... we do need some way to separate good scientists that are working really hard and shit ones that are slacking off.
So... do we have another method besides demanding that they be in various journals at some interval?
Why do these studies need to be in journals at all? why not just have publications put out by every university where they internally audit every paper and if it is valid... publish it.
Sure, you're going to have a lot of boring studies but so what? Science doesn't have to be exciting to be useful. And possibly if there was less bullshit in the studies they'd be a better resource.
I note that you have still made no attempt to back up your position.
I called you on it.
You responded by attempting strawmen and other various fallacies.
I called you on that and then predicted you'd puss out when that was foiled.
And here you are making insults without making any attempt to actually prove me wrong by going back and making a falsifiable argument.
You won't because you've got nothing but some sad insults as you go slinking out of the room in defeat.
*crotch humps him again*
You can either prove me wrong by not pussing out. Leave with what little dignity remains to you.
or stay here and get righteously mocked for being a fraud and a coward.
Pick any of the above, chump. The only thing you could do that would surprise me is actually defend your initial position with some integrity. But, since you're a fraud and a coward... I really doubt that is going to happen.
More likely you'll make some more stupid insults while still trying to make your pathetic retreat.
You made an argument you couldn't back up and so resorted to really obvious sophistry to try and save it. I noted that and then predicted given that your latest pathetic ploy failed you'd just puss out.
So, there you go.
Either I'm a fucking fortune teller or you're just that predictable.
*does a few crotch humps on AC's face and walks off*
I said very clearly I'm not talking about a fishhook.
It could be a cable that just brushes the surface.
Think of parachute design. You can come up with infinite ways one won't work. However, if you know what you're doing and go through some trial and error you should be able to make something that works sort of like an anchor. The idea is not to instantly translate all the force of anything to the lunar surface but rather to have some friction with the surface so that you can slow the craft down.
On the other issues, I conceded because you had a point and I value truth and integrity above some ephemeral point scoring on the interwebs. But on this issue, I'm not wrong.
I do not hate my own species and I encourage any member of my species that does hate its own species to dig a hole in the ground, stand in it, and then blow their own brains out. That way whomever has the ignoble duty of dealing with your corpse can do so with a minimum of effort.
As to the US violating its agreements, I note that you haven't provided any contemporary examples to back up your position. I will have to take that as your admission that you don't have any which is an argument in my favor.
Either back up your position with a contemporary US example or concede.
In regards to your atlantic article, it contained nothing I didn't already know. Would you like to draw my attention to something specific?
As to war between the west and Russia, that is already happening. I did not say there would not be war. We are already at war. It will just not be open war. We were at war with the Soviets for a generation. Lots of Americans killed lots of Russians and lots of Russians killed lots of Americans. But we were not in open war. We were in cold war.
That is what Putin has started again. He has started a cold war with the West.
Your article if anything made it clear that he doesn't understand Western thought processes or motivations. This is a common point made about Russians in general. It was something we learned in the Cold War. We'd offer a hand of friendship and they always assumed something sinister in it. Which made it completely impossible to make peace with them because there was no way to do it. Everything was seen as a threat. Which is why we set up a system of realpolitik and "trust but verify". The Russians were completely untrustworthy during the Cold War unless you held a loaded gun to their heads with hammer cocked back. Nothing short of that ever got them to be reasonable.
And if that is how Putin wants it... then the West has two options from its own perspective. Dust off that gun and get used to holding it against Russia's head... or submit.
That is no choice at all. He is forcing us to do it by refusing to be reasonable.
As to statements about treating all members of NATO equally, I didn't say that, you strawman making piece of shit:-D . What I said was that if he hit any NATO member the US would have to respond. You clearly can't refute my point and so you're just trying to tap dance around it while throwing out bullshit logical fallacies to cover for your stillborn argument.
Either back your fucktarded horseshit up or you lose.
