His philosophies were not heard and the only ones rejecting it were the main stream media outlets making the decision for you
I'm sorry but I just don't think that's the case. He had ample enough ways to get his message out. Most of the people that I talked to on/prior to Election Day seemed to have a pretty idea of where he stood on issues. They just disagreed with him for various reasons.
This is in New York too -- a state where he didn't even have time to campaign and made little effort. And yet the voters in my district seemed at least as knowledgeable about him as they did about anybody else not named Hillary Clinton (this is her "home" state). I'll go back to what I said about Iowa and New Hampshire -- if you can't make a decent showing in those states then it's as likely that your ideas were rejected as it is that the media is holding you down.
You are naive:
You want me to argue a point by point comparison about the media? The media sucks! You'll brook no argument from me on that. Your point that they considered Rudy viable long after he ceased to be (and after Paul beat him in a few elections) is well made. I'm just weary of hearing candidates, both major-party (Clinton/Kerry) and third-party (Paul/Nader/Perot) whine about the media as an excuse for their failures at the ballot box. That argument only goes so far and eventually it reaches a point where the candidate himself needs to take responsibility for his own failings.
Just go put your head back in the sand and think you actually are making the choice yourself
And herein lies my problem with Ron Paul supporters. You just can't accept the fact that somebody looked at your candidate and decided not to vote for him. They must be "sticking their head in the sand" or paying too much attention to the "mainstream media" because obviously any smart person would support Ron Paul. And they call us Liberals arrogant.....
FWIW, I flirted with the idea of supporting him for months. His principled opposition to the War in Iraq appealed to me and at the time I really didn't see an alternative to Hillary. Then I found out about some of his other positions and previous votes. Like the fact that he's pro-life. Or the fact that he wants to withdraw from the UN and reinstate a foreign policy that borders on isolationism. Or his 19th Century economic policies.
Sorry, but at the end of the day I looked at what your candidate stood for -- and I decided not to vote for him. Gonna blame the media for that too or am I "sticking my head in the sand" because I disagree with you on a number of key issues?
for the charismatic socialist Obama apparently, judging from your signature.
Obama is a better fit for my views and I like some of his grander ideas. I feel that he appeals to the best of our instincts and not the worst (as many other politicians do) and I think he's the best thing that I've ever seen come out of the Democratic Party in my lifetime. I won't apologize for supporting him. If you disagree with him and won't be voting for him then that's fine -- I don't feel some sort of compulsive need to attack you for deciding not to support my guy.
chief among them was in Papua new Guinea, called the Kokoda Trail from Jun 1942 to Jan 1943. PNG is one of the closest Islands to Australia so ANZAC (Australian and New Zealand Army Corp) troops were in the situation of if they failed there, no-one would be left to defend Australia. Japanese supply lines were over extended by constant fighting and ANZAC forces were able to break the back of the Japanese forcing them to retreat and by Jan 1943 forced them off of Papua New Guinea itself. It was a protracted 6 month battle in appalling jungle conditions where almost every man suffered from malaria and dysentery (on both sides). Coupled with victories like midway this was the end of Japanese expansion in Asia
Don't forget the Battle of the Coral Sea. If the Japanese had taken Port Moresby that whole campaign would probably have turned out much differently. In the end that's as important as what was achieved at Midway.
As you said, the war was fought as allies which is the greatest factor in our victory and prosperity since WWII.
For the record, Ron HAS gotten quite a bit of support (like the thousands that showed up at the Austin Rally a couple of days ago or the activities happening in many local government GOP groups). But if you only pay attention to the big picture presented by the media, you'll never hear about it.
Maybe because that "quite a bit of support" has translated into zero electoral success? You can't blame the media for the voters rejecting Ron Paul in small elections (read: Iowa and New Hampshire) where he had the ability to campaign on an individual and town-hall level. I know it's popular in the Ron Paul camp to blame the media for all your woes but has it ever occurred to you that the voting public rejected his philosophy?
Next you'll say that it wasn't the voting public, just the Republican Party Primary voters, but that will take me back to my original point of wondering why he isn't trying to strengthen the Libertarian Party instead of pretending to be a Republican?
The only reason Ron hasn't gotten more support is because FOX, CNN, CBS, MSNBC, et al. have all spent the last YEAR keeping him and his message out of circulation or distorting it and marginalizing him -- even going so far as to actually say or imply that he had dropped out of the race for many many months now.
And I'll go back to my original point: If you can't compete in the Iowa Caucuses or New Hampshire Primary with weeks to campaign door-to-door then how the hell do you think you are going to win a nationwide election come November? C'mon! I've seen Ron Paul supporters all over the place, even in my small city (Binghamton). I'd say he had a ten to one advantage in lawnsigns plus actual volunteers on the ground -- for all the conclusions that you can draw from that -- and yet he got a whooping 897 votes out of 13,730 cast in Broome County. Gonna blame that on the media too?
This whole primary process is designed to give a voice to the outsider candidates. Slightly easier among the Democrats (no winner take all over here), but still doable among Republicans (at least for awhile -- recall McCain in 2000). And yet he didn't gain any meaningful support. At what point do you accept the fact that your ideas were heard and rejected?
