side resulted in six months' imprisonment in Brixton prison (see Bertrand Russell's views on society) in 1918".
We could build a robot to drive down the street firing a flamethrower in every direction, but we don't. We could build random-walking submarine mine-layers, but we don't.
I think you will find the operative word in those sentences is "we". WE don't do those things, but they are technically feasible. Maybe someone else would be only too happy to do them.
Please don't rule out the possibility that there may be even more ruthlessly violent people in the world than the US armed forces and their paramilitary assistants.
Essentially. if you attack someone defenceless unprovoked, you might get away with the deed itself, but you have signed your own execution warrant, enjoy the time you have left while the group hunts you down...
I'm still waiting for "the group" to hunt Israel down. Oh wait... "the group" (aka "the international community") is led by the USA, which has vetoed dozens of UN resolutions against Israel.
Actually, you have got the wrong end of the stick. The only unforgivable crime, which will lead "the group" to hunt you down, is defying the leader of "the group". Ask Saddam. Ask Qaddafi. Ask Assad. (Maybe soon you can ask Cameron).
You can take out a powerstation with a screw driver, is your argument that screw drivers are as bad as chemical weapons?
Potentially, yes. It all depends. In principle, a single person with a screwdriver could kill any number of helpless individuals. In the Middle Ages, heavily armoured knights were routinely killed in their hundreds after they fell off their horses or just lost their footing. Unarmoured peasant soldiers simply opened their visors and shoved a stiletto or similar through an eye socket. A screwdriver would have done just as well.
After the battle of Towton, thousands of prisoners were apparently executed in cold blood. Each of the skulls has a similar shaped hole in the same place. They may have been lined up while horsemen rode along the line, swinging poleaxes - one head, one puncture, one death.
Never underestimate the lethal potential of a simple piece of metal.
It's because chemical weapons are only effective against civilian populations. Any well trained military unit will be trained and equipped to deal with them. But it's a horrific way for dictators like assad and hussein to punish unruly subjects.
The US/British invasion of Iraq has, to date, caused well over 1 million civilian deaths - plus many more maimed, bereaved, rendered homeless, and expelled from their homes.
So was that because the Americans and the British used chemical weapons? Or did they accomplish it by other means? If the latter, what's the big deal about chemical weapons?
Biological warfare is just as horrible and indiscriminate as chemical weapons. So if you deliberately bomb the water supply and sewerage systems of a nation like Iraq, as well as its hospitals - after preventing the importation of most modern medical supplies for over a decade - you bring about a wave of infectious diseases that kills tens or hundreds of thousands of civilians, quite indiscriminately. But you cleverly manage to avoid the stigma of "using biological weapons". Clever. But horrible.
I said you cant commit an atrocity then act shocked when that atrocity is normalised. If Germany and Japan didn't want the bombing of cities done to them, then they needed to not do it to others first.
So, by your own standards, if the USA didn't want over a million of its own people killed, it needed to not do it to others first.
Just because somebody is an American and his government (that he may or may not have voted for) sponsors the murder of people in the Middle East it does not mean that this civilian is responsible for the atrocity committed by his government and deserves to die.
Please refer to any competent definition of "democracy". You will find that it means The People are sovereign. And sovereignty entails responsibility. Just as an absolute monarch is absolutely responsible for the actions of his government, the people of a democratic nation are responsible for the actions of their government. It doesn't matter which way you voted, or if you abstained. It doesn't even matter if you demonstrated against a given illegal act. Regardless, you are sovereign, jointly with all the other US citizens. And that means you are responsible.
If you don't think the actions of the present US government reflect the wishes of the US people, which explanation do you choose:
1. The USA is not a democracy. 2. The US people wish to gain the benefits of democracy without accepting its responsibilities.
Incidentally, the USA has been indulging in many acts of war in recent years. President Obama may have said that the USA was not involved in war when it aided the attacks on Libya; but legally speaking it was. Likewise when it killed civilians in Pakistan and Yemen with drones. If it launches a single cruise missile into Syria, then - wherever that missile strikes - the USA will have declared war on Syria. That gives Syria the right to strike back at the USA by any and all military means. As POTUS and his associates are wont to assert, "nothing is off the table". So the only thing standing between the USA and arbitrarily large explosions going off anywhere in its territory is the hope that its current enemy is too weak to fight back.
"Privacy's challenge must be heard by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which hears cases in secret and is under no obligation to explain or justify its verdicts."
Slashdot Mirror
"That's almost exactly the same thought as expressed by most Britons when Germany invaded Poland".
You have got this exactly the wrong way around. The UK and France declared war on Germany the moment Germany invaded Poland. They did so simply because they had signed a treaty promising to do so. It was much to their disadvantage, and didn't help Poland in the slightest - especially since the USSR joined Germany in conquering Poland.
