No, but when the US makes the exact same mistake Russia did and tries to occupy Afghanistan, what exactly have we learned from the Russians?
Do you have a better suggestion? Leaving it alone as a failed state that harbors terrorists who want to kill American citizens doesn't seem like a good alternative. Bombing it into the stone age isn't really an option either -- it's not that far removed from the stone age already and most of the people there don't support extremism and would be innocent victims.
Maybe he was talking about her experience with Canadian relations?;) If that evil SOB Harper ever sticks his head into our airspace, Governor Palin will be ready for him.....
Wow, sounds like Scalia just made a pretty compelling case for Jury Nullification. I'll remember that if I'm ever selected to be on a jury overseeing a war on drugs case. "Scalia said I can vote my conscience"
The problem with Palin is she chose to stay in that environment, as do most small-minded, small-towned people, because they see nothing wrong with it. You have more foresight than most in that environment. You said it best, "there are people like me that are from small towns that are not small-minded".
I hope you appreciate the irony of dismissing entire populations as "small-minded". Do you have anything other than stereotypes to back this up? I've lived in both large (New York City) and small (Guilford, NY -- look it up) towns and I've come across my share of small and large minded people in both.
And my entire point is that you are holding the USA to a higher standard that you apparently refuse to apply to other countries. The USSR used anti-American/European propaganda to finance a military expansion that ultimately bankrupted them. Why this singular focus on the United States?
he USSR was actually trying to survive in a newest type of planned economy, while USA was really doing well in the newest type of planned war economy.
Wait a minute, the USA had the planned war economy? Is that why the Soviet Union spent more of their GDP on the military than the United States (or other NATO members) did?
It bugs me that whenever, for example, the Middle East is discussed there is a lot of pointing at US action as if the US operated in some kind of vacuum. Soviet involvement tends to be absent from these discussions.
Or British involvement or French involvement for that matter. It's not as though the United States drew the lines on the map in the Middle East. Funny how you don't hear the anti-American crowd bring up the actions of the British or French in that part of the World.
The USA was pushing propaganda at home that the USSR is going to attack Americans because the USSR cared to change American way of life based on some ideals. Well that's hogwash.
And the USSR was pushing propaganda at home telling it's people that the imperialists wanted to conquer the Soviet Union. What's your point?
Same exact propaganda provided the US government with necessary domestic support to attack Iraq. The government of the US knew full well that Iraq was not a danger, had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMDs to speak of that could be of any danger
Now you've just lost any shred of creditability that you might have had. Most of the World (including France and Germany) thought Saddam had WMDs. You can argue whether or not it was necessary to take those WMDs away from him but saying that the US Government knew he didn't have any is an outright lie.
That is why it is important to understand when you are being played.
The only person I think who is being played is the person that has is willing to excuse aggression and conquest on the part of the USSR while simultaneously condemning the United States. If you were interested in having an honest dialog about history you wouldn't be so willing to whitewash crimes committed by nations not called the United States. It seems to me that you are more interested in spreading your anti-Americanism than you are in having a dialog so I don't really see any point to wasting anymore time on you.
In any case, it is still correct that the USSR has not attempted any new territories after Stalin died, the and that the USA is still the main aggressor for the past 60 years.
Why are you excusing the USSR's history of aggression because they haven't "added any new territories" while condemning the United States as the "main aggressor"? What new territories has the United States added to it's borders?
No, they were not new conquests [slashdot.org] and they are not exception from the rule, the USSR was not attempting to gain new territory, it had problems holding on to existing already.
Mind telling us why it matters that they weren't "new conquests"?
Righi just refused to give the police officer his license, something that Ohio code specifically says he's not allowed to do [ohio.gov].
Is this a typo or did you read that law and come away with the impression that he had to hand his license over when requested? That's the same law I cited to prove that he didn't have to hand it over -- ID isn't mentioned at all in that law. All it says is you have to disclose your name, address and DOB if requested.
we might be able to put various carbon compounds or other substances to change the concentration of atmospheric compounds to make it more amenable for life.
The atmosphere is only part of the problem though. Titan's distance from the Sun limits the amount of energy that the moon receives -- the negative 292 degree temperatures (F) would seem to be an issue even if the atmosphere was completely Earth like.
Yeah sure, forget your founding fathers. Land of the free eh?
Some of the Founding Fathers advocated for a non-interventionist foreign policy free of "entanglements" (Washington). Others (Jefferson) were in favor of an interventionist foreign policy. Trying to paint all of the founding fathers with one broad brush stroke is a mistake.
