Which of the military actions in the last 50 years or so were related to my right to whine? Yes, the war on rice in Vietnam was all about my free speech. Or how about both Gulf Wars and the right to cheap oil
Actually Vietnam was about your right to whine. At the time there was a "domino theory". That if we let one nation in a region fall to communism they all would. The US fought in Vietnam to prevent the spread of communism.
The gulf wars were not about cheap oil, that is political spin. These wars were about access to oil, so was the World War 2 in the Pacific. Denying oil to an industrial nation can destroy it. If the current war was only about oil the army would be have tens of thousands of troops camping out in the oil fields instead of Bagdad. They could be secured far easier and the oil would be flowing by now, even if new pipelines through remote defendable terrain had to be built.
An even better example:
Disney (Buena Vista)
Fox
HBO
Lionsgate
MGM
New Line Cinema
Paramount
Sony Pictures
Universal Studios
Warner Bros.
To be honest, if WalMart had said we will only carry HD players and HD discs those studios (except maybe Sony Pictures) would have abandoned BlueRay exclusivity, maybe even BlueRay entirely. You can be sure that their lawyers/execs would have had some sort of escape clause based upon such a scenario in their agreements with Sony. "Material adverse change" type stuff.
Because ordinary citizens can't use land lines if their cell was down?
Land lines, in Afghanistan? Perhaps you missed it, but the developing world decided to skip plain old telephones and go straight to cellular. The cost and disruption of laying new phone lines made the plain old telephone system a bad idea.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
You're suggesting that "essential" is specializing the word "liberty", selecting a subset of the group of liberties, rather than simply describing the concept. I disagree. If he really meant only "essential liberties", he would have wrote that:
"They that can give up essential liberties to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Or:
"They that can give up an essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
But no, he wrote of "essential liberty"... ie, liberty, which is itself essential.
I think your parsing of the language is subjective, overly dependent on a narrow interpretation of the singular. Consider that there is essential liberty and non-essential liberty, as there is hot food and cold food. Now add to that the fact that writing styles and speech patterns have changed over the centuries and I think your argument is even more precarious.
I can see where people come from, given that today's modern vehicles are far more heavy and faster than those older methods - so there are safety concerns; but let's not forget that we do have an inherent and essential right to travel through the methods available to us. Horse & carriage is really available any more. Vehicles are. It's more of a right, than a privilege, than you may realize.
I live in SoCal and have commuted vast distances for various jobs. I *could* have used public transportation, bus to train to bus. However I have not because it is more comfortable and convenient to drive myself. Before I had a drivers license I took the bus all over town, once I got that license I *had* to drive. This same bias/perception continued into adulthood, and it remains a preference not a reality. As much as I enjoy and prefer my car, driving it on a public road remains a convenience not a necessity.
Roads have existed long before cars and used by horse, carriage, and other methods of transportation for millenia.
And many were private or otherwise non-government owned, or simply an information evolution of natural trails. Things are a little more complicated than you suggest given the state purchase of land, or seizure through eminent domain, and state construction of roads.
I can see where people come from, given that today's modern vehicles are far more heavy and faster than those older methods - so there are safety concerns; but let's not forget that we do have an inherent and essential right to travel through the methods available to us. Horse & carriage is really available any more. Vehicles are. It's more of a right, than a privilege, than you may realize.
I understand your sentiment, but the courts have ruled regarding the operation of motor vehicles on public roads. Registration and licensing has passed constitutional challenges. Bicycles, mass transit, etc provide a sufficient opportunity for travel.
Also, remember that the Constitution (in the US) grants only a specific set of rights/abilities to the federal government (intra-state, and external activities), the states (within their borders, and according to their Constitution which must be similar to the it), and releases all else to the people.
Not quite. The Constitution grants specific powers to the federal government, and leaves the rest to the states' discretion. The state constitutions does not need to be similar, merely compatible.
Re:humans with very limited mathematical ability .
on
Fish Can Count to Four
·
· Score: 1
humans with very limited mathematical ability... politicians?
No. Donations, polls, and votes all use mathematics quite heavily. Perhaps you are confused by how they handle "our" money, to get a better evaluation of their capabilities note how they handle "their" money.:-)
Isn't it as easy as turning the cell phone off? Maybe Airplane mode?