Had the UK and France not declared war on Germany, it is unlikely that Germany would have attacked and conquered Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France. Instead, the Germans might have focused on the perceived threat from the USSR; or, as Hitler expected, they might just have settled down to enjoy a period of peace. (While, admittedly, arming themselves for later).
In short, "You damn Americans! You stay when we want you to come, and go when we want you to stay."
If you say so. But is it entirely unreasonable for nations that are to be invaded, and perhaps partially or wholly destroyed, to be allowed some say in the matter?
When the Soviet Union moved SS-20 missiles into Eastern Europe there were few protests in Western Europe. When NATO agreed and the US deployed Pershing and cruise missiles to counter the Soviet missiles there were protests in Western Europe ... largely against the US.
Perhaps because we felt the USSR was arming and defending its allies - just as the USA has always done and does today. Israel, anyone? UK, Saudi Arabia, any Gulf state of your choice... Ukraine? As for the US missiles in the UK and elsewhere, maybe we didn't want to become targets. Especially since many of us rather doubted whether the Soviets really had plans to conquer the universe. Anyone with a smattering of history could see that, having always been surrounded by enemies, and recently having lost one in seven of its people - all its people, not just its soldiers - to a foreign attack, Russia would be apt to err on the side of security.
(Moscow was paying for the "peace movement." )
Evidence? Thank goodness the US government, at least, has never paid troublemakers to foment agitation in any foreign country. You may be astonished to learn that there are people who prefer peace to war, just on general grounds, without having to be paid.
It was only after those weapons were deployed that the Soviets agreed to real negotiations to reduce nuclear weapons in Europe.
That is questionable. Both sides produced a lot of propaganda to show that they were the innocent victims of planned aggression. But the Russians had a far more convincing case that they felt threatened. When was the USA last invaded and one in seven of its population killed?
When Saddam's Iraq invaded and annexed Kuwait there weren't protests in Europe. When the US, UK, and other nations formed a coalition to remove Saddam's army from Kuwait there were large protests in Western Europe.
Perhaps because it was a long way off, and Kuwait had historically been a province of Iraq anyway. (Not that I'd expect you to know that: as Ambrose Bierce remarked, "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography"). Funny how nations like Iraq and Russia are expected to accept the loss of parts of their territory and population, while the USA fought a war that killed well over half a million people to prevent the Confederacy from seceding. (Not to mention the vast territory, including Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Caifornia - did I leave any out?) stolen from Mexico.
... they ousted Yanukovich (2014) during Maidan Protests for attempting to amend the constitution, sacking and stacking judicial branch, and pillaging treasury to build his palaces..
So when are the American people going to do the same to Obama?
- attempting to amend the constitution: check (actually, just ignoring it altogether which is a great deal simpler and easier).
- sacking and stacking judicial branch: check (actually, just stacking but that is all that's needed)
- pillaging treasury to build his palaces: check (actually, to conduct warfare pretty well everywhere in the world; building a few palaces would be infinitely cheaper and less harmful).
In the USA, I suppose the answer would be "Never, because you can't just remove a democratically elected president because you don't like his policies (even if they are entirely different from the policies he promised in order to get elected)".
Why should the Ukraine be run on different lines?
I'll see you, and raise you:
"Of all enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germs of every other. War is the parent of armies: from these proceed debt and taxes. And armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended. Its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds are added to those of subduing the force of the people No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare". - James Madison
"The most extravagant idea that can be born in the head of a political thinker is to believe that it suffices for people to enter, weapons in hand, among a foreign people and expect to have one's laws and constitution embraced. It is in the nature of things that the progress of Reason is slow and no one loves armed missionaries; the first lesson of nature and prudence is to repulse them as enemies.
"One can encourage freedom, never create it by an invading force". - Maximilien Robespierre
"War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses". - Thomas Jefferson
"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop". - George Washington
"No one nation has a right to sit in judgment over another". - Thomas Jefferson
"We wish not to meddle with the internal affairs of any country, nor with the general affairs of Europe". - Thomas Jefferson
For the hundredth time, please recall that the USA did not enter WW2 until the Axis powers declared war on it (or attacked it in the case of Japan). Hitler personally declared war on the USA while the latter was STILL mulling its options several days after Pearl Harbor.
The obvious moral of that particular period of history is that the USA is always willing to beat up weaker nations, but maintains a prudent neutrality in the face of anyone of its own size.
Anyone happen to hear of any Aegis ships in the vicinity at the time?
Just asking.
the UN Fundamental Declaration of Human Rights (article 16) declares that "men and women of full age ... have the right to marry and to found a family." It's pretty totalitarian to suggest otherwise... which you really should try to be more aware of, lest it damage your pitch...