I believe the "shorten the war" line, and "all Japanese are combatants" justification were excuses so they could see what the bomb would do in a real scenario
If that is your belief then it's not likely that we will find any common ground. Nothing I have ever seen or read would lead me to think that Truman made to call to drop the bomb just to "see what it would do". Can you produce any evidence that he did or is it all just a guessing game with the benefit of full historical hindsight?
The first bomb, "Little Boy", was a uranium-based bomb, and that type had never been tested before. Why not drop "Fat Man" first, since the trinity test had already confirmed that plutonium-based bombs worked?
Everything that I've read about the Manhattan Project says the Uranium bomb was a pretty sure bet -- they were confident that it would work without testing it. The implosion design of the plutonium bomb was the much harder design and nobody was quite sure it would work until after Trinity. Do you honestly believe that Little Boy was dropped on a live target just as a test? That the American leadership would decide to kill tens of thousands for no purpose other than a "test"?
We started restricting Japan's access to iron and oil, and you can easily argue that Japan attacked us because of that, not because they were teamed up with Hitler. What if we had simply said "Lets call a truce. We'll get out of your way in China and call it even?" No, we had to blow the shit out of them so we could keep our plans of exploitation.
Wow! You almost make it sound as though it was the United States that forced Japan to invade China in the first place. For the historical record, we stopped selling Japan oil and iron because of their despicable actions in China. They responded to that by attacking us without a declaration of war while simultaneously engaging in peace talks. How you can blame the United States for any of that is beyond me. Japan had her own imperialistic designs. We didn't invade China and brutalize millions of people.
The German military in general wasn't any more or less evil than our military
Really? Forget the Jewish Holocaust (that recent documentation has said the Wermarcht was complacent in) -- I can think of a few Russian POWs and civilians on the Eastern Front that would take issue with your claim that the German military wasn't "any more or less evil" then our own.
Both sides were fighting for what they thought were just causes
Yes, indeed. Our just cause was liberating a conquered continent and defeating fascism. Their "just cause" was brutalizing entire cultures (the Jews and Slavs) to obtain "living space" for the Reich's Master Race. Those are real relative causes. Do you even realize the nonsense that you are spouting?
t's generally the leaders at the top that decide to commit genocide or target civilians. The soldiers, for the most part, just do what they're told
Sorry, "I was only following orders" ceased to be a valid excuse after Nuremberg.
but I could just as easily argue once again that the fact that we won the war doesn't justify everything we did
Yeah, and you won't get any argument out of me on that. Off the top of my head of things that weren't justified: Japanese internment. We did a lot of things during the War that weren't justifiable with hindsight. But I just don't agree that the bomber offensives against Germany and Japan fall into that category.
We broke the Japanese secret code. We knew they were attempting to negotiate with the Russians. It's actually quite likely we did know, but didn't care.
Yes, we did. And around this same time they rejected the Potsdam declaration and gave every indication that they intended to fight it on to the bitter end. Go rent th
Hey, to my regret I've never been down to Australia (one day!) but in the spirit of Anglo-American global domination let me try and create a test specifically for you:
Conservative Media Tycoon: Rupert Murdoch or Rupert Murdoch?
Reason for leaving the Mother Country: "Needed to follow Puritan lifestyle" or "Better than the gallows"?
National landmark that must appear on all tourist merchandise: Statue of Liberty or Sydney Opera House?
Scary Conservative Guy: George W. Bush or John Howard?
Crappiest Beer most known for even though few people back home like it: Budweiser or Fosters?
Annoying Anglosphere neighbor who should be 51st/7th state: Canada or New Zealand?
Name of Native Peoples with surprisingly weak immune systems: Native Americans or Aborigines?
Birth of Nation in Battle: Lexington/Concord or Gallipoli?
Defining Historical Moment: "Entering the war late on the right side and taking all the credit" or "Standing with Commonwealth Allies in a global fight for freedom from day 1"?
I think the libertarians got themselves all up in a frenzy that Ron Paul could actually win,
If Ron Paul was serious about winning with the platform that he stands for, then he would have run under the Libertarian Party. Trying to run as a Republican when you are against the Iraq War and in favor of ending the War on Drugs is just not going to be remotely effective. It won't get support or even enough press coverage to bring your ideas into the public debate. It'd be about as effective as Ann Coulter running for the Democratic nomination.
I don't agree with the good Doctor on very much but I think he's about as Republican as I am. Maybe once upon a time the party stood for what he stands for, though I doubt even that -- the expansion of the Federal Government that Libertarians like to complain about started under the very first Republican President -- Lincoln. Why the hell is he still a member of that political party? It stands opposed to nearly everything that he claims to believe in.
The "Goldwater Republicans" have as much influence on the modern day Republican Party as the Dixiecrats retain on the Democratic Party, in other words: None at all.