No, it is not that easy, they have a "legitimate" complaint from their perspective. The "problem" is *not* their people and their cell phones. The "problem" is that ordinary citizen are reporting suspicious nighttime activities. Their are essentially trying to turn off the tips hotline.
"All cars with OnStar can be monitored the same way. Welcome to 1984."
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. --Benjamin Franklin
I love Ben's wisdom, but this quote is being so overused and so often poorly used that it is being diminished. Please note the word "essential", Ben put that word in there for a reason. His words were carefully crafted and extraneous words were not left in. In short, non-essential liberties are excluded by the quote and anonymity while driving is a non-essential liberty, actually a non-existent liberty. We have no right to drive on public roads, it is a privilege. We knowingly enter into a contract in order to exercise that privilege. Our cars must be registered and display a unique identifier, the license plate. We are required to be licensed and must present that license upon request. Furthermore, OnStar is voluntary and has positive benefits, any good contract should, such as notifying rescue personnel of an accident's location. Ben's quote is quite inappropriate here.
In sports, we know what's going on. We know why the pass was made, we know who made it, we can generally tell how helpful a particular "assist" was. For that matter, we know that this pass directly resulted in a score being made.
Ads can be tagged for their scope. The defined scope(s) can be used to determine if an "assist" is being made. Digital music players to iPod to sale, we have an assist. Printers to iPod to sale, no assist.
In short, Microsoft is developing a solution in search of a problem.
Like in sports, the person who passes the ball/puck/etc does not do the scoring but they do get credit for the assist. Doing so in advertising does make logical sense, and it also seems to be a more fair system. Be careful that you are not against a good idea merely because it was from Microsoft, if Google had suggested this would you have had the same reactions?
Either that or it's just another attempt at tracking the consumer's every last act, hidden under a patina of equitable distribution of ad revenue.
To continue in the theme of the above question, does it bother you that google is actually doing so? Mining email, etc?
Good job ignoring the bad news that shoots down your whole theory about "Chinese agression." I guess you're playing the "avoid the bad facts and dazzle with bullshit" theory.
Sorry, but your comparison to the Chinese embassy qualifies as nonsense , not as a productive counter argument. The Chinese pilot knew he had a US aircraft. The US pilot did not know he had the Chinese embassy, bad coordinates/old map + GPS guided bombs, it was not a visually acquired target. We apologized. They claimed that a big lumber slow surveillance aircraft maneuvered to ram a small highly maneuverable fighter that was far away at a safe distance.
You list various countries that the US has fought with in the past, but you naively fail to realize that except for one case all of those countries have different governments than when we fought. The exception, Vietnam, has a government that is fairly friendly. It doesn't hurt that they are also victims of Chinese aggression, invaded in the 1970s or 80s, being deprived of water originating in Chinese territory, etc.
"Their military is a bit aggressive with us, recall their ramming of our surveillance aircraft [...]"
lol! whose military was agressive, flying surveillance flights along their border? How would the average American feel if Chinese military planes were flying along the coast of California and New York!
The US and Soviet Union did so for decades. Soviet bombers flew down the coast, were intercepted by US fighters, they were not rammed. Once when a soviet bomber did make an emergency landing at a US air force base the soviet crew was allowed to make repairs, the aircraft was refueled, and permitted to leave without violating the aircraft. Quite different and telling from the Chinese incident.
Furthermore, I don't see how you can accuse China of being militarily aggressive against the United States. The spy plane issue to which you refer does not prove your case. America was flying a spy plane in sovereign Chinese territory tens of thousands of miles away from the United States. One of their fighter planes accidentally hits the plane (the pilot was a hot dog who died in the accident).
The surveillance aircraft was in international airspace, not sovereign Chinese territory, when it was intercepted by Chinese aircraft. It only entered Chinese airspace after the Chinese pilot collided with it and it had to make an emergency landing at the closest airfield.
Accidentally hit is a misnomer on your part, so is hot dog. When a high maneuverability fighter gets that close to a slow lumbering aircraft it is a threat, and when the pilots is so aggressive that he bungles the maneuver hot head would be a better description.