Not true. Prior to Putin's aggression Russia was actually invited to NATO meetings and the US was going out of its way to bring Russia into the fold.
Why did Europe for example become so dependent on Russian oil? During the cold war we did not do that. It happened largely after the fall of the soviet union. NATO members were encouraged to trade with the Russians.
Putin has made it clear that that was a mistake.
Russia must be economically isolated and starved until it breaks.
Again, this does not happen quickly. A generation will pass. But Putin really made a serious mistake with this behavior.
It reminds me of the Byzantines response to the Venetians. Long story short, the Venetians came offering trade and mutual cooperation. The Byzantines treated them like shit, burned out the eyes of their diplomat, and basically said the Venetians weren't worthy of licking their taints. The Venetians responded by bringing the Crusade through Constantinople and sacking the city. Looted statues and such from Constantinople are still evident in Venice to this day. The fortress city of the Byzantines fell to the Turks not long after that.
The Byzantines could have turned the tables on the Turks an driven them out of their lands if they had honorably allied with their western cousins. Instead they systematically betrayed them, showed them contempt, and made it clear that they were unworthy of any friendship or trust. And for that they had their city sacked twice, they were cut off from the support they could not survive without, and they forfeited their only hope of regaining their empire.
They could have had everything. And they pissed it away for nothing.
Russia is making the same mistake.
They could have everything. The US wanted them as regional ally. Investment, technological transfer, trade... not just in oil but manufacturing, software design, aerospace, any kind of space industry... everything.
They could have been full members of NATO with the regional power they wanted so long as they didn't exploit it to extort money or extort political concessions.
The security and prosperity of the Russian people would have been guaranteed.
And they have pissed it all away for what? A little bit of Georgia and a bit of Crimea? Idiocy.
Europe and NATO need members that are willing and able to fight. The Western Europeans have atrophied into uselessness and senility. Adding the Russians even if unofficially to the defense of that region would have been extremely desirable.
But for that, the Russians would have to be both willing and trustworthy. They've shown themselves to be neither.
They're not even acting in enlightened self interest. Putin is a bigger idiot than the fucking soviets. Stalin was a fool but the men that followed him were a great deal more rational.
And this puts the US in the position that it must go back to cold war policies. We don't have a choice. Putin is forcing our hands and damning his own people in the process. For nothing.
And if you make a falsifiable argument, given that your premise is specious, I will destroy your position.
That you are going out of your way to be vague is an admission of your weakness. You seek to avoid being countered by presenting arguments and statements that are too vague to be logically deconstructed.
This is effectively a concession on your part.
You will obviously disagree but in the absence of actually providing falsifiable arguments, your contradiction will not actually be a counter argument.
In regards to France not honoring an agreement, that has nothing to do with the US honoring an agreement. I did not say "no country has every violated an agreement" I said that the US honors its agreements.
As to headlong into a war over a Baltic state, you forget that Britain did engage Germany over Poland.
And Britain's position was more analogous to the US's current position.
We are the head of a political and military alliance. If members of the alliance can be struck without a response from the US then that diminishes our credibility. Even on entirely selfish grounds, we would be obliged to respond.
We can of course divest ourselves of these responsibilities. But not after an attack. We'd have to do it before an attack.
As to the dilution of nato, the primary issue is that no nato member invests significantly in their military with the exception of the US. So that has less to do with an expansion then it does with the other members not pulling their weight.
The fact has been admitted by the European governments. There was recently a bit of smack talking going on in the British parliament about how NATO had been "freeloading" off the US.
As to NATO's post WW2 mission. That ceased to be relevant after the end of the cold war.
Really, there is an increasing argument for dissolving nato.
That is one of the reasons Putin's actions were so unbelievably stupid. The US is interested in pulling out of Europe entirely. We want to focus more on east Asia. If Putin had simply kept it in his pants a bit longer, we'd have left and he could work slowly to gain goals.