Thank you. The GP seemed to believe that the United States was the sole savior of the UK. I'm an American but even I'll admit that really wasn't even remotely the case. The United States contributed what it could (given the political position that FDR was in) at the time but it didn't really amount to much until 1942 at the earliest and even that was at the expense of commitments in the Pacific Theater (the Allies agreed on Europe First as a strategy). Meanwhile the UK had been fighting the Germans alone for most of two years and alongside the Soviets for just a few months. Both nations had already suffered dearly by that point.
This idea that the United States had limitless resources and everything was a downhill march towards victory after December 7th is a myth. Real contribution in Europe didn't happen until the invasion of Italy -- the decisive intervention didn't happen until D-Day. In the Pacific it was mainly a holding action (with some incredible and hard-fought victories, like Midway and Guadalcanal) until 1944 (Battle of Saipan, and the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot) when we really went on the offensive.
in the worst case scenario Churchill would have been forced to sue for peace with Hitler whist still maintaining their sovereignty and the soviets would have lost 30m rather than 20m in their march to Paris
That would have been a disaster for history. Though I question if the Germans wouldn't have been able to defeat the Soviet Union if it wasn't for having to keep units in the West and the commitments in Africa. It would have definitely gone on a lot longer either way -- and many more would have died, as you pointed out. It's a damn good thing that the UK stayed in the war.
the Chinese resistance were fighting the Japanese for years before WWII started
That's one of the things that brought the United States into the war. We tried to leverage economic power (in the form of an oil embargo, amongst other measures) against the Japanese for their actions in China. And they came after us for doing it.
Australian and New Zealand forces halted the Japanese land advances on Bouganville and Papua New Guinea without US assistance whist the majority of the Japanese land force spent the rest of the war fighting the Indian and Nepalese forces around Burma whilst the US Pacific fleet took care of the Japanese navy.
A loss at Coral Sea could have been very disastrous for Australia. As in the other theaters it was the contribution of all the Allies that saved Western Democracy. I think a lot of people (on both sides) forget that.
Wow. That just about contradicts every single mainstream historian on the subject. What was the name of this documentary that you saw? Can I look it up and review it's sources?
Here's where I started to have a problem with it, FYI:
Apparently prior to Pearl, Roosevelt was simlilar to current GW&co with regards to political tap-dancery and media salesmanship. Churchill initially believed in his rhetoric, then as the year of lost promises and German bombardments wore on Churchill realised thst Roosevelt was taking him for a ride (source was Churchill's diary notes). Only Pearl brought the US in to Asia and I expect there was more to why they bothered entering EU in reality than some vague concept of "dear old England"
FDR was taking dear old Churchill for a ride and only got involved in the European theater because of "dear old England"? Then how do you explain all of the conferences between FDR and Churchill prior to the US entry into the war? In them they hammered out the Europe first strategy, among others. The US and UK military staffs were meeting for months before the United States entered the war. Germany had already attacked American warships on the high seas because of our actions in favor of the United Kingdom.
I find it really hard to believe that FDR was taking Churchill for a ride. FDR had some of his own goals in mind (his anti-colonial positions didn't exactly favor keeping the British Empire intact) but I've never heard it suggested that he was taking Churchill for a ride, nor have I ever read any part of Churchill's writings that suggested he ever thought so. America focused on Germany and the European Front even though we hadn't been directly attacked there (unlike at Pearl Harbor). FDR and Churchill worked with each other as partners and implemented a common policy for ending the war.
I'd be really curious to see this documentary that you've watched.
Indeed. And I've seen some really great stuff happen since number portability came out. Case in point:
Friend has Time Warner's "digital phone" VoIP offering. Switches to Vonage to save money and ports her number. Now Time Warner customers are unable to call her number -- they get a generic error message. Everybody else gets through just fine.
Vonage refuses to do anything about it (their customer service really sucks, doesn't it?) because it's "Time Warner's problem". Time Warner refuses to do anything about it because "You aren't a customer anymore". My friend gets screwed.
Worst part is, there doesn't really seem to be any appeals process for this type of thing, other then leaving Vonage and going to a provider that would actually enforce her number portability rights. At least with regulated POTS service you could likely file a complaint with the state regulatory agency (the PSC here in New York) and get something done that way. No such avenue for people relying on VoIP products.
Nope, it doesn't. But Democracy usually comes with the following rights that you'll find sorely lacking in modern-day Pakistan: Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, an independent judiciary and civilian control over the military. I could keep going but hopefully I've made my point.
There might be some benevolent monarchies left in the World where the citizens are more or less free without true democracy (maybe Jordan?) but I don't think you can make that case that Pakistan is one of them. Not while the nation is led by a man that seized power in a military coup and who routinely flaunts the orders of the Supreme Court.
Quick, I need all Brits and Americans to fill out the following test to confirm their country of origin. No other nationality need apply -- you don't count anyway;) (honorable exceptions: Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other members of the Commonwealth of Nations, as well as US and UK overseas territories)
Color or Colour?
Fries or Chips?
Right side of the road or left?
TV or Telly?
Soccer or Football?
New York Post or The Sun?
Would rather reconquer: Panama Canal or Suez Canal?
Hate metric system because: "My car gets forty rods to the hogshead" or "Beer is sold in pints!"