See, the USA claims it is different, either it lives up to that, or many will ridecule it.
Every Great Power has claimed that it's "different". An objective reading of history will uncover hypocrisy on the part of nearly every nation on this planet, including yours I'd suspect. Are you really that surprised that the United States also engages in it?
War in the rest of the world meant that that trade was being endangered. Sea warfare made it difficult, dangerous and expensive to transport anything anywhere, and as a consequence, the USA had a direct reason to get involved.
I'm sure that was a contributory factor. The sinking of American ships on the high seas and Zimmerman telegram also had something to do with it.
At any rate, to come back to your initial argument that all world powers do it, keep in mind that all world powers also find out at some point that its not true. Usually that comes together with their decline, and often their destruction.
All powers eventually decline. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing my country decline a little bit and focus on the home front instead of the globe. I would want to see another Democracy come forward and assume our place in the World first though -- since that doesn't appear too likely in the next few decades I think we'll have to resign ourselves to our respective roles in the World. You may not like it but ask yourself if you'd really be happier seeing China or Russia in our place.
What about Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968?
Those don't count because they weren't "new conquests", remember?
By the GP's logic, the United States could have reduced the Philippines to ashes if we hadn't wanted to grant them independence -- just as long as we didn't engage in any new conquests.
And no, I don't think that is a desirable situation, but this attitude of "fuck you, we don't answer to anyone" is an even bigger problem in the long run.
All Great Powers have that attitude. Nothing is ever going to change that fact. The British had that attitude once upon a time. The Russians and Chinese currently have that attitude. The French still have traces of this attitude (nuclear testing in the South Pacific and the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior). Why are you limiting your criticism to the United States?
Bush took it to an extreme and foolishly pissed away a lot of our goodwill in the World but that attitude is never going to completely vanish. The United States is one of the few countries that has the power to influence events on a global scale -- it stands to reason that we are going to wield that power to advance our interests and protect our citizens. I don't know which country you call home but your country would be doing the exact same thing if it had the resources and power of the United States.
but the rest of the world can quite do without the USA, for most of its history it did.
The rest of the world is what created the interventionist United States. You dragged us into both of your World Wars and into a trans-Atlantic military and economic alliance that kept us engaged with the World. Prior to WW1 the United States was a non-aligned economic power that was largely content to remain within our own hemisphere and trade with the rest of the world. If you want to blame someone for the United States becoming an interventionist power then you should start by looking at Berlin, Paris and London.
But you are just confirming my statement. After the death of Stalin there was no new conquests, no new territories
I'm sure you'd find that comforting if you lived in Poland or Hungary during the Cold War.
Afghanistan was an attempt at showing off, also an attempt to stop the inflow of drugs into the 3 USSR republics bordering it
Wait a minute, you are rationalizing the USSR's intervention in Afghanistan because of the drug trade? So by your logic the US was well within our rights to intervene in Panama in 1989 (Operation Just Cause), right?
USA was and is the main international aggressor for the past 60 years
The US engaged in a number of questionable activities during the Cold War, mostly due to the perceived threat of Communism. It's a bit of a leap to say that the US was the "main international aggressor" though and I find it pretty troubling that you can rationalize aggression by the USSR but condemn it when done by the United States.
Your arguments aren't consistent with each other and it seems to me that you are more interested in condemning the United States than in having an honest dialog about the military history of the 20th century.
Stalin was a maniac, that can be said with certainty, however after his death the USSR quickly got away from the idea of 'spreading the communism' onto the rest of the world and just tried to survive in its own planned economy
... while continuing to occupy Eastern Europe and crushing any attempts by those countries to leave the orbit of Mother Russia.
Strategic Air Command - Peace is our profession - war is just a hobby
SAC always seemed like a waste of money to me once we had boomers. What's the point of spending billions of dollars to outfit a bomber force that could be destroyed on the ground or intercepted on route to the target when you have a weapons system that can't be located and which would survive any first strike?
Slashdot Mirror
No, but when the US makes the exact same mistake Russia did and tries to occupy Afghanistan, what exactly have we learned from the Russians?
Do you have a better suggestion? Leaving it alone as a failed state that harbors terrorists who want to kill American citizens doesn't seem like a good alternative. Bombing it into the stone age isn't really an option either -- it's not that far removed from the stone age already and most of the people there don't support extremism and would be innocent victims.
I'm sure the drugs made him feel like he was in power.
Not likely -- he didn't inhale, remember?