Of course, claiming territory is only a small part of what he wants. He also needs to bolster his domestic political position. And for that he needed to get the Russians all stirred up with patriotic furvor. And so far apparently the Russians hate America more now than they did during the Cold War. So well done Putin.
But his moves are strategically stupid. He's forcing the US to go back to a cold war posture towards Russia. And that isn't going to work out very well for the Russian Federation. The US didn't fall. The soviets did. The soviets were something of a joke towards the end of the cold war and the notion of the Russian Federation squaring off against us now is laughable.
And no, we're not going to meet them in open combat. We're just going to sink back into the shadows and play the game the CIA played with the KGB for decades... and won.
You just ramp up the nitrogen in the air while reducing the oxygen.
Air force does it with pilots to teach them how to deal with blacking out.
You don't even know it is happening. There's no choking reflex because that works by detecting CO2. Stick someone's head in a bag full of CO2 and they'll gag. stick their head in a bag full of nitrogen and they'll not even realize it.
The navy pilots that they do this to giggle, lose mental functions, then pass out.
It is a very humane way to kill someone. No pain.
It doesn't mutilate the corpse.
It is 100 percent effective.
It requires no special training.
It requires no special parts or chemicals.
It is very inexpensive.
If I were running the capital punishments in a country, this is how I'd do them.
... Russia being in space. But given their conduct, I think they should have as limited capabilities as possible.
Russia is out of control and entirely unrepentant. If they have fewer capabilities their frequently bat shit crazy leaders will have more limited aspirations.
No, because its like comparing a man with no arms or legs against a man that has both.
The relative capabilities of the two countries are not comparable.
The US could wipe out the whole planetary population. If you think it is reasonable to compare such a power against a country that couldn't even successfully attack Belgium then you're something of an idiot.
Let me explain further here... if you could make such an argument then you could compare an individual with a whole nation.
Now how many people has the most successful lone psychopath killed? Perhaps a few hundred?
Now name the most peaceful country you can think of... how many people do you think that country has killed? Tens of thousands at least unless the country is brand new.
Now do you comprehend why you have to compensate for relative capability?
The answer is either "yes I do" or "no, I'm stupid".
From all reports that appears to be a tragedy of errors. Many different powers all did things at different times that were misinterpreted as being against them specifically or in coordination with other powers.
The vietcong saw lots of things happening and they thought it was all the US. There were many other powers in the area though and their actions coincided with the US actions. What is more, the response against the US was also more general and not specific to the US. But the US likewise interpreted it as being specific.
That created a flash point which LBJ used to justify sending increased support to the South Vietnamese. And from there everything snowballed.
I'll concede the point. What about an anchor then? Not a big fish hook thing.... something that might drag along the surface of the moon or scrape it enough to create enough resistance to slow down.
Having an effective military does not make you evil.
As to the US being inherently evil because it is powerful... so you're making the tired argument that beggars are all saints and the rich and powerful are all evil? Doesn't really make a lot of sense there, sport.
As to my point that you can't compare nations that are dramatically dissimilar in their relative capabilities... that is a reasonable point.
As the strategic planner for a nation you have a responsibility to be pragmatic. Your people depend upon it. You are paid to a certain extent to be paranoid, think to the future, and make sure your people are safe.
So basing any policy on something that won't happen is dumb.
Moving past that to morality plays... if you don't want to talk about morality then don't talk about morality.
I'm not going to let you make a certain type of argument and then forbid myself from crossing the river on your ground to make the counter argument.
Be careful where you stand. Because where ever that is... is fair game. I can and will use any type of argument you use as is convenient to me.
The only exception is dishonorable arguments that rely on deceit. If you use those, I'll climb on the highest horse I can find and urinate on you from that vantage.
So... kindly keep your positions free of any excuses for me to do that and expect that whatever you use will be fair game.
Not really. The US decided to enter WW1. We didn't have to do it. We decided to do it.
As to WW2, that was caused in large part by the US frustrating the Japanese efforts to conquer the pacific using economic means.