Unfortunately, the universe is "pretty totalitarian". In fact, it doesn't give a rat's ass for human rights. Fighting reality is not a promising occupation.
"Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity isn't a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity".
- Lazarus Long, in “Time Enough for Love” (Robert A Heinlein)
... but I had the impression that nowadays the only legal justification anything needs is that the Fuehrer (sorry, President) wants it to happen.
The analogy is not "flawed" except in that it is an analogy.
analogy
n noun (plural analogies) a comparison between one thing and another made for the purpose of explanation or clarification. Øthe process of making such a comparison. Øa thing regarded as analogous to another; an analogue.
In an analogy, you suggest that one thing is LIKE another - not identical. If they were identical, they would be THE SAME THING.
The marble/rubber sheet analogy is helpful in some ways; I have always found it so, at any rate. It never occurred to me for a moment to test its exact physical behaviour, because I wouldn't expect it to be identical. The purpose of the analogy is to guide one's imagination and help it to grasp the kind of phenomenon being described. One might as well condemn Bohr's model of the atom because electrons don't behave exactly like planets.
More to the point, WHY would he write a letter? What would it accomplish? He is not going to get his instruments back, and the only likely result of writing to the bureaucrats is a reply explaining in tedious condescending terms why they were right to do what they did.
Bottom line: any government can do whatever it pleases to anyone within its borders. (Some aren't limited to their own borders, of course). Read Hobbes' "Leviathan", a very realistic description of state power, whatever you think of its theoretical value.
The Web is a great example. An even more dramatic one is the number system: the digits, the algorithms of arithmetic, etc. If those had just recently been invented, you can bet they would be legally wrapped up as tight as a Monsanto GM seed. And the whole field of science - up until the point where it, too, became a "corporate asset" not to be shared (except in return for a "revenue stream", of course).
If those dodos even knew what it takes to make an adult "well nourished", I might be more disposed to believe them. But they don't. The official party line from most scientists, doctors, and governments is still that fat is bad for you and so you need to fill up with carbohydrates. However, all the evidence points to the opposite conclusion: it's carbohydrates (most of all sugar and wheat) that cause many "Western" diseases such as atherosclerosis, heart disease, diabetes, and even cancer.
Since they persist in saying that unhealthy foods are healthy, and healthy foods are unhealthy, only a simpleton would pay attention to their conclusions about vitamins and minerals. Once NuSI reports in, we'll have a better idea about what's healthy and what isn't.
http://nusi.org/
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/banting.html
1. As far as I know, the DoJ hasn't brought legal proceedings against any of the people detained at Guantanamo.
2. The President has publicly claimed (and regularly exercises) the right to order anyone, anywhere, to be killed any time he chooses. Just because he deems it fit.
So I wouldn't put too much store in anything the DoJ says. Because, you know, they don't have the final say.
Thanks for your polite persistence in bringing these unpleasant facts home to me. I apologize for my intemperate language. As an admirer of Russell, I had no idea that he could ever have made such a horrible suggestion. Like so many other pure thinkers, it seems he had little understanding of human motivation and political realities. (however, I am still sure the idea of a preemptive strike based on game theory originated with von Neumann).
I found what seems a good and balanced summary here: http://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=russelljournal
Russell is quoted as saying he had supported appeasement in the 1930s but now (in the 1950s) could see that he had been completely wrong in the 1930s. But that did not seem to have suggested to him that he might be completely wrong again in the 1950s! It seems the main thing Russell and Einstein agreed about was that the USSR could not be left to its own devices - which is what happened, and led fairly soon to its downfall.
Next time I'll do my fact-checking first.
In fact despite the huge increases in population, the American death total in the Middle East is quite low compared to that of the Crusades and of the Roman/Greek eras.
FTFY
If they are an enemy, you use all the tools you have available to eradicate them.
And if you think they might be an enemy, do the same to be on the safe side. After all, their surviving relatives and friends can't harm you so where's the downside?
Bertrand Russel, later a famous antinuclear protester and leading member of CND, advocated a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union. It was only when the SU developed their own nukes that Russel changed his stance on this; to him it was just a simple matter of game theory.
That is poisonous rubbish, and a horrible libel on a great (and peaceful) man. You are thinking of John von Neumann. Russell had nothing to do with game theory, and abhorred all violence: see his Wikipedia entry which makes it crystal clear that Russell was an active and courageous pacifist as early as 1916.
"During the First World War, Russell was one of the very few people to engage in active pacifist activities, and in 1916, he was dismissed from Trinity College following his conviction under the Defence of the Realm Act.
"He was charged a fine of £100, which he refused to pay, hoping that he would be sent to prison. However, his books were sold at auction to raise the money. The books were bought by friends; he later treasured his copy of the King James Bible that was stamped "Confiscated by Cambridge Police."