Maybe he was talking about her experience with Canadian relations? ;) If that evil SOB Harper ever sticks his head into our airspace, Governor Palin will be ready for him.....
She's going to run for President in the future. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Oh, stop the fear-mongering, someone who is that stupid would never be able to win 270 electoral vot..... oh, fuck.
Wow, sounds like Scalia just made a pretty compelling case for Jury Nullification. I'll remember that if I'm ever selected to be on a jury overseeing a war on drugs case. "Scalia said I can vote my conscience"
By the way, I hate all people who make generalizations....
I hate all anonymous cowards who hate people who make generalizations ;)
The problem with Palin is she chose to stay in that environment, as do most small-minded, small-towned people, because they see nothing wrong with it. You have more foresight than most in that environment. You said it best, "there are people like me that are from small towns that are not small-minded".
I hope you appreciate the irony of dismissing entire populations as "small-minded". Do you have anything other than stereotypes to back this up? I've lived in both large (New York City) and small (Guilford, NY -- look it up) towns and I've come across my share of small and large minded people in both.
And my entire point is that you are holding the USA to a higher standard that you apparently refuse to apply to other countries. The USSR used anti-American/European propaganda to finance a military expansion that ultimately bankrupted them. Why this singular focus on the United States?
he USSR was actually trying to survive in a newest type of planned economy, while USA was really doing well in the newest type of planned war economy.
Wait a minute, the USA had the planned war economy? Is that why the Soviet Union spent more of their GDP on the military than the United States (or other NATO members) did?
It bugs me that whenever, for example, the Middle East is discussed there is a lot of pointing at US action as if the US operated in some kind of vacuum. Soviet involvement tends to be absent from these discussions.
Or British involvement or French involvement for that matter. It's not as though the United States drew the lines on the map in the Middle East. Funny how you don't hear the anti-American crowd bring up the actions of the British or French in that part of the World.
The USA was pushing propaganda at home that the USSR is going to attack Americans because the USSR cared to change American way of life based on some ideals. Well that's hogwash.
And the USSR was pushing propaganda at home telling it's people that the imperialists wanted to conquer the Soviet Union. What's your point?
Same exact propaganda provided the US government with necessary domestic support to attack Iraq. The government of the US knew full well that Iraq was not a danger, had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMDs to speak of that could be of any danger
Now you've just lost any shred of creditability that you might have had. Most of the World (including France and Germany) thought Saddam had WMDs. You can argue whether or not it was necessary to take those WMDs away from him but saying that the US Government knew he didn't have any is an outright lie.
That is why it is important to understand when you are being played.
The only person I think who is being played is the person that has is willing to excuse aggression and conquest on the part of the USSR while simultaneously condemning the United States. If you were interested in having an honest dialog about history you wouldn't be so willing to whitewash crimes committed by nations not called the United States. It seems to me that you are more interested in spreading your anti-Americanism than you are in having a dialog so I don't really see any point to wasting anymore time on you.
In any case, it is still correct that the USSR has not attempted any new territories after Stalin died, the and that the USA is still the main aggressor for the past 60 years.
Why are you excusing the USSR's history of aggression because they haven't "added any new territories" while condemning the United States as the "main aggressor"? What new territories has the United States added to it's borders?
No, they were not new conquests [slashdot.org] and they are not exception from the rule, the USSR was not attempting to gain new territory, it had problems holding on to existing already.
Mind telling us why it matters that they weren't "new conquests"?
Righi just refused to give the police officer his license, something that Ohio code specifically says he's not allowed to do [ohio.gov].
Is this a typo or did you read that law and come away with the impression that he had to hand his license over when requested? That's the same law I cited to prove that he didn't have to hand it over -- ID isn't mentioned at all in that law. All it says is you have to disclose your name, address and DOB if requested.
The only hope that ET will have is if he walks upright and can carry stuff (tools, supplies, materials) in our forced labor camps.
What if he walks upright, has more advanced technology and we taste like chicken?
we might be able to put various carbon compounds or other substances to change the concentration of atmospheric compounds to make it more amenable for life.
The atmosphere is only part of the problem though. Titan's distance from the Sun limits the amount of energy that the moon receives -- the negative 292 degree temperatures (F) would seem to be an issue even if the atmosphere was completely Earth like.
Yeah sure, forget your founding fathers. Land of the free eh?
Some of the Founding Fathers advocated for a non-interventionist foreign policy free of "entanglements" (Washington). Others (Jefferson) were in favor of an interventionist foreign policy. Trying to paint all of the founding fathers with one broad brush stroke is a mistake.