Understand, I am not against the US doing either of these things. However, democrat presidents were in charge of the US in both cases and their actions directly lead to those wars.
What is more, I could also point out that Bill Clinton was offered Osama bin Ladin by the Saudis and he turned them down.
Do I blame bill for that? No, he couldn't have known. But it was a mistake and if he had taken Osama then... perhaps 9/11 would have been avoided.
My general point was that you can't paint the republicans as war mongers because it makes no logical sense in context.
I mean, Carter's actions in part lead to our problems with Iran. Are you going to hold him accountable for that?
Tell you what... you come up with a standard moral/ethical system that we can use to judge this and then I'll apply that to US history and we'll see who comes out looking better.
And please, we're talking about war and violence here. Don't come up with a system about which party is more socialist then the other... I'll just admit that the democrats are... I don't really care about that. Foreign policy and war please. That is the topic. You come up with a moral/ethical system and we'll see if you can show the reps are any worse. I really doubt you'll be able to pull that off.
As to brutal war machines in the information age, that is not new to the information age. demagogues or cleoptocrats were every bit as much of a problem in past ages. The only thing that has changed is that people not part of the government are able to speak more clearly even in a minority and get their voices heard.
That is in effect a large part of the problem with the US using military power these days. I am not suggesting that people should be suppressed. But because they are not they create an additional challenge.
As to justifying that you judge the US by its peers because it is irrational to do otherwise. You are suggesting that powers that are incapable of fighting big wars be judged on the same playing field as those that can. And then when a nation that does go on the a big war that has many deaths you then say "look at the tiny countries that kill less people than you"... It is apples and oranges.
You can either compare the US against its peers or your comparisons have no value. I will shift what little energy I have to discuss this with you to that point and hold you there.
You cannot judge the damage of a great power against the damage of a minor power unless you scale the damage done by the major power to something a minor power could have done. Then and only then can you compare the two.
For example, lets say you have a homicidal maniac. How many people could he kill in his life? Perhaps a couple hundred? So does that make him morally superior to say Hitler? Because after all hitler killed a great deal more people, didn't he? But hitler also had a great deal more power to kill people.
To compare one against the other you have to compensate for their relatively capability to act.
If you want to compare the US against Switzerland, then you need to appreciate what Switzerland and the US are relatively capable of doing. The US could for example annihilate all human life. Total species destruction. And what would Switzerland be capable of doing? Then you have to look at the issues you want to compare between those powers and adjust them using that relative scale of capability so you can understand the extent to which either one acted in a hostile manner.
If you find this too be too complicated then you can avoid that by choosing powers or similar strength in relation to human history at that time. I gave you a short list of countries that could arguably be added to such a list. From that you can generally compare directly across. However, you're unlikely to be able to find any of those powers that conducted themselves better than the US.
As I said, I am familiar with your false equivalency argument and will stop you from making it before you can get any traction.
Why don't you surprise me by coming up with an idea on your own rather than these dried up fallacious talking points cococted mostly to confuse idiots?
I'll concede that point... but that doesn't mean we must use rockets to slow down. You could drag an anchor for example along the surface of the moon to slow down. I'm not talking about a traditional anchor with hooks but perhaps just a cable that drags upon the surface of the moon as you pass by. Obviously adjust the design as needed. But you get the point.
Slashdot Mirror
There aren't enough academic jobs to accept all applicants. Therefore some sort of selection process has to be in effect.
I guess I could just break a pool cue in half, throw each one a sharp cue shard, and tell them there is one opening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
eh?
We have to have something.
... we do need some way to separate good scientists that are working really hard and shit ones that are slacking off.
So... do we have another method besides demanding that they be in various journals at some interval?
Why do these studies need to be in journals at all? why not just have publications put out by every university where they internally audit every paper and if it is valid... publish it.
Sure, you're going to have a lot of boring studies but so what? Science doesn't have to be exciting to be useful. And possibly if there was less bullshit in the studies they'd be a better resource.
