It's not unusual for governments to devote their greatest abilities to the worst ends (see: Hiroshima, Japan).
Blame Einstein for that one. Committed pacifist that he was he was still sufficiently afraid of the idea of Hitler having the bomb as to use his influence to get the United States to build one first.
My point is, if they had had to fight without the Britons et al, they would most probably have lost,
Without the Britons we wouldn't have had to fight the war to begin with.
you can't win a war only through technology, a navy and an air force (the true --- and only --- strengths of the American military)
The "only" strengths of the American military? Again, I think you are out of your league here. Would you want to face American armor? Artillery? Heck, I wouldn't even want to go up against American light infantry -- they are going to be better trained and better equipped than almost any other military on this planet.
That's why the outcome of the war in Afghanistan looks bleak.
The outcome in Afghanistan has nothing to do with the strengths and weaknesses of the American solider. It has everything to do with the fact that we are trying to fight a counter-insurgency war without enough troops and the fact that we aren't willing to use the required force to kill our enemies in large enough numbers to make them quit the fight.
And that's in spite of any given battle the US can be proud of: I'm not talking courage but efficiency on the battlefield.
Now you are saying we aren't "efficient" on the battlefield? Efficient at what? Killing our enemies? Keeping a low rate of casualties? Ensuring a good kill/loss ratio?
That's one example. Although I personally think we should get the Government out of the "marriage" business altogether and have civil unions for all couples (hetro and homo). Let the priests dither over what "marriage" is and minimize the governmental involvement in a process which is basically nothing more than an agreement between two consenting adults.
You and I happen to agree that it is, but some people really don't mind the tyranny of the majority too much. If indeed that form of government is inherently superior
We've already seen that form of Government and the resultstherefrom. I think we can all agree that it isn't "inherently superior".
Stock trading is meaningless for day to day operations of a company?
Actually yes, it mostly is, unless (as I said) that company is seeking to raise more capital. The stock price has no direct bearing on how much cash the company has in it's bank accounts. It has no direct bearing on whether or not their products will succeed in the marketplace. It has no direct bearing on whether or not a tornado will level their factory.
Being useful certainly isn't required. But being useless shouldn't be respected, should it?
Please explain to me why day traders are "useless". As I said in another post, if nothing else they provide needed liquidity in the marketplace.
How many people can't retire now, because the value of their 401k has dropped?
That's their own damn fault for having so much of their nest egg in volatile investments so close to retirement. For every story you can came up with of someone who can't retire I can counter with a story of someone in his 20s, 30s or 40s who is making a killing. I'm currently up 65% on the investments that I made as the market was tanking. My 403(b) is still down, but why would I care about that? I'm not going to retire for 40 years.
Are you saying day trading can not affect the value of people's 401k?
Day traders and short sellers can't drive down the price of a healthy company over the medium to long term. In the short term they can have an affect but nobody (who is sane) is holding stock investments in a 401(k) for the "short" term, are they?
It sounds as though you are claiming that all this hair trigger, instant trading has no effect outside of the parties involved, no externalities that affect individuals retirement or other accounts, or even entire economies
No, I've claimed nothing of the sort. I've only claimed that day traders can't "kill" an otherwise healthy company. I'm still waiting for you to produce some evidence to the contrary. Am I waiting in vain?
And yet, we've all seen lots of articles regarding automated day trading, and how it does exactly that.
Automated trading does some stupid shit. I recall the price of an airline being driven down to almost nothing over automated trading when a false report of their bankruptcy was published. I don't think it happened that long ago either. Would it surprise you to learn that even though the airline's stock dropped 99.92% that they remained in business? This would seem to run counter to your notion that traders can "kill" an otherwise healthy company.
Yes, we have. However it was historically the case that powers that abide by the laws of war aren't entitled to the protections afforded by those laws. It was recognized that it isn't fair to expect one power to obey the laws of war while another power does whatever the hell it wants. As recently as WW2 it was permissible to subject unlawful combatants to summary execution upon their capture. Ever read about what happened to the Germans fighting behind the line in Allied uniforms during the Battle of the Bulge? Ever read about how "surrendering" Japanese troops were shot on sight because they had previously used white flags as a ruse to get close enough to do something nasty?