You other attempts at changing the topic are intentionally ignored.
My capitalism argument was simply that everything has to turn a buck, and people will do anything to turn a buck. I think that's a valid description of capitalism the same way the communism Soviet Russia/china can be used to describe communism, im just saying what i see.
If you are describing what you see then I have no idea what you are looking at. Capitalist countries support intellectual property, they could not invest their capital into new inventions without such protection. China is not capitalist, they describe themselves as communism with a chinese face/flavor/flair/etc.
No but its not the Chinese government producing the counterfeit goods, its the same sweatshops producing the real good in a lot of cases. The only thing the Chinese government do is not bothering to hurt their own ecconomy.
While some shops run off-the-books production runs there are also many that are pure counterfeiters unrelated to authorized production. Deficiencies in quality, materials, and workmanship are often discernible. The Chinese government is unwilling to shut down counterfeiting due to high unemployment. Wether or not they are protecting their economy is irrelevant, their actions remain hostile and they explain why the US is suspicious of China.
... if you listed the things the US has done to China (like funding Taiwan's military and 'meddling' in Tibet's circumstances)...
The government of Taiwan and our relationship with them predates communist China. Taiwan is essentially the part of China that the communists never conquered, the place the nationalist government fighting the communists fled to.
The Tibetan people claim they are a distinct nation that predates communist China and that they were conquered by the communists.
"They attempt to manipulate our electoral system with illegal campaign contributions"
Pot kettle black, have you heard of this little agency called the CIA, the middle east didnt supress themselves.
You offer a losing argument. If it is hostile when we do it then it is hostile when they do it.
"recall their ramming of our surveillance aircraft"
erm you were spying on them, if they were aggressive then bye bye plane!
Legally, from international waters, just as they are free to do. Just as the US and Soviet Union did for decades. Since you seem unaware of events: a plane did go down, theirs. Their small nimble fighter hit our big slow lumbering plane during an aggressive closing maneuver. Their pilot crashed and died, ours managed to regain control and make an emergency landing.
"The blind eye turned towards piracy and counterfeiting."
Supply and demand, if people are going to buy fakes then people are going to make them, its called capitalism look it any good bookshop. As for piracy i much prefer sweeden's approach more than a blind eye a straight out finger up to tell you that sweeden is not your jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction is another losing argument. It only explains why a hostile act is not being stopped. The hostile act remains.
Also it is pretty ignorant to justify piracy with capitalism, I suggest that you start reading before recommending bookstores to others. Capitalism requires strong intellectual property protection, otherwise private investments of capital can not be justified. A lack of individual property rights would come from the communist side of the political spectrum.
Also, your Sweden argument suggest a RIAA train of thought. If you think piracy and couterfeiting in China is primarily a RIAA issue then you are unqualified for this conversation.
"Their currency manipulation to remain an extremely inexpensive exporter."
Atleast theyre not invading countries to try keep their currency afloat. (im not saying its why you went into iraq but definitely up there)
Uh, the war and the massive deficits that it contributes to harms US currency. You may want to add an econ text to that reading list of yours.
"they entered the Korean War to save the North Koreans when they were on the verge of defeat."
I have to admit, i don't know the specifics of Korea but i KNOW that if it wasn't for some American interest you wouldn't have been there at all(freedom doesnt count as an interest for the same reason it didnt count in nam,afganistan (both times) & doesnt count in iraq now).
Actually the Korean War was a United Nations war, not a United States war. The North brutally invaded the South, the UN authorized the war. Sorry, it was about freedom and stopping aggression.
When did China become "The Enemy"? I thought you were still working on Al-Qaeda. Did I miss a memo?
You missed headlines of the 1950s and 60s, not just a memo. You might start with China entering the Korean War and attacking US forces in order to save North Korea from defeat.
Actually the cold war with China began in the 1940s. The shooting war began around 1951, but remained relatively low key. Unlike the Soviet Union where all the fighting was through proxies, the US and China have met in combat. You might want to read up on history a little before trying for the analyst/commentator job.:-)
When I was in the Air Force people always used to be surprised when someone would do something stupid; they thought that since you had to score in the 40th percentile in the ASVAB test to get in the Air Force rather than the 30th as in the Navy, the people should be smarter.