Favorite Former-Colony: The Philippines or India?
Favorite Last Stand against the Natives: Little Big Horn or Isandlwana?
Most annoying ally: France or France?
(My apologies to my French friends.... couldn't resist the last one;)
Yes, and when the government outlaws murder, they are taking away that right
I'm sorry, the "right" to murder? Where is the "right" to murder outlined in the Common Law, Magna Carta, US Constitution or any other historical document of note? The whole point of Government is to secure our rights against those that would take them away from us by force. I fail to see how you can make the argument that protecting my right to "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" is taking away something from you. Your "right" to murder? Are you serious?
but it is still taking away rights regardless of those facts and regardless of whatever Jefferson has to say on the matter
Well, if you want to debate our rights being taken away then let's do it. We can start by talking about habeas corpus, the right against self-incrimination, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, the erosion of the Grand Jury, the erosion of gun rights, etc, etc, etc. But it's hard to take you seriously when you shoot down my idealism with the claim that by outlawing murder the Government is taking away one of your "rights".
While "the government should never take our rights away!" might be a nice-sounding slogan, what it actually means is a hell of a lot different to what (I assume) you intended to express.
Perhaps. It might have sounded better if I had said "The Government has no right to take our rights away without due process of law". That probably would have been a better statement on my part and more in-line with the traditions and history that I was trying to defend.
I'd say anything more than 2-3 and you should be using dynamic routing. If a route goes down you want something that can find another path.. eg. we have 3 VPNs linked together using EIGRP
Even without alternative routes you can still make a case for dynamic routing being easier to deal with then static routing. We used OSPF at my old job even for links without redundant connections because it was just easier to deal with -- we could work on parts of our network without worrying about having to deal with the routing tables on that router three hops and two cities away.....
Setting it up in the first place was a headache (the old configuration was a hodgepodge of networks using static and dynamic routing) but we never regretted doing it. Made our lives that much easier.
Then vote your damn Government out of power until they find some balance on this issue and stop building the surveillance soceity. You do still have the right to vote, don't you? Does every political party in the UK support the surveillance soceity?
Sometimes I think I would consider Pakistan versus being watched ALL THE TIME while I'm outside to be a wash.
Would you still think that if you were a woman? How about an lawyer/jurist opposed to Musharraf? Can you not still speak out against the "surveillance soceity" without being censored or punished for doing so?
It's somewhat ironic but I think the UK set the stage for this when you neutered the House of Lords. One of the things our founding fathers worried about was mob rule -- that's why they created the Senate to "cool the passions of the House" and slow the progress of legislation (to be fair, it was also a compromise between the small states and large ones).
Having an un-elected Upper House full of people who only got there based on family name might not have been ideal -- but at least it was some sort of check on the power of the Commons. The only remaining check now is one that will never be used -- the withholding of Royal Assent.
I'd go along with that. It gets somewhat tricker though when the unions/corporations/lobbyists start using their money to indirectly influence the election though.
A union can't directly donate money to a political campaign here in the states -- but they can donate money to a private group that runs television ads saying the opponent of their candidate kicks puppies or whatever else it takes to convince people not to vote for him.
You must have missed the part of history class where they taught about the Lend-Lease Act. The US was very much involved in the war starting in March of 1941, we might not have had boots on the ground but without our help the UK wouldn't have stood much of a chance.
And you must have missed the part of history class where they taught that the Battle of Britain started in June 1940, nine months prior to the passage of Lend-Lease.
Seriously though even if Lend-Lease/other assistance (destroyers for bases comes to mind) was the sole thing that keep the Brits going, how does that diminish the bravery that they showed in continuing to fight on alone? They could have easily sought an armistice and probably would have emerged better off for doing so (the Empire would have survived instead of being bankrupted). The free world owes them a debt of gratitude for carrying on that fight even when things looked pretty bleak.
I don't think you realise what you are advocating. Or are you an anarchist?
*sigh*, I think you largely missed the point. Let me spell it out for you using the words of Thomas Jefferson:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it
(emphasis mine)
Every law, by its very nature, takes away the rights of the people. The only way for a government not to take away rights is to abolish all laws.
That's such a blatant oversimplification that I hardly know where to respond. The spirit of our Declaration of Independence (and all those other documents I referenced earlier) is that the Government exists to secure our rights -- my right not to be murdered by you trumps your right to do whatever you want. The Government derives it's power from the consent of the Governed and not the other way around.
he advocates serious restrictions on the exercise of the *only* civil right that ultimately insures the government's observation of all the others.
Hey, I didn't say he was perfect. I'm generally not in favor of Gun Control at all, which probably makes me an oddity amongst Democrats, but there you go.
Gun control will probably be one of the easiest issues for the country find common ground on. Most Democrats aren't married to the idea of restrictive gun control as a one-size-fits-all solution for the whole country. Most Republicans probably don't want to see explosive armor piercing cop-killing rounds in general circulation either. As usual an effective solution will require (*gasp*) compromise on both sides and that won't happen unless the citizenry speaks out and marginalizes the extremists on both sides of the issue.