If the Taliban wants it's people to be accorded POW status then perhaps it should stop hiding among civilians and fight in uniform? There's no reason that we should tie the hands of our military and obey the laws of war when our enemies refuse to do the same. The sad truth is that this war won't be won unless we kill enough of the Taliban (and their civilian supporters) to convince the survivors that the fight isn't worth carrying on. Unfortunately it seems that the West has lost the stomach for real warfare but also lacks the political will to withdraw from the World and stop getting involved in these conflicts in the first place. Hence the current stalemate.
Apart from the war in the Pacific, the US funded the war much more than they fought, let alone win, it. I tend to consider that, dreadful as Stalin's soviet Russia was, and no matter how much help they received, it was mainly its soldiers --along with many others, notably the Britons, who won with their blood.
Umm, the United States lost more troops than Britain did as I recall. Regardless, what exactly is the problem with fighting a war in the manner that the US fought it? Are you suggesting that we can't claim a moral high ground because we settled on a strategy that limited the number of American fatalities? What sane power wouldn't settle on such a strategy? Why should we have expended a single American life beyond that which was needed to win the war?
Today's American people should become aware of this and realize that they never were good at fighting face to face with pretty much anyone
Do you have any evidence for this claim or are you just making this up as you go along? Ever heard of Saratoga? Trenton? Gettysburg? San Juan Hill? Belleau Wood? Omaha Beach? Americans are perfectly capable of fighting face to face when the need arises. The fact that we avoid it when possible does not mean that we aren't capable of engaging in it. It just means that we'd rather conserve American lives and rely on our air/naval/artillery power assets wherever possible. We are rich enough to afford the best Navy and Air Force in the World. Why would we engage in bloody face to face battles without taking advantage of these assets?
Um, I didn't get bailed out recently either, but that doesn't mean I'm suddenly contributing a lot to society...
Where did this notion that everybody needs to contribute "a lot" to society come from? And why do you assume that day traders aren't contributing? If nothing else they provide liquidity in the marketplace. What do you purpose doing about them anyway? Passing a regulation that says you have to hold a stock for X number of days? At what point does someone who holds onto a stock start "contributing" to society in your mind?
They risk losing their own money, but they create a larger risk to society that they are isolated from. They are basically absentee landlords. They have no vested interest in keeping any company functional. If they can make a profit by killing a company, what's to stop them from doing so?
How does any investor (whether day-trader or long term investor) "kill" a company? There isn't a one to one relationship between the stock price and the health of the company. It could be argued that the stock price is meaningless for day to day operations, unless the company needs to raise capital by issuing more stock.
I don't see any point in trying to reason with a human being who considers anyone who opposes the will of the leaders of his tribe to be terrorists or enemy combatants or whatever the designation of the week is
Pray tell, what did I say that lead you to this conclusion? All I said was that we play by the rules and our enemies do not. That's why our enemies are unlawful combatants. Not because they are our enemies. It's because they refuse to obey the laws of war.
However, lend-lease was helpful but not critical as soon as all of the USSR industrial infrastructure was reorganized in Siberia.
I don't think you have any understanding of military logistics if you are making the claim that lend-lease wasn't "critical". The USSR built less then 100 locomotives during WW2. She received almost 2,000 from the United States. Two thirds of the truck strength on the Eastern Front came from the United States. That doesn't even take into account all of the high-quality aviation fuel that we sent them -- fuel that they lacked the capacity to produce on their own. How do you suppose Stalin would have kept the Red Army and his factories running without this support?
As for the African, Italian and even much of the French front, most of the actual fighting was done by the Britons, the Canadians, the Australians, the Poles, the Belgians, the Free French (including their African troops e.g. at Monte Cassino), and many others. Just compare the casualties.