First of all we aren't all American here so we don't all quite understand this paranoia about the Chinese.
Well they are number one with respect to industrial and military espionage directed at us. They attempt to manipulate our electoral system with illegal campaign contributions. Their military is a bit aggressive with us, recall their ramming of our surveillance aircraft and the games played with the aircraft on the ground. Their currency manipulation to remain an extremely inexpensive exporter. The blind eye turned towards piracy and counterfeiting. Their involvement in the drug trade (precursor chemicals and opium exports, and money laundering). Their transfer of ballistic missile and nuclear technologies.... Then there is also the little detail that they have militarily attacked us, they entered the Korean War to save the North Koreans when they were on the verge of defeat.
Now look at how they treat their own citizens. The growing unrest of these citizens. The unavoidable crisis coming as the countryside becomes even poorer, and the population becomes older overall,... They seem well poised to need a diversion and a scapegoat. We seem to be their number one candidate. The cold war only ended in the west, in the east the same people are still running things. Only their strategy has changed.
| | War is never necessary
|
| Tell that to a European Jew some time.
Yes one can take that meaning however it just proves the point that killing doesn't solve anything.
Actually it did solve something. The killers got the land, property, and money that they wanted.
This takes communication. It takes work. It takes creative thinking. It takes relationships. It takes thinking that isn't at the level of thinking that you are thinking. It takes you going beyond your level of thinking. Take the red pill and choose the cult of life.
There is some truth in your words, unfortunately it is not the truth you think. The truth of your words is the use of the word "cult". Your extreme pacifistic views are very cult like. Let's hope that the protection that non-pacifists provide you never ends so that reality never intrudes on your fantasy. Best wishes and good luck.
Pacifism begets killing too, the killing of the pacifists. Pacifism leads to death unless you have non-pacifists around to protect you. Being reasonable and fair is fine and good, and we should strive for that path, but one must also be willing and able to use deadly force in defense. Even in modern times, over a small number of generations, we have seen a population split, the two halves become isolated, one become pacifist, and when the two halves reestablish contact the pacifists are murdered and/or enlsaved by their blood relatives. Sorry, read about this in a book so I don't have a link handy, the people were Pacific islanders, timeframe 19th century IIRC.
Actually, if they really want you, your contract (yes, you *do* sign a contract to join the military) can stipulate the job you are signing up for. It can also stipulate that the contract is null and void if they are unable (for whatever reason) to give you that job.
I expect that this would be a pretty rare event and only involve occupational specialties where they routinely train and place many individuals. Perhaps getting a guarantee of being sent to military police school after basic.
I happen to know, because that was the only way I joined. Of course, you have to have the balls to say - "Fine, I quit!" if they don't keep their end of the bargain. But, they don't have a legal leg to stand on if it's in your contract.
I'm sure that is your understanding of the situation, but unless you or someone you know actually exercised that option I am not entirely convinced that it is really so cut and dry. In other words is there something in the small print that gives the military a little "flexibility" should "national security" demand it.
Is retraining/re-designation prohibited, for example they train and give you the electronics job but later decide the retrain you for avionics?
How are conflicts between your contract and your oath to obey all lawful orders resolved? Your an electronics tech and all of a sudden your are told to grab a rifle, get in a foxhole, and defend this line. Things like this happened on numerous occasions during world war 2 and korea. Do you think the officer or NCO in the field is going to give a sh*t about your contract should similar needs and circumstances arise?
Finally, having a specialty such as electronics tech does not prohibit them from sending you into harms way. I once knew someone who was an electronics tech in the Marine Corp. He was stationed in Vietnam and was quietly and safely working on base. Once day he is given an *interesting* assignment. He is to accompany a Marine Force Recon team, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Force_Recon, to the Ho Chi Minh trail, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh_trail, and deploy electronic sensor to monitory enemy movements.