I'm generally of the opinion that any citizen not convicted of a crime should have the right to own any semi-automatic weapon. I get nervous when the Government decides to go after "assault weapons" as though they are some special class more deadly then others. I get real nervous when the burden is shifted to the citizen to prove that he can own a gun, rather then the Government having to prove that he can't.
Fully-automatic weapons is a discussion worth having -- anybody with access to a machine shop and some basic skills can turn a semi into a full-auto, so any ban isn't really effective... But the regulation of fully-automatic weapons goes back a few decades and might actually serve a purpose.
There's nothing in what I said that indicates I think the US is responsible for all the ills of the world
No, but implying that the United States nuked Japan just to "test out some fancy new weapons" hardly indicates an open mind with regards to the United States. Anybody who bothered to open a history book and learn about the debate in the Truman Administration regarding those weapons would know that wasn't the case. We can debate the wisdom of using them until the Sun goes dark but they weren't dropped for the reason that you stated.
but the fact remains that weapons of mass destruction are not strategic weapons. They are weapons of terror
How is a single nuclear weapon dropped on a city anymore of a "weapon of terror" then the firebombing raids conducted by both sides during WW2? Both actions were considered to have legitimate military value at the time. Hell, the firebombing of Tokyo killed more people then either nuclear blast did. And the concept of "total war" is not a new invention of WW2 either -- go read about Sherman's March to the Sea or the concept of scorched Earth defense.
My position is that nukes are horrible creations that have no morally justifiable use
That's a very admirable position that I can respect. But I question trying to apply your modern day morality (backed with full historical hindsight) to the impossible situation that Truman was in. Every single indication that he had suggested the Japanese were ready to fight to the death. Would you really have sent hundreds of thousands of Allied troops and millions of Japanese civilians to their deaths? Go look at how fiercely the Japanese contested Okinawa. Look at the Japanese civilians on Okinawa and the Marianas who chose to commit suicide rather then fall under the control of the United States. Tell me you'd really want to see that played out in the Home Islands.
In retrospect the nuclear attacks probably weren't required -- the second one definitely wasn't. Many historians place as much credit on the Soviet Union for the decision of the Japanese to surrender as they do the atomic bombings. Before the war even started, the Soviet Union was feared in Japan (read about the Battle of Khalkhin Gol). Once they got involved, the Soviet Union crushed the Japanese armies in Manchuria (Operation August Storm) in less then a week and stood poised to invade/occupy Hokkaido and probably a good chunk of Honshu by the time it was over.
The Japanese leadership likely decided that being occupied by the United States was infinitely better than being occupied by the Soviet Union and thus ended the war. In any case though, Truman didn't know any of this, the first bomb was dropped before the launch of August Storm and the rest is all hindsight. I do find it interesting though that you make the assumption that he only dropped the bomb to "test some fancy new weapons". Do you really believe that?
Anyway, if I keep arguing here I'm just going to get more "redundent" mods. Note to self: Don't ever use sarcasm on Slashdot.
*shrug*, I'd keep discussing it until the cows come home. Let 'em mod you down. I suspect that you have karma to burn, as do I. I'm never afraid to express an unpopular viewpoint just because of the mods. And I browse at -1.
My "vote" has mattered *one* time in over 20 years. Every other time, the system is so gerrymandered that it doesn't matter if I vote for or against someone/something.
Then get off your ass and fight to change it. You don't like Gerrymandering? Take it up with your state legislature, not your Congressman or US Senator. Your state representative(s) refuse(s) to listen to you? Then take it up with the voters in his district. Think that's too big of a task? Then start doing something on the county/city level. Find a candidate somewhere for some office (anything from dogcatcher to President) that sees what's going on and SUPPORT him or her. All politics are local and local politics allow individual voters to make a meaningful difference.
One man might not be able to make as much of a difference in an election for Congress or statewide office but you can make a difference on a local level. And that's ultimately where we are going to have to start. It's not going to be quick and it's not going to be easy but it is worth doing.
Capitalism has been restructured to create a slave state for most people- giving the illusion of just enough freedom and control to prevent them from revolting.
Then start convincing people of this fact and get them to "revolt". You still have your freedom of speech in both the UK and the US the last time I checked. The only reason that cooperate interests have so much power in Washington (and London?) is because the population isn't paying attention. Work to change that.
I debated whether or not to even mention my involvement with him because half of the Democratic Party has yet to accept him, let alone the other half of the electorate.
I'll have to look into what his positions are on our trampled rights
FWIW, he was a civil rights attorney at one point in his life.
because Obama is the kind of "fresh air candidate" who will at least listen to the people.
He's still going to need help. To quote him "Good ideas go to Washington to die". We'll never see any meaningful change come out of Washington until we decide to hold our Congressman to account for their actions. Nobody does though. How else do you explain that Congress (as a whole) has approval ratings in the 20s, yet people continue to send their existing Representatives back, year after year?