What did I say that makes you think I was claiming that the United States was solely responsible for those fronts?
Day traders can't "ruin" a company that's sound. And how can you claim that they are "isolated" from risk when they risk losing massive amounts of money on a daily basis?
You don't carry your reasoning all the way through
No, you are the one who isn't carrying it all the way through. The only reason that we are currently losing in Afghanistan is because we play by the rules and our enemies do not. When they start fighting under a flag and stop hiding behind civilians then we'll talk.
All the people who think it was morally sound to use nukes on Japan DURING WAR shouldn't cry if the Taliban nukes San Diego, a clear military target.
I love how people like yourself spend all your time whining about the nuclear attacks but rarely mention the conventional bombing that killed more people. In any case, the difference between the two (not that you are interested) was that Japan was engaged in a total war where every resource of the nation-state was poured into the war-effort. The United States is engaged in nothing of the sort. If we were we'd draft a few million men and put them on the ground in Afghanistan -- I don't see that happening, do you?
Accepted how? It is true that in common usage "American" came to become a short-hand for "the citizen of USA". But "Americans" are, by definition, denizens of America, the continent. That includes the whole of North America and South America. It only underlines my point, as to the self-centred, narcissistic attitudes of the citizens of the USA that they would claim a continent-wide description for themselves exclusively and not bat an eye at this.
I hope you are also choosing to apply that "self-centered narcissistic attitude" insult on the millions of non-Americans who also use the phrase "American" to refer to a citizen of the United States. It's only a vocal minority looking to stir up trouble that insists on using the term "US'ian".
You know nothing of Ancient Rome.
You know nothing of me, so stop making assumptions.
It did not kill all males, it subjugated the conquered cultures and slowly injected Roman values and culture into them until they became wholly subservient to Rome
Good. If injecting our values and culture onto the Middle East is what's required to get them to behave by the rules of the civilized world then I'm all for it.
Your imbecilic assumption that Rome = Civilization only goes to show ho warped your mind is.
Rome was civilization. Rome had running water, central heating, higher education, etc, etc. If our enemies want to be considered part of civilization then they should start playing by the rules.
Precisely the ass-hat attitude I was describing. The USian mind yearning for more gore and blood of all those "dirty", "uncivilized" "outsiders" who dare to resist the "liberation" and "civilization"
I don't want more gore and blood. I want an end to the wars that we are currently fighting. The best way to win a war is to kill enough of the enemy so that the remainder realizes that the fight isn't worth carrying on. If we aren't willing to do this then it probably isn't worth fighting in the first place.
That is a handy excuse: do not like due process? Simple: invade some place, declare it a "battlefield" and all those inconvenient to you as "enemies", or better yet "unlawful combatants" and presto! No more pesky international law... or any law for that matter.
We wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan if the Government of that country wasn't harboring a group that murdered thousands of our citizens. Funny how you seem to gloss over that fact.
In short, you are a perfect example of what I was talking about, narcissistic, vile, arrogant, callous, sociopathic, self-appointed "bringer of civilization" to the "barbarians".
So just how many insults do you get to toss around before someone rightfully mods you down as the troll that you are? I've refrained from responding in kind because it seems that those with mod points are usually inclined to agree with people like you. I should hope that in this case cooler heads will prevail but I wouldn't be surprised at all if my measured and calm response is the one that gets the troll mod.
The likes of you litter history books, usually somewhere under the heading of "supremacist warmongers".
Yes, the likes of a 28 year old non-military/political citizen always make the history books. I can't wait until they create my Wikipedia page:)
Day trading seems more like gambling than responsible ownership. Doesn't it create an unacceptable moral hazard?
I don't think you understand what a moral hazard is. Moral hazard refers to the concept that people who are isolated from risk (i.e: mega-corps that get bailed out when they fuck up) won't behave as rationally as those that are fully exposed to said risk. I don't recall many (any?) day traders getting bailed out during our recent round of corporate welfare.