I note that you have still made no attempt to back up your position.
I called you on it.
You responded by attempting strawmen and other various fallacies.
I called you on that and then predicted you'd puss out when that was foiled.
And here you are making insults without making any attempt to actually prove me wrong by going back and making a falsifiable argument.
You won't because you've got nothing but some sad insults as you go slinking out of the room in defeat.
*crotch humps him again*
You can either prove me wrong by not pussing out.
Leave with what little dignity remains to you.
or stay here and get righteously mocked for being a fraud and a coward.
Pick any of the above, chump. The only thing you could do that would surprise me is actually defend your initial position with some integrity. But, since you're a fraud and a coward... I really doubt that is going to happen.
More likely you'll make some more stupid insults while still trying to make your pathetic retreat.
Called it.
You made an argument you couldn't back up and so resorted to really obvious sophistry to try and save it. I noted that and then predicted given that your latest pathetic ploy failed you'd just puss out.
So, there you go.
Either I'm a fucking fortune teller or you're just that predictable.
*does a few crotch humps on AC's face and walks off*
I said very clearly I'm not talking about a fishhook.
It could be a cable that just brushes the surface.
Think of parachute design. You can come up with infinite ways one won't work. However, if you know what you're doing and go through some trial and error you should be able to make something that works sort of like an anchor. The idea is not to instantly translate all the force of anything to the lunar surface but rather to have some friction with the surface so that you can slow the craft down.
On the other issues, I conceded because you had a point and I value truth and integrity above some ephemeral point scoring on the interwebs. But on this issue, I'm not wrong.
I do not hate my own species and I encourage any member of my species that does hate its own species to dig a hole in the ground, stand in it, and then blow their own brains out. That way whomever has the ignoble duty of dealing with your corpse can do so with a minimum of effort.
As to the US violating its agreements, I note that you haven't provided any contemporary examples to back up your position. I will have to take that as your admission that you don't have any which is an argument in my favor.
Either back up your position with a contemporary US example or concede.
In regards to your atlantic article, it contained nothing I didn't already know. Would you like to draw my attention to something specific?
As to war between the west and Russia, that is already happening. I did not say there would not be war. We are already at war. It will just not be open war. We were at war with the Soviets for a generation. Lots of Americans killed lots of Russians and lots of Russians killed lots of Americans. But we were not in open war. We were in cold war.
That is what Putin has started again. He has started a cold war with the West.
Your article if anything made it clear that he doesn't understand Western thought processes or motivations. This is a common point made about Russians in general. It was something we learned in the Cold War. We'd offer a hand of friendship and they always assumed something sinister in it. Which made it completely impossible to make peace with them because there was no way to do it. Everything was seen as a threat. Which is why we set up a system of realpolitik and "trust but verify". The Russians were completely untrustworthy during the Cold War unless you held a loaded gun to their heads with hammer cocked back. Nothing short of that ever got them to be reasonable.
And if that is how Putin wants it... then the West has two options from its own perspective. Dust off that gun and get used to holding it against Russia's head... or submit.
That is no choice at all. He is forcing us to do it by refusing to be reasonable.
As to statements about treating all members of NATO equally, I didn't say that, you strawman making piece of shit :-D . What I said was that if he hit any NATO member the US would have to respond. You clearly can't refute my point and so you're just trying to tap dance around it while throwing out bullshit logical fallacies to cover for your stillborn argument.
Either back your fucktarded horseshit up or you lose.
You don't know that. You can point to no comparable incident where such a thing happened.
As to who is and is not a simpleton, given that your "proof" was completely baseless... that would be you, shit for brains. ;-)
Not true. Prior to Putin's aggression Russia was actually invited to NATO meetings and the US was going out of its way to bring Russia into the fold.
Why did Europe for example become so dependent on Russian oil? During the cold war we did not do that. It happened largely after the fall of the soviet union. NATO members were encouraged to trade with the Russians.