"A later conviction for publicly lecturing against inviting the US to enter the war on Britain's side resulted in six months' imprisonment in Brixton prison (see Bertrand Russell's views on society) in 1918".
We could build a robot to drive down the street firing a flamethrower in every direction, but we don't. We could build random-walking submarine mine-layers, but we don't.
I think you will find the operative word in those sentences is "we". WE don't do those things, but they are technically feasible. Maybe someone else would be only too happy to do them.
Please don't rule out the possibility that there may be even more ruthlessly violent people in the world than the US armed forces and their paramilitary assistants.
Essentially. if you attack someone defenceless unprovoked, you might get away with the deed itself, but you have signed your own execution warrant, enjoy the time you have left while the group hunts you down...
I'm still waiting for "the group" to hunt Israel down. Oh wait... "the group" (aka "the international community") is led by the USA, which has vetoed dozens of UN resolutions against Israel.
Actually, you have got the wrong end of the stick. The only unforgivable crime, which will lead "the group" to hunt you down, is defying the leader of "the group". Ask Saddam. Ask Qaddafi. Ask Assad. (Maybe soon you can ask Cameron).
You can take out a powerstation with a screw driver, is your argument that screw drivers are as bad as chemical weapons?
Potentially, yes. It all depends. In principle, a single person with a screwdriver could kill any number of helpless individuals. In the Middle Ages, heavily armoured knights were routinely killed in their hundreds after they fell off their horses or just lost their footing. Unarmoured peasant soldiers simply opened their visors and shoved a stiletto or similar through an eye socket. A screwdriver would have done just as well.
After the battle of Towton, thousands of prisoners were apparently executed in cold blood. Each of the skulls has a similar shaped hole in the same place. They may have been lined up while horsemen rode along the line, swinging poleaxes - one head, one puncture, one death.
Never underestimate the lethal potential of a simple piece of metal.
Vietnam was not a major war, then? Or the US not an industrialized nation?
Exactly. If you remember, Vietnam was a "police action".
It's because chemical weapons are only effective against civilian populations. Any well trained military unit will be trained and equipped to deal with them. But it's a horrific way for dictators like assad and hussein to punish unruly subjects.
The US/British invasion of Iraq has, to date, caused well over 1 million civilian deaths - plus many more maimed, bereaved, rendered homeless, and expelled from their homes.
So was that because the Americans and the British used chemical weapons? Or did they accomplish it by other means? If the latter, what's the big deal about chemical weapons?
Biological warfare is just as horrible and indiscriminate as chemical weapons. So if you deliberately bomb the water supply and sewerage systems of a nation like Iraq, as well as its hospitals - after preventing the importation of most modern medical supplies for over a decade - you bring about a wave of infectious diseases that kills tens or hundreds of thousands of civilians, quite indiscriminately. But you cleverly manage to avoid the stigma of "using biological weapons". Clever. But horrible.
I said you cant commit an atrocity then act shocked when that atrocity is normalised. If Germany and Japan didn't want the bombing of cities done to them, then they needed to not do it to others first.
So, by your own standards, if the USA didn't want over a million of its own people killed, it needed to not do it to others first.
Unfortunately, it has. Repeatedly.
Just because somebody is an American and his government (that he may or may not have voted for) sponsors the murder of people in the Middle East it does not mean that this civilian is responsible for the atrocity committed by his government and deserves to die.
Please refer to any competent definition of "democracy". You will find that it means The People are sovereign. And sovereignty entails responsibility. Just as an absolute monarch is absolutely responsible for the actions of his government, the people of a democratic nation are responsible for the actions of their government. It doesn't matter which way you voted, or if you abstained. It doesn't even matter if you demonstrated against a given illegal act. Regardless, you are sovereign, jointly with all the other US citizens. And that means you are responsible.
If you don't think the actions of the present US government reflect the wishes of the US people, which explanation do you choose:
1. The USA is not a democracy.
2. The US people wish to gain the benefits of democracy without accepting its responsibilities.
Incidentally, the USA has been indulging in many acts of war in recent years. President Obama may have said that the USA was not involved in war when it aided the attacks on Libya; but legally speaking it was. Likewise when it killed civilians in Pakistan and Yemen with drones. If it launches a single cruise missile into Syria, then - wherever that missile strikes - the USA will have declared war on Syria. That gives Syria the right to strike back at the USA by any and all military means. As POTUS and his associates are wont to assert, "nothing is off the table". So the only thing standing between the USA and arbitrarily large explosions going off anywhere in its territory is the hope that its current enemy is too weak to fight back.
"Privacy's challenge must be heard by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which hears cases in secret and is under no obligation to explain or justify its verdicts."
Otherwise known as "The Court of Star Chamber".