Truth hurts and US-ians want *absolutely nothing* to do with it.
It's funny that someone who says the truth hurts can't bring himself to use the accepted and proper noun for a citizen of the United States: American.
In fact, very much like Ancient Rome where the citizens were a different breed from the conquered and the "ungrateful" slaves outnumbered them 3:1
We are nothing like Ancient Rome. If we behaved like the Romans we would have killed every single male of military age in Afghanistan a long time ago. Say what you will about the Romans but they knew how to keep the enemies of civilization in line. We've long since forgotten how to do that. More's the pity.
everyone outside of the US should by now know quite well how they are used: to assassinate, remotely (with no regard for bystanders, due process or any of that "coddling" stuff)
I wasn't aware that enemies on the battlefield were entitled to due process before being killed. Could you point out this nugget of international law for me?
Stalin's millions of soldiers defeated the Germans, basically.
How would Stalin's millions of soldiers have done without the benefit of lend-lease? How would they have done if Germany had been able to pour the resources that went into building submarines into tanks and airplanes instead? How would they have done without the diversion of German troops to the African, Italian and (late in the war) Western fronts?
The man who straps a bomb to his chest and dies killing his enemies, or the man who kills from a lazy-boy with no risk to himself whatsoever.
They aren't cowards for strapping bombs to their chest. They are cowards because they tend to go after relatively undefended civilian targets. Driving a truck bomb into a barracks filled with Marines represents a legitimate act of war. Blowing up a pizzeria filled with civilians that had no military value is the coward's way out.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not unusual for governments to devote their greatest abilities to the worst ends (see: Hiroshima, Japan).
Blame Einstein for that one. Committed pacifist that he was he was still sufficiently afraid of the idea of Hitler having the bomb as to use his influence to get the United States to build one first.
i'd rather have seen the new star trek as a bootleg than have paid the $12 to see it........
Yeah, but when you count the number of lens flares and figure out how much you paid per lens flare it's a much better bargain ;)
My point is, if they had had to fight without the Britons et al, they would most probably have lost,
Without the Britons we wouldn't have had to fight the war to begin with.
you can't win a war only through technology, a navy and an air force (the true --- and only --- strengths of the American military)
The "only" strengths of the American military? Again, I think you are out of your league here. Would you want to face American armor? Artillery? Heck, I wouldn't even want to go up against American light infantry -- they are going to be better trained and better equipped than almost any other military on this planet.
That's why the outcome of the war in Afghanistan looks bleak.
The outcome in Afghanistan has nothing to do with the strengths and weaknesses of the American solider. It has everything to do with the fact that we are trying to fight a counter-insurgency war without enough troops and the fact that we aren't willing to use the required force to kill our enemies in large enough numbers to make them quit the fight.
And that's in spite of any given battle the US can be proud of: I'm not talking courage but efficiency on the battlefield.
Now you are saying we aren't "efficient" on the battlefield? Efficient at what? Killing our enemies? Keeping a low rate of casualties? Ensuring a good kill/loss ratio?
That's one example. Although I personally think we should get the Government out of the "marriage" business altogether and have civil unions for all couples (hetro and homo). Let the priests dither over what "marriage" is and minimize the governmental involvement in a process which is basically nothing more than an agreement between two consenting adults.
You and I happen to agree that it is, but some people really don't mind the tyranny of the majority too much. If indeed that form of government is inherently superior
We've already seen that form of Government and the results therefrom. I think we can all agree that it isn't "inherently superior".
They do if enough people get together and agree that they do. Such is called government.
What happens if enough people get together and agree that certain people don't have rights? Such is called the tyranny of the majority.
Look, I've got a stalker that wastes his time reading my journal posts! How delightful.
Does it really surprise you when you are passing judgment on how "useful" other members of society are?
And that benefits us all, because hopeless losers who don't get laid tend to go berserk and mow down a bunch of women in a gym class.
That wouldn't happen if those women had guns ;)
Citation needed.
Stock trading is meaningless for day to day operations of a company?