Slashdot Mirror
Which of the military actions in the last 50 years or so were related to my right to whine? Yes, the war on rice in Vietnam was all about my free speech. Or how about both Gulf Wars and the right to cheap oil
Actually Vietnam was about your right to whine. At the time there was a "domino theory". That if we let one nation in a region fall to communism they all would. The US fought in Vietnam to prevent the spread of communism.
The gulf wars were not about cheap oil, that is political spin. These wars were about access to oil, so was the World War 2 in the Pacific. Denying oil to an industrial nation can destroy it. If the current war was only about oil the army would be have tens of thousands of troops camping out in the oil fields instead of Bagdad. They could be secured far easier and the oil would be flowing by now, even if new pipelines through remote defendable terrain had to be built.
An even better example: Disney (Buena Vista) Fox HBO Lionsgate MGM New Line Cinema Paramount Sony Pictures Universal Studios Warner Bros.
To be honest, if WalMart had said we will only carry HD players and HD discs those studios (except maybe Sony Pictures) would have abandoned BlueRay exclusivity, maybe even BlueRay entirely. You can be sure that their lawyers/execs would have had some sort of escape clause based upon such a scenario in their agreements with Sony. "Material adverse change" type stuff.
Because ordinary citizens can't use land lines if their cell was down?
Land lines, in Afghanistan? Perhaps you missed it, but the developing world decided to skip plain old telephones and go straight to cellular. The cost and disruption of laying new phone lines made the plain old telephone system a bad idea.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." You're suggesting that "essential" is specializing the word "liberty", selecting a subset of the group of liberties, rather than simply describing the concept. I disagree. If he really meant only "essential liberties", he would have wrote that: "They that can give up essential liberties to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Or: "They that can give up an essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." But no, he wrote of "essential liberty"... ie, liberty, which is itself essential.
I think your parsing of the language is subjective, overly dependent on a narrow interpretation of the singular. Consider that there is essential liberty and non-essential liberty, as there is hot food and cold food. Now add to that the fact that writing styles and speech patterns have changed over the centuries and I think your argument is even more precarious.
I can see where people come from, given that today's modern vehicles are far more heavy and faster than those older methods - so there are safety concerns; but let's not forget that we do have an inherent and essential right to travel through the methods available to us. Horse & carriage is really available any more. Vehicles are. It's more of a right, than a privilege, than you may realize.
I live in SoCal and have commuted vast distances for various jobs. I *could* have used public transportation, bus to train to bus. However I have not because it is more comfortable and convenient to drive myself. Before I had a drivers license I took the bus all over town, once I got that license I *had* to drive. This same bias/perception continued into adulthood, and it remains a preference not a reality. As much as I enjoy and prefer my car, driving it on a public road remains a convenience not a necessity.
Roads have existed long before cars and used by horse, carriage, and other methods of transportation for millenia.
And many were private or otherwise non-government owned, or simply an information evolution of natural trails. Things are a little more complicated than you suggest given the state purchase of land, or seizure through eminent domain, and state construction of roads.
I can see where people come from, given that today's modern vehicles are far more heavy and faster than those older methods - so there are safety concerns; but let's not forget that we do have an inherent and essential right to travel through the methods available to us. Horse & carriage is really available any more. Vehicles are. It's more of a right, than a privilege, than you may realize.
I understand your sentiment, but the courts have ruled regarding the operation of motor vehicles on public roads. Registration and licensing has passed constitutional challenges. Bicycles, mass transit, etc provide a sufficient opportunity for travel.
Also, remember that the Constitution (in the US) grants only a specific set of rights/abilities to the federal government (intra-state, and external activities), the states (within their borders, and according to their Constitution which must be similar to the it), and releases all else to the people.
Not quite. The Constitution grants specific powers to the federal government, and leaves the rest to the states' discretion. The state constitutions does not need to be similar, merely compatible.
humans with very limited mathematical ability ... politicians?
:-)
No. Donations, polls, and votes all use mathematics quite heavily. Perhaps you are confused by how they handle "our" money, to get a better evaluation of their capabilities note how they handle "their" money.
Isn't it as easy as turning the cell phone off? Maybe Airplane mode?
No, it is not that easy, they have a "legitimate" complaint from their perspective. The "problem" is *not* their people and their cell phones. The "problem" is that ordinary citizen are reporting suspicious nighttime activities. Their are essentially trying to turn off the tips hotline.