Putin has made it clear that that was a mistake.
Russia must be economically isolated and starved until it breaks.
Again, this does not happen quickly. A generation will pass. But Putin really made a serious mistake with this behavior.
It reminds me of the Byzantines response to the Venetians. Long story short, the Venetians came offering trade and mutual cooperation. The Byzantines treated them like shit, burned out the eyes of their diplomat, and basically said the Venetians weren't worthy of licking their taints. The Venetians responded by bringing the Crusade through Constantinople and sacking the city. Looted statues and such from Constantinople are still evident in Venice to this day. The fortress city of the Byzantines fell to the Turks not long after that.
The Byzantines could have turned the tables on the Turks an driven them out of their lands if they had honorably allied with their western cousins. Instead they systematically betrayed them, showed them contempt, and made it clear that they were unworthy of any friendship or trust. And for that they had their city sacked twice, they were cut off from the support they could not survive without, and they forfeited their only hope of regaining their empire.
They could have had everything. And they pissed it away for nothing.
Russia is making the same mistake.
They could have everything. The US wanted them as regional ally. Investment, technological transfer, trade... not just in oil but manufacturing, software design, aerospace, any kind of space industry... everything.
They could have been full members of NATO with the regional power they wanted so long as they didn't exploit it to extort money or extort political concessions.
The security and prosperity of the Russian people would have been guaranteed.
And they have pissed it all away for what? A little bit of Georgia and a bit of Crimea? Idiocy.
Europe and NATO need members that are willing and able to fight. The Western Europeans have atrophied into uselessness and senility. Adding the Russians even if unofficially to the defense of that region would have been extremely desirable.
But for that, the Russians would have to be both willing and trustworthy. They've shown themselves to be neither.
They're not even acting in enlightened self interest. Putin is a bigger idiot than the fucking soviets. Stalin was a fool but the men that followed him were a great deal more rational.
And this puts the US in the position that it must go back to cold war policies. We don't have a choice. Putin is forcing our hands and damning his own people in the process. For nothing.
not without substantiation you can't.
And if you make a falsifiable argument, given that your premise is specious, I will destroy your position.
That you are going out of your way to be vague is an admission of your weakness. You seek to avoid being countered by presenting arguments and statements that are too vague to be logically deconstructed.
This is effectively a concession on your part.
You will obviously disagree but in the absence of actually providing falsifiable arguments, your contradiction will not actually be a counter argument.
Your move. :-)
I am all for rehabilitating of criminals. But you need to be careful about the way you do it.
In regards to France not honoring an agreement, that has nothing to do with the US honoring an agreement. I did not say "no country has every violated an agreement" I said that the US honors its agreements.
As to headlong into a war over a Baltic state, you forget that Britain did engage Germany over Poland.
And Britain's position was more analogous to the US's current position.
We are the head of a political and military alliance. If members of the alliance can be struck without a response from the US then that diminishes our credibility. Even on entirely selfish grounds, we would be obliged to respond.
We can of course divest ourselves of these responsibilities. But not after an attack. We'd have to do it before an attack.
As to the dilution of nato, the primary issue is that no nato member invests significantly in their military with the exception of the US. So that has less to do with an expansion then it does with the other members not pulling their weight.
The fact has been admitted by the European governments. There was recently a bit of smack talking going on in the British parliament about how NATO had been "freeloading" off the US.
As to NATO's post WW2 mission. That ceased to be relevant after the end of the cold war.
Really, there is an increasing argument for dissolving nato.
That is one of the reasons Putin's actions were so unbelievably stupid. The US is interested in pulling out of Europe entirely. We want to focus more on east Asia. If Putin had simply kept it in his pants a bit longer, we'd have left and he could work slowly to gain goals.