Actually yes, it mostly is, unless (as I said) that company is seeking to raise more capital. The stock price has no direct bearing on how much cash the company has in it's bank accounts. It has no direct bearing on whether or not their products will succeed in the marketplace. It has no direct bearing on whether or not a tornado will level their factory.
Being useful certainly isn't required. But being useless shouldn't be respected, should it?
Please explain to me why day traders are "useless". As I said in another post, if nothing else they provide needed liquidity in the marketplace.
How many people can't retire now, because the value of their 401k has dropped?
That's their own damn fault for having so much of their nest egg in volatile investments so close to retirement. For every story you can came up with of someone who can't retire I can counter with a story of someone in his 20s, 30s or 40s who is making a killing. I'm currently up 65% on the investments that I made as the market was tanking. My 403(b) is still down, but why would I care about that? I'm not going to retire for 40 years.
Are you saying day trading can not affect the value of people's 401k?
Day traders and short sellers can't drive down the price of a healthy company over the medium to long term. In the short term they can have an affect but nobody (who is sane) is holding stock investments in a 401(k) for the "short" term, are they?
It sounds as though you are claiming that all this hair trigger, instant trading has no effect outside of the parties involved, no externalities that affect individuals retirement or other accounts, or even entire economies
No, I've claimed nothing of the sort. I've only claimed that day traders can't "kill" an otherwise healthy company. I'm still waiting for you to produce some evidence to the contrary. Am I waiting in vain?
And yet, we've all seen lots of articles regarding automated day trading, and how it does exactly that.
Automated trading does some stupid shit. I recall the price of an airline being driven down to almost nothing over automated trading when a false report of their bankruptcy was published. I don't think it happened that long ago either. Would it surprise you to learn that even though the airline's stock dropped 99.92% that they remained in business? This would seem to run counter to your notion that traders can "kill" an otherwise healthy company.
Yes, we have. However it was historically the case that powers that abide by the laws of war aren't entitled to the protections afforded by those laws. It was recognized that it isn't fair to expect one power to obey the laws of war while another power does whatever the hell it wants. As recently as WW2 it was permissible to subject unlawful combatants to summary execution upon their capture. Ever read about what happened to the Germans fighting behind the line in Allied uniforms during the Battle of the Bulge? Ever read about how "surrendering" Japanese troops were shot on sight because they had previously used white flags as a ruse to get close enough to do something nasty?
If the Taliban wants it's people to be accorded POW status then perhaps it should stop hiding among civilians and fight in uniform? There's no reason that we should tie the hands of our military and obey the laws of war when our enemies refuse to do the same. The sad truth is that this war won't be won unless we kill enough of the Taliban (and their civilian supporters) to convince the survivors that the fight isn't worth carrying on. Unfortunately it seems that the West has lost the stomach for real warfare but also lacks the political will to withdraw from the World and stop getting involved in these conflicts in the first place. Hence the current stalemate.
Apart from the war in the Pacific, the US funded the war much more than they fought, let alone win, it. I tend to consider that, dreadful as Stalin's soviet Russia was, and no matter how much help they received, it was mainly its soldiers --along with many others, notably the Britons, who won with their blood.
Umm, the United States lost more troops than Britain did as I recall. Regardless, what exactly is the problem with fighting a war in the manner that the US fought it? Are you suggesting that we can't claim a moral high ground because we settled on a strategy that limited the number of American fatalities? What sane power wouldn't settle on such a strategy? Why should we have expended a single American life beyond that which was needed to win the war?
Today's American people should become aware of this and realize that they never were good at fighting face to face with pretty much anyone
Do you have any evidence for this claim or are you just making this up as you go along? Ever heard of Saratoga? Trenton? Gettysburg? San Juan Hill? Belleau Wood? Omaha Beach? Americans are perfectly capable of fighting face to face when the need arises. The fact that we avoid it when possible does not mean that we aren't capable of engaging in it. It just means that we'd rather conserve American lives and rely on our air/naval/artillery power assets wherever possible. We are rich enough to afford the best Navy and Air Force in the World. Why would we engage in bloody face to face battles without taking advantage of these assets?