They seem to have a history of preferring others to change rather than change themselves.
;-)
That is perfectly "rational" behavior when you are acting precisely as God has "commanded".
"All cars with OnStar can be monitored the same way. Welcome to 1984."
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. --Benjamin Franklin
I love Ben's wisdom, but this quote is being so overused and so often poorly used that it is being diminished. Please note the word "essential", Ben put that word in there for a reason. His words were carefully crafted and extraneous words were not left in. In short, non-essential liberties are excluded by the quote and anonymity while driving is a non-essential liberty, actually a non-existent liberty. We have no right to drive on public roads, it is a privilege. We knowingly enter into a contract in order to exercise that privilege. Our cars must be registered and display a unique identifier, the license plate. We are required to be licensed and must present that license upon request. Furthermore, OnStar is voluntary and has positive benefits, any good contract should, such as notifying rescue personnel of an accident's location. Ben's quote is quite inappropriate here.
In sports, we know what's going on. We know why the pass was made, we know who made it, we can generally tell how helpful a particular "assist" was. For that matter, we know that this pass directly resulted in a score being made.
Ads can be tagged for their scope. The defined scope(s) can be used to determine if an "assist" is being made. Digital music players to iPod to sale, we have an assist. Printers to iPod to sale, no assist.
In short, Microsoft is developing a solution in search of a problem.
Like in sports, the person who passes the ball/puck/etc does not do the scoring but they do get credit for the assist. Doing so in advertising does make logical sense, and it also seems to be a more fair system. Be careful that you are not against a good idea merely because it was from Microsoft, if Google had suggested this would you have had the same reactions?
Either that or it's just another attempt at tracking the consumer's every last act, hidden under a patina of equitable distribution of ad revenue.
To continue in the theme of the above question, does it bother you that google is actually doing so? Mining email, etc?
Good job ignoring the bad news that shoots down your whole theory about "Chinese agression." I guess you're playing the "avoid the bad facts and dazzle with bullshit" theory.
... irrelevant, off topic.
Sorry, but your comparison to the Chinese embassy qualifies as nonsense , not as a productive counter argument. The Chinese pilot knew he had a US aircraft. The US pilot did not know he had the Chinese embassy, bad coordinates/old map + GPS guided bombs, it was not a visually acquired target. We apologized. They claimed that a big lumber slow surveillance aircraft maneuvered to ram a small highly maneuverable fighter that was far away at a safe distance.
You list various countries that the US has fought with in the past, but you naively fail to realize that except for one case all of those countries have different governments than when we fought. The exception, Vietnam, has a government that is fairly friendly. It doesn't hurt that they are also victims of Chinese aggression, invaded in the 1970s or 80s, being deprived of water originating in Chinese territory, etc.
Iraq, etc
"Their military is a bit aggressive with us, recall their ramming of our surveillance aircraft [...]"
lol! whose military was agressive, flying surveillance flights along their border? How would the average American feel if Chinese military planes were flying along the coast of California and New York!
The US and Soviet Union did so for decades. Soviet bombers flew down the coast, were intercepted by US fighters, they were not rammed. Once when a soviet bomber did make an emergency landing at a US air force base the soviet crew was allowed to make repairs, the aircraft was refueled, and permitted to leave without violating the aircraft. Quite different and telling from the Chinese incident.
Furthermore, I don't see how you can accuse China of being militarily aggressive against the United States. The spy plane issue to which you refer does not prove your case. America was flying a spy plane in sovereign Chinese territory tens of thousands of miles away from the United States. One of their fighter planes accidentally hits the plane (the pilot was a hot dog who died in the accident).
The surveillance aircraft was in international airspace, not sovereign Chinese territory, when it was intercepted by Chinese aircraft. It only entered Chinese airspace after the Chinese pilot collided with it and it had to make an emergency landing at the closest airfield.
Accidentally hit is a misnomer on your part, so is hot dog. When a high maneuverability fighter gets that close to a slow lumbering aircraft it is a threat, and when the pilots is so aggressive that he bungles the maneuver hot head would be a better description.
