I certainly believe that a nation has the right to intervene in another in the case of genocide. If aliens came along and saw Hitler exterminating 7 million Jews, I would certainly hope they would vaporize him.
The AC's perspective, however, is completely inconsistent. Is he an interventionist, or what?
So you are in agreement that a larger, more powerful outside force should use their power to force sovereigns to meet their demands and social mores or die.
So what's your beef with US foreign policy, other than sheer hypocrisy?
I heard Finn's live in giant wooden shoes, which seems kind of cool. They also fought back the Soviets with nothing but live fish for ammunition, so they've also got huge balls. I would like to marry a Finnish girl, maybe, but I would be intimidated trying to explain to her father why I'd be a worthy son-in-law when I have never, in fact, raided the English coast. Yeah, Norfinswedewayland sounds like an awesome place.
Except America is neither a democracy, nor a republic. Both of them are terrible. America is a limited-democratic federalist republic. You do not get to have a say in every decision this country makes. What you can do is choose, for yourself, the people who do, and you can elect other people to police them. And then they select people to protect themselves from the whims of a fickle public majority.
That's overly simplistic. French culture is wildly different than ours. You're throwing out (1) differences in diet, (2) differences in physical activity, (3) differences in social dynamics that affect healthful vs unhealthful behavior, (4) differences in genetics, etc. I don't know why the French live longer. I suspect it's a confluence of factors. But to point at one thing (healthcare) and say "Aha! That's it!" is correlation without causation. Notice that we are also beaten by a host of countries (and even US territories) that have no public healthcare at all.
You are forgetting the advances in medical technology and personal hygiene (that's the big one, right there) that are a direct result of warfare and the well-keeping of armies in combat.
Remember, this is not the ol' American South where most of the worlds idiocy emanates from.
WTF does this sentence even have to do with the rest of your drivel? Unnecessary chauvinism. You should put down your Ernest movies and Jeff Foxworthy tapes and come visit. But leave your condescending jingoism at the airport; "civility" and "manners" are the watchwords here.
Note that "molestation" is a broad category of sexual offenses in Sweden. Two women came forward to the police to report sexual misconduct, but denied that rape had occurred. Thus the dropping of the rape charge. In reality, the offense is that Assange alleged seduced the women, got them to buy stuff or him, and then he refused to call them back. In America, this behavior is par for the course. Apparently, in other cultures, this is a sexual offense.
I don't think the Torah has anything to say about IP rights infringement. If you know of any hidden nuances in the original Hebrew text I'm unaware of, please tell me.
Yeah, somebody please tell ze Deutschen they can't call us Amerikaner anymore; because it's unfair to the... Mexicans? Canadians? Who gives a shit?
Shrill anti-American nonsense. Some petty, vindictive attempt at taking something, anything at all, from a country they feel powerless to make real their fever-dream revenge fantasies.
Note that most such people are, themselves, American. Because most foreigners I know don't really give a crap about America. Their world does not revolve around us the way histrionic American leftists imagine it does.
I don't disagree with you. But also consider the power of martyrdom, especially in Islamic fundamentalism. Today, he is largely sidelined. Dead... he could have become a mythic figure.
The Nuremburg Trials have been criticized for bringing up the "war of aggression" charge, which never existed before that trial. It certainly is not in the Geneva Convention, which regulates only the conduct of war, not its existence. The problem with the "war of aggression" charge is that it is so vague and nebulous that it can only possibly be applied by the winner to the loser. For instance, if the US has tried Saddam for a "war of aggression" with regards to belligerent actions in UN no-fly zones. It's a ridiculous political charge. Not a war crime.
Also, who has jurisdiction to bring such a charge? The International Criminal Court is specifically prohibited from exercising jurisdiction over "crimes of aggression" (at the moment, the term is left undefined by the Rome Statute, and therefore unenforceable, because no nation on earth would willingly give up the prerogative to unilaterally initiate war).
I think it depends on how much interference it receives from its neighbors. Iraq has been out of middle-eastern politics for the last 10 years (understandably), and represents a pretty big wild-card right now. Many nations will probably find interests there, and will try to exert as much influence as possible, and without consideration to Iraq itself.
Slashdot Mirror
You should go hunt them down, or something.
...send me a new Dial-A-Pirate. I lost mine 15 years ago. :(
I certainly believe that a nation has the right to intervene in another in the case of genocide. If aliens came along and saw Hitler exterminating 7 million Jews, I would certainly hope they would vaporize him.