People are going to need to get involved in the process and speak louder and more forcefully then the special interests/lobbyists that have hijacked Congress. If that happens then I'm actually very hopeful that Obama can manage to unite this country. If it doesn't happen then I still feel that he will be a force for good -- but his grander ideas will probably fall off and die.
Strange thing is, common law no longer applies in Britain.
Maybe it should. And maybe people should study history more and realize that the rights of the people should not be taken away (by a Monarch or an elected Legislature) for any reason. That was one of the underlying principles of the Magna Carta and the Common Law -- the right to limit the power that the Monarch/Legislature/Government has over us and the idea that Governments derive their power from the consent of the Governed (to quote the US Declaration of Independence).
It seems that history taught us that we have the right to limit the power of the Monarch but not that we have the right (and necessity) to limit the power of the elected legislature. An elected legislature can trample on your rights as easily as a monarch can unless you take steps to prevent it.
Consider that reading someone's jaded apathy might be the very thing NEEDED to motivate people to fight
That's one way to look at it, though the jaded apathy that I typically see on/. is hardly "motivational". Becoming jaded might be a good thing if it encourages you to stand up and fight for what you believe in. Becoming apathetic is never a good thing and it's ultimately the apathy of the population that has allowed our time honored institutions (Parliament and Congress) to become slaves to special well connected interests at the expense of the common man. Those interests are the only ones speaking out loudly enough to be heard.
Seriously, "Pakistan is more free than the UK"? How else should I respond to that type of statement? There are real people fighting and dying for their rights in that country. I suspect if they heard this type of whining from Americans or Brits they'd be pretty pissed off -- people aren't shooting us when we try to change the course of our nations.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry but I just don't think that's the case. He had ample enough ways to get his message out. Most of the people that I talked to on/prior to Election Day seemed to have a pretty idea of where he stood on issues. They just disagreed with him for various reasons.
This is in New York too -- a state where he didn't even have time to campaign and made little effort. And yet the voters in my district seemed at least as knowledgeable about him as they did about anybody else not named Hillary Clinton (this is her "home" state). I'll go back to what I said about Iowa and New Hampshire -- if you can't make a decent showing in those states then it's as likely that your ideas were rejected as it is that the media is holding you down.
You are naive:You want me to argue a point by point comparison about the media? The media sucks! You'll brook no argument from me on that. Your point that they considered Rudy viable long after he ceased to be (and after Paul beat him in a few elections) is well made. I'm just weary of hearing candidates, both major-party (Clinton/Kerry) and third-party (Paul/Nader/Perot) whine about the media as an excuse for their failures at the ballot box. That argument only goes so far and eventually it reaches a point where the candidate himself needs to take responsibility for his own failings.
Just go put your head back in the sand and think you actually are making the choice yourselfAnd herein lies my problem with Ron Paul supporters. You just can't accept the fact that somebody looked at your candidate and decided not to vote for him. They must be "sticking their head in the sand" or paying too much attention to the "mainstream media" because obviously any smart person would support Ron Paul. And they call us Liberals arrogant.....
FWIW, I flirted with the idea of supporting him for months. His principled opposition to the War in Iraq appealed to me and at the time I really didn't see an alternative to Hillary. Then I found out about some of his other positions and previous votes. Like the fact that he's pro-life. Or the fact that he wants to withdraw from the UN and reinstate a foreign policy that borders on isolationism. Or his 19th Century economic policies.
Sorry, but at the end of the day I looked at what your candidate stood for -- and I decided not to vote for him. Gonna blame the media for that too or am I "sticking my head in the sand" because I disagree with you on a number of key issues?
for the charismatic socialist Obama apparently, judging from your signature.Obama is a better fit for my views and I like some of his grander ideas. I feel that he appeals to the best of our instincts and not the worst (as many other politicians do) and I think he's the best thing that I've ever seen come out of the Democratic Party in my lifetime. I won't apologize for supporting him. If you disagree with him and won't be voting for him then that's fine -- I don't feel some sort of compulsive need to attack you for deciding not to support my guy.
Don't forget the Battle of the Coral Sea. If the Japanese had taken Port Moresby that whole campaign would probably have turned out much differently. In the end that's as important as what was achieved at Midway.
As you said, the war was fought as allies which is the greatest factor in our victory and prosperity since WWII.Hear hear!
Maybe because that "quite a bit of support" has translated into zero electoral success? You can't blame the media for the voters rejecting Ron Paul in small elections (read: Iowa and New Hampshire) where he had the ability to campaign on an individual and town-hall level. I know it's popular in the Ron Paul camp to blame the media for all your woes but has it ever occurred to you that the voting public rejected his philosophy?
Next you'll say that it wasn't the voting public, just the Republican Party Primary voters, but that will take me back to my original point of wondering why he isn't trying to strengthen the Libertarian Party instead of pretending to be a Republican?