You other attempts at changing the topic are intentionally ignored.
My capitalism argument was simply that everything has to turn a buck, and people will do anything to turn a buck. I think that's a valid description of capitalism the same way the communism Soviet Russia/china can be used to describe communism, im just saying what i see.
If you are describing what you see then I have no idea what you are looking at. Capitalist countries support intellectual property, they could not invest their capital into new inventions without such protection. China is not capitalist, they describe themselves as communism with a chinese face/flavor/flair/etc.
No but its not the Chinese government producing the counterfeit goods, its the same sweatshops producing the real good in a lot of cases. The only thing the Chinese government do is not bothering to hurt their own ecconomy.
While some shops run off-the-books production runs there are also many that are pure counterfeiters unrelated to authorized production. Deficiencies in quality, materials, and workmanship are often discernible. The Chinese government is unwilling to shut down counterfeiting due to high unemployment. Wether or not they are protecting their economy is irrelevant, their actions remain hostile and they explain why the US is suspicious of China.
... if you listed the things the US has done to China (like funding Taiwan's military and 'meddling' in Tibet's circumstances) ...
The government of Taiwan and our relationship with them predates communist China. Taiwan is essentially the part of China that the communists never conquered, the place the nationalist government fighting the communists fled to.
The Tibetan people claim they are a distinct nation that predates communist China and that they were conquered by the communists.
Your offer very poor examples of US aggression.
"They attempt to manipulate our electoral system with illegal campaign contributions"
Pot kettle black, have you heard of this little agency called the CIA, the middle east didnt supress themselves.
You offer a losing argument. If it is hostile when we do it then it is hostile when they do it.
"recall their ramming of our surveillance aircraft"
erm you were spying on them, if they were aggressive then bye bye plane!
Legally, from international waters, just as they are free to do. Just as the US and Soviet Union did for decades. Since you seem unaware of events: a plane did go down, theirs. Their small nimble fighter hit our big slow lumbering plane during an aggressive closing maneuver. Their pilot crashed and died, ours managed to regain control and make an emergency landing.
"The blind eye turned towards piracy and counterfeiting."
Supply and demand, if people are going to buy fakes then people are going to make them, its called capitalism look it any good bookshop. As for piracy i much prefer sweeden's approach more than a blind eye a straight out finger up to tell you that sweeden is not your jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is another losing argument. It only explains why a hostile act is not being stopped. The hostile act remains.
Also it is pretty ignorant to justify piracy with capitalism, I suggest that you start reading before recommending bookstores to others. Capitalism requires strong intellectual property protection, otherwise private investments of capital can not be justified. A lack of individual property rights would come from the communist side of the political spectrum.
Also, your Sweden argument suggest a RIAA train of thought. If you think piracy and couterfeiting in China is primarily a RIAA issue then you are unqualified for this conversation.
"Their currency manipulation to remain an extremely inexpensive exporter."
Atleast theyre not invading countries to try keep their currency afloat. (im not saying its why you went into iraq but definitely up there)
Uh, the war and the massive deficits that it contributes to harms US currency. You may want to add an econ text to that reading list of yours.
"they entered the Korean War to save the North Koreans when they were on the verge of defeat."
I have to admit, i don't know the specifics of Korea but i KNOW that if it wasn't for some American interest you wouldn't have been there at all(freedom doesnt count as an interest for the same reason it didnt count in nam,afganistan (both times) & doesnt count in iraq now).
Actually the Korean War was a United Nations war, not a United States war. The North brutally invaded the South, the UN authorized the war. Sorry, it was about freedom and stopping aggression.
When did China become "The Enemy"? I thought you were still working on Al-Qaeda. Did I miss a memo?
You missed headlines of the 1950s and 60s, not just a memo. You might start with China entering the Korean War and attacking US forces in order to save North Korea from defeat.
Thus begins the Cold War with China.
:-)
Actually the cold war with China began in the 1940s. The shooting war began around 1951, but remained relatively low key. Unlike the Soviet Union where all the fighting was through proxies, the US and China have met in combat. You might want to read up on history a little before trying for the analyst/commentator job.