Of course, claiming territory is only a small part of what he wants. He also needs to bolster his domestic political position. And for that he needed to get the Russians all stirred up with patriotic furvor. And so far apparently the Russians hate America more now than they did during the Cold War. So well done Putin.
But his moves are strategically stupid. He's forcing the US to go back to a cold war posture towards Russia. And that isn't going to work out very well for the Russian Federation. The US didn't fall. The soviets did. The soviets were something of a joke towards the end of the cold war and the notion of the Russian Federation squaring off against us now is laughable.
And no, we're not going to meet them in open combat. We're just going to sink back into the shadows and play the game the CIA played with the KGB for decades... and won.
China doesn't deal with such problems the same way the western powers would. Don't forget Tibet.
The Russians are not flying commercial airplanes. They're flying nuclear capable bombers and using them to intimidate and harass US allies.
So claiming that the Russians aren't bothering anyone is ignorant.
I didn't say it did. I just said you need to compare apples to apples.
Once you comprehend what you're talking about, it becomes harder to throw around the moral bowling balls.
You're going to have to admit that compared to its peers, the US is relatively quite benign.
You just ramp up the nitrogen in the air while reducing the oxygen.
Air force does it with pilots to teach them how to deal with blacking out.
You don't even know it is happening. There's no choking reflex because that works by detecting CO2. Stick someone's head in a bag full of CO2 and they'll gag. stick their head in a bag full of nitrogen and they'll not even realize it.
The navy pilots that they do this to giggle, lose mental functions, then pass out.
It is a very humane way to kill someone. No pain.
It doesn't mutilate the corpse.
It is 100 percent effective.
It requires no special training.
It requires no special parts or chemicals.
It is very inexpensive.
If I were running the capital punishments in a country, this is how I'd do them.
... Russia being in space. But given their conduct, I think they should have as limited capabilities as possible.
Russia is out of control and entirely unrepentant. If they have fewer capabilities their frequently bat shit crazy leaders will have more limited aspirations.
No, because its like comparing a man with no arms or legs against a man that has both.
The relative capabilities of the two countries are not comparable.
The US could wipe out the whole planetary population. If you think it is reasonable to compare such a power against a country that couldn't even successfully attack Belgium then you're something of an idiot.
Let me explain further here... if you could make such an argument then you could compare an individual with a whole nation.
Now how many people has the most successful lone psychopath killed? Perhaps a few hundred?
Now name the most peaceful country you can think of... how many people do you think that country has killed? Tens of thousands at least unless the country is brand new.
Now do you comprehend why you have to compensate for relative capability?
The answer is either "yes I do" or "no, I'm stupid".
From all reports that appears to be a tragedy of errors. Many different powers all did things at different times that were misinterpreted as being against them specifically or in coordination with other powers.
The vietcong saw lots of things happening and they thought it was all the US. There were many other powers in the area though and their actions coincided with the US actions. What is more, the response against the US was also more general and not specific to the US. But the US likewise interpreted it as being specific.
That created a flash point which LBJ used to justify sending increased support to the South Vietnamese. And from there everything snowballed.
Saying it was a US conspiracy is not justifiable.
I'll concede the point. What about an anchor then? Not a big fish hook thing .... something that might drag along the surface of the moon or scrape it enough to create enough resistance to slow down.
Having an effective military does not make you evil.
As to the US being inherently evil because it is powerful... so you're making the tired argument that beggars are all saints and the rich and powerful are all evil? Doesn't really make a lot of sense there, sport.
As to my point that you can't compare nations that are dramatically dissimilar in their relative capabilities... that is a reasonable point.
Work harder, Mr AC.
No, captain strawman.
As the strategic planner for a nation you have a responsibility to be pragmatic. Your people depend upon it. You are paid to a certain extent to be paranoid, think to the future, and make sure your people are safe.
So basing any policy on something that won't happen is dumb.
Moving past that to morality plays... if you don't want to talk about morality then don't talk about morality.
I'm not going to let you make a certain type of argument and then forbid myself from crossing the river on your ground to make the counter argument.