The AC's perspective, however, is completely inconsistent. Is he an interventionist, or what?
So you are in agreement that a larger, more powerful outside force should use their power to force sovereigns to meet their demands and social mores or die.
So what's your beef with US foreign policy, other than sheer hypocrisy?
I heard Finn's live in giant wooden shoes, which seems kind of cool. They also fought back the Soviets with nothing but live fish for ammunition, so they've also got huge balls. I would like to marry a Finnish girl, maybe, but I would be intimidated trying to explain to her father why I'd be a worthy son-in-law when I have never, in fact, raided the English coast. Yeah, Norfinswedewayland sounds like an awesome place.
This word, "equivalent"... I do not think it means what you think it means.
Except America is neither a democracy, nor a republic. Both of them are terrible. America is a limited-democratic federalist republic. You do not get to have a say in every decision this country makes. What you can do is choose, for yourself, the people who do, and you can elect other people to police them. And then they select people to protect themselves from the whims of a fickle public majority.
That's overly simplistic. French culture is wildly different than ours. You're throwing out (1) differences in diet, (2) differences in physical activity, (3) differences in social dynamics that affect healthful vs unhealthful behavior, (4) differences in genetics, etc. I don't know why the French live longer. I suspect it's a confluence of factors. But to point at one thing (healthcare) and say "Aha! That's it!" is correlation without causation. Notice that we are also beaten by a host of countries (and even US territories) that have no public healthcare at all.
You are forgetting the advances in medical technology and personal hygiene (that's the big one, right there) that are a direct result of warfare and the well-keeping of armies in combat.
I am intrigued by your ideas, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
WTF does this sentence even have to do with the rest of your drivel? Unnecessary chauvinism. You should put down your Ernest movies and Jeff Foxworthy tapes and come visit. But leave your condescending jingoism at the airport; "civility" and "manners" are the watchwords here.
Note that "molestation" is a broad category of sexual offenses in Sweden. Two women came forward to the police to report sexual misconduct, but denied that rape had occurred. Thus the dropping of the rape charge. In reality, the offense is that Assange alleged seduced the women, got them to buy stuff or him, and then he refused to call them back. In America, this behavior is par for the course. Apparently, in other cultures, this is a sexual offense.
What about Tom Jones?
Imagine a beowulf cluster of these devices. We could terraform Titan!
I don't think the Torah has anything to say about IP rights infringement. If you know of any hidden nuances in the original Hebrew text I'm unaware of, please tell me.
It kind of looks like the Spanish Inquisition. They probably wouldn't even see it coming...
Are you suggesting, then, that the actualization of your moral worldview is worth some collateral damage?
If so, it would be a familiar argument.
You need a Xanax. I picked a country out of a hat, dude.
Yeah, somebody please tell ze Deutschen they can't call us Amerikaner anymore; because it's unfair to the... Mexicans? Canadians? Who gives a shit?
Shrill anti-American nonsense. Some petty, vindictive attempt at taking something, anything at all, from a country they feel powerless to make real their fever-dream revenge fantasies.
Note that most such people are, themselves, American. Because most foreigners I know don't really give a crap about America. Their world does not revolve around us the way histrionic American leftists imagine it does.
I don't disagree with you. But also consider the power of martyrdom, especially in Islamic fundamentalism. Today, he is largely sidelined. Dead... he could have become a mythic figure.
That is incorrect. A "war crime" has a legal definition that does not fit what you've just said.
The Nuremburg Trials have been criticized for bringing up the "war of aggression" charge, which never existed before that trial. It certainly is not in the Geneva Convention, which regulates only the conduct of war, not its existence. The problem with the "war of aggression" charge is that it is so vague and nebulous that it can only possibly be applied by the winner to the loser. For instance, if the US has tried Saddam for a "war of aggression" with regards to belligerent actions in UN no-fly zones. It's a ridiculous political charge. Not a war crime.
Also, who has jurisdiction to bring such a charge? The International Criminal Court is specifically prohibited from exercising jurisdiction over "crimes of aggression" (at the moment, the term is left undefined by the Rome Statute, and therefore unenforceable, because no nation on earth would willingly give up the prerogative to unilaterally initiate war).
I think it depends on how much interference it receives from its neighbors. Iraq has been out of middle-eastern politics for the last 10 years (understandably), and represents a pretty big wild-card right now. Many nations will probably find interests there, and will try to exert as much influence as possible, and without consideration to Iraq itself.
*ahem* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago
We leave then they run out of beer.