See, the USA claims it is different, either it lives up to that, or many will ridecule it.
Every Great Power has claimed that it's "different". An objective reading of history will uncover hypocrisy on the part of nearly every nation on this planet, including yours I'd suspect. Are you really that surprised that the United States also engages in it?
War in the rest of the world meant that that trade was being endangered. Sea warfare made it difficult, dangerous and expensive to transport anything anywhere, and as a consequence, the USA had a direct reason to get involved.
I'm sure that was a contributory factor. The sinking of American ships on the high seas and Zimmerman telegram also had something to do with it.
At any rate, to come back to your initial argument that all world powers do it, keep in mind that all world powers also find out at some point that its not true. Usually that comes together with their decline, and often their destruction.
All powers eventually decline. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing my country decline a little bit and focus on the home front instead of the globe. I would want to see another Democracy come forward and assume our place in the World first though -- since that doesn't appear too likely in the next few decades I think we'll have to resign ourselves to our respective roles in the World. You may not like it but ask yourself if you'd really be happier seeing China or Russia in our place.
What about Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968?
Those don't count because they weren't "new conquests", remember?
By the GP's logic, the United States could have reduced the Philippines to ashes if we hadn't wanted to grant them independence -- just as long as we didn't engage in any new conquests.
Considering people are still saying Al Gore created the Internet, I don't think it will be over for awhile.
Ohhh fuck. Hadn't thought of that. Yeah, I guess the Palin jokes are here to stay. Poor dead horse.....
And no, I don't think that is a desirable situation, but this attitude of "fuck you, we don't answer to anyone" is an even bigger problem in the long run.
All Great Powers have that attitude. Nothing is ever going to change that fact. The British had that attitude once upon a time. The Russians and Chinese currently have that attitude. The French still have traces of this attitude (nuclear testing in the South Pacific and the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior). Why are you limiting your criticism to the United States?
Bush took it to an extreme and foolishly pissed away a lot of our goodwill in the World but that attitude is never going to completely vanish. The United States is one of the few countries that has the power to influence events on a global scale -- it stands to reason that we are going to wield that power to advance our interests and protect our citizens. I don't know which country you call home but your country would be doing the exact same thing if it had the resources and power of the United States.
but the rest of the world can quite do without the USA, for most of its history it did.
The rest of the world is what created the interventionist United States. You dragged us into both of your World Wars and into a trans-Atlantic military and economic alliance that kept us engaged with the World. Prior to WW1 the United States was a non-aligned economic power that was largely content to remain within our own hemisphere and trade with the rest of the world. If you want to blame someone for the United States becoming an interventionist power then you should start by looking at Berlin, Paris and London.
But you are just confirming my statement. After the death of Stalin there was no new conquests, no new territories
I'm sure you'd find that comforting if you lived in Poland or Hungary during the Cold War.
Afghanistan was an attempt at showing off, also an attempt to stop the inflow of drugs into the 3 USSR republics bordering it
Wait a minute, you are rationalizing the USSR's intervention in Afghanistan because of the drug trade? So by your logic the US was well within our rights to intervene in Panama in 1989 (Operation Just Cause), right?
USA was and is the main international aggressor for the past 60 years
The US engaged in a number of questionable activities during the Cold War, mostly due to the perceived threat of Communism. It's a bit of a leap to say that the US was the "main international aggressor" though and I find it pretty troubling that you can rationalize aggression by the USSR but condemn it when done by the United States.
Your arguments aren't consistent with each other and it seems to me that you are more interested in condemning the United States than in having an honest dialog about the military history of the 20th century.
This sounds like a job for Indiana Jones !
Unfortunately he isn't available. He was last spotted undergoing therapy for his recent rape at the hands of Lucas and Spielberg.
We have our own nukes thank you very much...
I hope they work better than your rifles ;) "French Rifle, never fired, dropped once"
Stalin was a maniac, that can be said with certainty, however after his death the USSR quickly got away from the idea of 'spreading the communism' onto the rest of the world and just tried to survive in its own planned economy
... while continuing to occupy Eastern Europe and crushing any attempts by those countries to leave the orbit of Mother Russia.
Fixed that for you.
Strategic Air Command - Peace is our profession - war is just a hobby
SAC always seemed like a waste of money to me once we had boomers. What's the point of spending billions of dollars to outfit a bomber force that could be destroyed on the ground or intercepted on route to the target when you have a weapons system that can't be located and which would survive any first strike?
Damn, Greenland is cold!
Not for much longer ;)