Be careful where you stand. Because where ever that is... is fair game. I can and will use any type of argument you use as is convenient to me.
The only exception is dishonorable arguments that rely on deceit. If you use those, I'll climb on the highest horse I can find and urinate on you from that vantage.
So... kindly keep your positions free of any excuses for me to do that and expect that whatever you use will be fair game.
Not really. The US decided to enter WW1. We didn't have to do it. We decided to do it.
As to WW2, that was caused in large part by the US frustrating the Japanese efforts to conquer the pacific using economic means.
Understand, I am not against the US doing either of these things. However, democrat presidents were in charge of the US in both cases and their actions directly lead to those wars.
What is more, I could also point out that Bill Clinton was offered Osama bin Ladin by the Saudis and he turned them down.
Do I blame bill for that? No, he couldn't have known. But it was a mistake and if he had taken Osama then... perhaps 9/11 would have been avoided.
My general point was that you can't paint the republicans as war mongers because it makes no logical sense in context.
I mean, Carter's actions in part lead to our problems with Iran. Are you going to hold him accountable for that?
Tell you what... you come up with a standard moral/ethical system that we can use to judge this and then I'll apply that to US history and we'll see who comes out looking better.
And please, we're talking about war and violence here. Don't come up with a system about which party is more socialist then the other... I'll just admit that the democrats are... I don't really care about that. Foreign policy and war please. That is the topic. You come up with a moral/ethical system and we'll see if you can show the reps are any worse. I really doubt you'll be able to pull that off.
As to brutal war machines in the information age, that is not new to the information age. demagogues or cleoptocrats were every bit as much of a problem in past ages. The only thing that has changed is that people not part of the government are able to speak more clearly even in a minority and get their voices heard.
That is in effect a large part of the problem with the US using military power these days. I am not suggesting that people should be suppressed. But because they are not they create an additional challenge.
As to justifying that you judge the US by its peers because it is irrational to do otherwise. You are suggesting that powers that are incapable of fighting big wars be judged on the same playing field as those that can. And then when a nation that does go on the a big war that has many deaths you then say "look at the tiny countries that kill less people than you"... It is apples and oranges.
You can either compare the US against its peers or your comparisons have no value. I will shift what little energy I have to discuss this with you to that point and hold you there.
You cannot judge the damage of a great power against the damage of a minor power unless you scale the damage done by the major power to something a minor power could have done. Then and only then can you compare the two.
For example, lets say you have a homicidal maniac. How many people could he kill in his life? Perhaps a couple hundred? So does that make him morally superior to say Hitler? Because after all hitler killed a great deal more people, didn't he? But hitler also had a great deal more power to kill people.
To compare one against the other you have to compensate for their relatively capability to act.
If you want to compare the US against Switzerland, then you need to appreciate what Switzerland and the US are relatively capable of doing. The US could for example annihilate all human life. Total species destruction. And what would Switzerland be capable of doing? Then you have to look at the issues you want to compare between those powers and adjust them using that relative scale of capability so you can understand the extent to which either one acted in a hostile manner.
If you find this too be too complicated then you can avoid that by choosing powers or similar strength in relation to human history at that time. I gave you a short list of countries that could arguably be added to such a list. From that you can generally compare directly across. However, you're unlikely to be able to find any of those powers that conducted themselves better than the US.
As I said, I am familiar with your false equivalency argument and will stop you from making it before you can get any traction.
Why don't you surprise me by coming up with an idea on your own rather than these dried up fallacious talking points cococted mostly to confuse idiots?
That would be refreshing.
I'll concede that point... but that doesn't mean we must use rockets to slow down. You could drag an anchor for example along the surface of the moon to slow down. I'm not talking about a traditional anchor with hooks but perhaps just a cable that drags upon the surface of the moon as you pass by. Obviously adjust the design as needed. But you get the point.
There's no reason why that couldn't work.