Um, I didn't get bailed out recently either, but that doesn't mean I'm suddenly contributing a lot to society...
Where did this notion that everybody needs to contribute "a lot" to society come from? And why do you assume that day traders aren't contributing? If nothing else they provide liquidity in the marketplace. What do you purpose doing about them anyway? Passing a regulation that says you have to hold a stock for X number of days? At what point does someone who holds onto a stock start "contributing" to society in your mind?
They risk losing their own money, but they create a larger risk to society that they are isolated from. They are basically absentee landlords. They have no vested interest in keeping any company functional. If they can make a profit by killing a company, what's to stop them from doing so?
How does any investor (whether day-trader or long term investor) "kill" a company? There isn't a one to one relationship between the stock price and the health of the company. It could be argued that the stock price is meaningless for day to day operations, unless the company needs to raise capital by issuing more stock.
I don't see any point in trying to reason with a human being who considers anyone who opposes the will of the leaders of his tribe to be terrorists or enemy combatants or whatever the designation of the week is
Pray tell, what did I say that lead you to this conclusion? All I said was that we play by the rules and our enemies do not. That's why our enemies are unlawful combatants. Not because they are our enemies. It's because they refuse to obey the laws of war.
However, lend-lease was helpful but not critical as soon as all of the USSR industrial infrastructure was reorganized in Siberia.
I don't think you have any understanding of military logistics if you are making the claim that lend-lease wasn't "critical". The USSR built less then 100 locomotives during WW2. She received almost 2,000 from the United States. Two thirds of the truck strength on the Eastern Front came from the United States. That doesn't even take into account all of the high-quality aviation fuel that we sent them -- fuel that they lacked the capacity to produce on their own. How do you suppose Stalin would have kept the Red Army and his factories running without this support?
As for the African, Italian and even much of the French front, most of the actual fighting was done by the Britons, the Canadians, the Australians, the Poles, the Belgians, the Free French (including their African troops e.g. at Monte Cassino), and many others. Just compare the casualties.
What did I say that makes you think I was claiming that the United States was solely responsible for those fronts?
Day traders can't "ruin" a company that's sound. And how can you claim that they are "isolated" from risk when they risk losing massive amounts of money on a daily basis?
You don't carry your reasoning all the way through
No, you are the one who isn't carrying it all the way through. The only reason that we are currently losing in Afghanistan is because we play by the rules and our enemies do not. When they start fighting under a flag and stop hiding behind civilians then we'll talk.
All the people who think it was morally sound to use nukes on Japan DURING WAR shouldn't cry if the Taliban nukes San Diego, a clear military target.
I love how people like yourself spend all your time whining about the nuclear attacks but rarely mention the conventional bombing that killed more people. In any case, the difference between the two (not that you are interested) was that Japan was engaged in a total war where every resource of the nation-state was poured into the war-effort. The United States is engaged in nothing of the sort. If we were we'd draft a few million men and put them on the ground in Afghanistan -- I don't see that happening, do you?
Accepted how? It is true that in common usage "American" came to become a short-hand for "the citizen of USA". But "Americans" are, by definition, denizens of America, the continent. That includes the whole of North America and South America. It only underlines my point, as to the self-centred, narcissistic attitudes of the citizens of the USA that they would claim a continent-wide description for themselves exclusively and not bat an eye at this.
I hope you are also choosing to apply that "self-centered narcissistic attitude" insult on the millions of non-Americans who also use the phrase "American" to refer to a citizen of the United States. It's only a vocal minority looking to stir up trouble that insists on using the term "US'ian".
You know nothing of Ancient Rome.
You know nothing of me, so stop making assumptions.
It did not kill all males, it subjugated the conquered cultures and slowly injected Roman values and culture into them until they became wholly subservient to Rome
Good. If injecting our values and culture onto the Middle East is what's required to get them to behave by the rules of the civilized world then I'm all for it.