The only reason Ron hasn't gotten more support is because FOX, CNN, CBS, MSNBC, et al. have all spent the last YEAR keeping him and his message out of circulation or distorting it and marginalizing him -- even going so far as to actually say or imply that he had dropped out of the race for many many months now.And I'll go back to my original point: If you can't compete in the Iowa Caucuses or New Hampshire Primary with weeks to campaign door-to-door then how the hell do you think you are going to win a nationwide election come November? C'mon! I've seen Ron Paul supporters all over the place, even in my small city (Binghamton). I'd say he had a ten to one advantage in lawnsigns plus actual volunteers on the ground -- for all the conclusions that you can draw from that -- and yet he got a whooping 897 votes out of 13,730 cast in Broome County. Gonna blame that on the media too?
This whole primary process is designed to give a voice to the outsider candidates. Slightly easier among the Democrats (no winner take all over here), but still doable among Republicans (at least for awhile -- recall McCain in 2000). And yet he didn't gain any meaningful support. At what point do you accept the fact that your ideas were heard and rejected?
I believe the "shorten the war" line, and "all Japanese are combatants" justification were excuses so they could see what the bomb would do in a real scenario
If that is your belief then it's not likely that we will find any common ground. Nothing I have ever seen or read would lead me to think that Truman made to call to drop the bomb just to "see what it would do". Can you produce any evidence that he did or is it all just a guessing game with the benefit of full historical hindsight?
The first bomb, "Little Boy", was a uranium-based bomb, and that type had never been tested before. Why not drop "Fat Man" first, since the trinity test had already confirmed that plutonium-based bombs worked?
Everything that I've read about the Manhattan Project says the Uranium bomb was a pretty sure bet -- they were confident that it would work without testing it. The implosion design of the plutonium bomb was the much harder design and nobody was quite sure it would work until after Trinity. Do you honestly believe that Little Boy was dropped on a live target just as a test? That the American leadership would decide to kill tens of thousands for no purpose other than a "test"?
We started restricting Japan's access to iron and oil, and you can easily argue that Japan attacked us because of that, not because they were teamed up with Hitler. What if we had simply said "Lets call a truce. We'll get out of your way in China and call it even?" No, we had to blow the shit out of them so we could keep our plans of exploitation.
Wow! You almost make it sound as though it was the United States that forced Japan to invade China in the first place. For the historical record, we stopped selling Japan oil and iron because of their despicable actions in China. They responded to that by attacking us without a declaration of war while simultaneously engaging in peace talks. How you can blame the United States for any of that is beyond me. Japan had her own imperialistic designs. We didn't invade China and brutalize millions of people.
The German military in general wasn't any more or less evil than our military
Really? Forget the Jewish Holocaust (that recent documentation has said the Wermarcht was complacent in) -- I can think of a few Russian POWs and civilians on the Eastern Front that would take issue with your claim that the German military wasn't "any more or less evil" then our own.
Both sides were fighting for what they thought were just causes
Yes, indeed. Our just cause was liberating a conquered continent and defeating fascism. Their "just cause" was brutalizing entire cultures (the Jews and Slavs) to obtain "living space" for the Reich's Master Race. Those are real relative causes. Do you even realize the nonsense that you are spouting?
t's generally the leaders at the top that decide to commit genocide or target civilians. The soldiers, for the most part, just do what they're told
Sorry, "I was only following orders" ceased to be a valid excuse after Nuremberg.
but I could just as easily argue once again that the fact that we won the war doesn't justify everything we did
Yeah, and you won't get any argument out of me on that. Off the top of my head of things that weren't justified: Japanese internment. We did a lot of things during the War that weren't justifiable with hindsight. But I just don't agree that the bomber offensives against Germany and Japan fall into that category.
We broke the Japanese secret code. We knew they were attempting to negotiate with the Russians. It's actually quite likely we did know, but didn't care.
Yes, we did. And around this same time they rejected the Potsdam declaration and gave every indication that they intended to fight it on to the bitter end. Go rent th
Hey, to my regret I've never been down to Australia (one day!) but in the spirit of Anglo-American global domination let me try and create a test specifically for you:
Enjoy ;)
If Ron Paul was serious about winning with the platform that he stands for, then he would have run under the Libertarian Party. Trying to run as a Republican when you are against the Iraq War and in favor of ending the War on Drugs is just not going to be remotely effective. It won't get support or even enough press coverage to bring your ideas into the public debate. It'd be about as effective as Ann Coulter running for the Democratic nomination.
I don't agree with the good Doctor on very much but I think he's about as Republican as I am. Maybe once upon a time the party stood for what he stands for, though I doubt even that -- the expansion of the Federal Government that Libertarians like to complain about started under the very first Republican President -- Lincoln. Why the hell is he still a member of that political party? It stands opposed to nearly everything that he claims to believe in.
The "Goldwater Republicans" have as much influence on the modern day Republican Party as the Dixiecrats retain on the Democratic Party, in other words: None at all.
Nah, it's not like a big truck see..... it's more like a series of tubes actually.
Thank you. The GP seemed to believe that the United States was the sole savior of the UK. I'm an American but even I'll admit that really wasn't even remotely the case. The United States contributed what it could (given the political position that FDR was in) at the time but it didn't really amount to much until 1942 at the earliest and even that was at the expense of commitments in the Pacific Theater (the Allies agreed on Europe First as a strategy). Meanwhile the UK had been fighting the Germans alone for most of two years and alongside the Soviets for just a few months. Both nations had already suffered dearly by that point.