When I was in the Air Force people always used to be surprised when someone would do something stupid; they thought that since you had to score in the 40th percentile in the ASVAB test to get in the Air Force rather than the 30th as in the Navy, the people should be smarter.
;-)
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/genjoin/a/asvabminimum.htm
You sure you weren't in the Coast Guard, they require 40. The Air Force 36 and the Navy 35.
First of all we aren't all American here so we don't all quite understand this paranoia about the Chinese.
... Then there is also the little detail that they have militarily attacked us, they entered the Korean War to save the North Koreans when they were on the verge of defeat.
... They seem well poised to need a diversion and a scapegoat. We seem to be their number one candidate. The cold war only ended in the west, in the east the same people are still running things. Only their strategy has changed.
Well they are number one with respect to industrial and military espionage directed at us. They attempt to manipulate our electoral system with illegal campaign contributions. Their military is a bit aggressive with us, recall their ramming of our surveillance aircraft and the games played with the aircraft on the ground. Their currency manipulation to remain an extremely inexpensive exporter. The blind eye turned towards piracy and counterfeiting. Their involvement in the drug trade (precursor chemicals and opium exports, and money laundering). Their transfer of ballistic missile and nuclear technologies.
Now look at how they treat their own citizens. The growing unrest of these citizens. The unavoidable crisis coming as the countryside becomes even poorer, and the population becomes older overall,
| | War is never necessary
|
| Tell that to a European Jew some time.
Yes one can take that meaning however it just proves the point that killing doesn't solve anything.
Actually it did solve something. The killers got the land, property, and money that they wanted.
This takes communication. It takes work. It takes creative thinking. It takes relationships. It takes thinking that isn't at the level of thinking that you are thinking. It takes you going beyond your level of thinking. Take the red pill and choose the cult of life.
There is some truth in your words, unfortunately it is not the truth you think. The truth of your words is the use of the word "cult". Your extreme pacifistic views are very cult like. Let's hope that the protection that non-pacifists provide you never ends so that reality never intrudes on your fantasy. Best wishes and good luck.
Killing begets more killing.
Pacifism begets killing too, the killing of the pacifists. Pacifism leads to death unless you have non-pacifists around to protect you. Being reasonable and fair is fine and good, and we should strive for that path, but one must also be willing and able to use deadly force in defense. Even in modern times, over a small number of generations, we have seen a population split, the two halves become isolated, one become pacifist, and when the two halves reestablish contact the pacifists are murdered and/or enlsaved by their blood relatives. Sorry, read about this in a book so I don't have a link handy, the people were Pacific islanders, timeframe 19th century IIRC.
Actually, if they really want you, your contract (yes, you *do* sign a contract to join the military) can stipulate the job you are signing up for. It can also stipulate that the contract is null and void if they are unable (for whatever reason) to give you that job.
I expect that this would be a pretty rare event and only involve occupational specialties where they routinely train and place many individuals. Perhaps getting a guarantee of being sent to military police school after basic.
I happen to know, because that was the only way I joined. Of course, you have to have the balls to say - "Fine, I quit!" if they don't keep their end of the bargain. But, they don't have a legal leg to stand on if it's in your contract.
I'm sure that is your understanding of the situation, but unless you or someone you know actually exercised that option I am not entirely convinced that it is really so cut and dry. In other words is there something in the small print that gives the military a little "flexibility" should "national security" demand it.
Is retraining/re-designation prohibited, for example they train and give you the electronics job but later decide the retrain you for avionics?
How are conflicts between your contract and your oath to obey all lawful orders resolved? Your an electronics tech and all of a sudden your are told to grab a rifle, get in a foxhole, and defend this line. Things like this happened on numerous occasions during world war 2 and korea. Do you think the officer or NCO in the field is going to give a sh*t about your contract should similar needs and circumstances arise?
Finally, having a specialty such as electronics tech does not prohibit them from sending you into harms way. I once knew someone who was an electronics tech in the Marine Corp. He was stationed in Vietnam and was quietly and safely working on base. Once day he is given an *interesting* assignment. He is to accompany a Marine Force Recon team, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Force_Recon, to the Ho Chi Minh trail, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh_trail, and deploy electronic sensor to monitory enemy movements.