Your imbecilic assumption that Rome = Civilization only goes to show ho warped your mind is.
Rome was civilization. Rome had running water, central heating, higher education, etc, etc. If our enemies want to be considered part of civilization then they should start playing by the rules.
Precisely the ass-hat attitude I was describing. The USian mind yearning for more gore and blood of all those "dirty", "uncivilized" "outsiders" who dare to resist the "liberation" and "civilization"
I don't want more gore and blood. I want an end to the wars that we are currently fighting. The best way to win a war is to kill enough of the enemy so that the remainder realizes that the fight isn't worth carrying on. If we aren't willing to do this then it probably isn't worth fighting in the first place.
That is a handy excuse: do not like due process? Simple: invade some place, declare it a "battlefield" and all those inconvenient to you as "enemies", or better yet "unlawful combatants" and presto! No more pesky international law ... or any law for that matter.
We wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan if the Government of that country wasn't harboring a group that murdered thousands of our citizens. Funny how you seem to gloss over that fact.
In short, you are a perfect example of what I was talking about, narcissistic, vile, arrogant, callous, sociopathic, self-appointed "bringer of civilization" to the "barbarians".
So just how many insults do you get to toss around before someone rightfully mods you down as the troll that you are? I've refrained from responding in kind because it seems that those with mod points are usually inclined to agree with people like you. I should hope that in this case cooler heads will prevail but I wouldn't be surprised at all if my measured and calm response is the one that gets the troll mod.
The likes of you litter history books, usually somewhere under the heading of "supremacist warmongers".
Yes, the likes of a 28 year old non-military/political citizen always make the history books. I can't wait until they create my Wikipedia page :)
Add a transistor to drive a meter and you have most of a Scientologist's E-meter.
I hope you have a good lawyer, cuz Tom Cruise is about to sue you ;)
Day trading seems more like gambling than responsible ownership. Doesn't it create an unacceptable moral hazard?
I don't think you understand what a moral hazard is. Moral hazard refers to the concept that people who are isolated from risk (i.e: mega-corps that get bailed out when they fuck up) won't behave as rationally as those that are fully exposed to said risk. I don't recall many (any?) day traders getting bailed out during our recent round of corporate welfare.
Truth hurts and US-ians want *absolutely nothing* to do with it.
It's funny that someone who says the truth hurts can't bring himself to use the accepted and proper noun for a citizen of the United States: American.
In fact, very much like Ancient Rome where the citizens were a different breed from the conquered and the "ungrateful" slaves outnumbered them 3:1
We are nothing like Ancient Rome. If we behaved like the Romans we would have killed every single male of military age in Afghanistan a long time ago. Say what you will about the Romans but they knew how to keep the enemies of civilization in line. We've long since forgotten how to do that. More's the pity.
everyone outside of the US should by now know quite well how they are used: to assassinate, remotely (with no regard for bystanders, due process or any of that "coddling" stuff)
I wasn't aware that enemies on the battlefield were entitled to due process before being killed. Could you point out this nugget of international law for me?
Stalin's millions of soldiers defeated the Germans, basically.
How would Stalin's millions of soldiers have done without the benefit of lend-lease? How would they have done if Germany had been able to pour the resources that went into building submarines into tanks and airplanes instead? How would they have done without the diversion of German troops to the African, Italian and (late in the war) Western fronts?
One's right to life, liberty, property, speech, press, freedom of worship and assembly may not be submitted to vote
You forgot one.....
The man who straps a bomb to his chest and dies killing his enemies, or the man who kills from a lazy-boy with no risk to himself whatsoever.
They aren't cowards for strapping bombs to their chest. They are cowards because they tend to go after relatively undefended civilian targets. Driving a truck bomb into a barracks filled with Marines represents a legitimate act of war. Blowing up a pizzeria filled with civilians that had no military value is the coward's way out.
I'm a NZ pussy personally opposed to PETA
Fixed that for you :)