This idea that the United States had limitless resources and everything was a downhill march towards victory after December 7th is a myth. Real contribution in Europe didn't happen until the invasion of Italy -- the decisive intervention didn't happen until D-Day. In the Pacific it was mainly a holding action (with some incredible and hard-fought victories, like Midway and Guadalcanal) until 1944 (Battle of Saipan, and the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot) when we really went on the offensive.
in the worst case scenario Churchill would have been forced to sue for peace with Hitler whist still maintaining their sovereignty and the soviets would have lost 30m rather than 20m in their march to ParisThat would have been a disaster for history. Though I question if the Germans wouldn't have been able to defeat the Soviet Union if it wasn't for having to keep units in the West and the commitments in Africa. It would have definitely gone on a lot longer either way -- and many more would have died, as you pointed out. It's a damn good thing that the UK stayed in the war.
the Chinese resistance were fighting the Japanese for years before WWII startedThat's one of the things that brought the United States into the war. We tried to leverage economic power (in the form of an oil embargo, amongst other measures) against the Japanese for their actions in China. And they came after us for doing it.
Australian and New Zealand forces halted the Japanese land advances on Bouganville and Papua New Guinea without US assistance whist the majority of the Japanese land force spent the rest of the war fighting the Indian and Nepalese forces around Burma whilst the US Pacific fleet took care of the Japanese navy.A loss at Coral Sea could have been very disastrous for Australia. As in the other theaters it was the contribution of all the Allies that saved Western Democracy. I think a lot of people (on both sides) forget that.
Wow. That just about contradicts every single mainstream historian on the subject. What was the name of this documentary that you saw? Can I look it up and review it's sources?
Here's where I started to have a problem with it, FYI:
Apparently prior to Pearl, Roosevelt was simlilar to current GW&co with regards to political tap-dancery and media salesmanship. Churchill initially believed in his rhetoric, then as the year of lost promises and German bombardments wore on Churchill realised thst Roosevelt was taking him for a ride (source was Churchill's diary notes). Only Pearl brought the US in to Asia and I expect there was more to why they bothered entering EU in reality than some vague concept of "dear old England"FDR was taking dear old Churchill for a ride and only got involved in the European theater because of "dear old England"? Then how do you explain all of the conferences between FDR and Churchill prior to the US entry into the war? In them they hammered out the Europe first strategy, among others. The US and UK military staffs were meeting for months before the United States entered the war. Germany had already attacked American warships on the high seas because of our actions in favor of the United Kingdom.
I find it really hard to believe that FDR was taking Churchill for a ride. FDR had some of his own goals in mind (his anti-colonial positions didn't exactly favor keeping the British Empire intact) but I've never heard it suggested that he was taking Churchill for a ride, nor have I ever read any part of Churchill's writings that suggested he ever thought so. America focused on Germany and the European Front even though we hadn't been directly attacked there (unlike at Pearl Harbor). FDR and Churchill worked with each other as partners and implemented a common policy for ending the war.
I'd be really curious to see this documentary that you've watched.
Indeed. And I've seen some really great stuff happen since number portability came out. Case in point:
Friend has Time Warner's "digital phone" VoIP offering. Switches to Vonage to save money and ports her number. Now Time Warner customers are unable to call her number -- they get a generic error message. Everybody else gets through just fine.
Vonage refuses to do anything about it (their customer service really sucks, doesn't it?) because it's "Time Warner's problem". Time Warner refuses to do anything about it because "You aren't a customer anymore". My friend gets screwed.
Worst part is, there doesn't really seem to be any appeals process for this type of thing, other then leaving Vonage and going to a provider that would actually enforce her number portability rights. At least with regulated POTS service you could likely file a complaint with the state regulatory agency (the PSC here in New York) and get something done that way. No such avenue for people relying on VoIP products.
Nope, it doesn't. But Democracy usually comes with the following rights that you'll find sorely lacking in modern-day Pakistan: Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, an independent judiciary and civilian control over the military. I could keep going but hopefully I've made my point.
There might be some benevolent monarchies left in the World where the citizens are more or less free without true democracy (maybe Jordan?) but I don't think you can make that case that Pakistan is one of them. Not while the nation is led by a man that seized power in a military coup and who routinely flaunts the orders of the Supreme Court.
Maybe he's been in the states too long?
Quick, I need all Brits and Americans to fill out the following test to confirm their country of origin. No other nationality need apply -- you don't count anyway ;) (honorable exceptions: Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other members of the Commonwealth of Nations, as well as US and UK overseas territories)
(My apologies to my French friends.... couldn't resist the last one ;)
I'm sorry, the "right" to murder? Where is the "right" to murder outlined in the Common Law, Magna Carta, US Constitution or any other historical document of note? The whole point of Government is to secure our rights against those that would take them away from us by force. I fail to see how you can make the argument that protecting my right to "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" is taking away something from you. Your "right" to murder? Are you serious?
but it is still taking away rights regardless of those facts and regardless of whatever Jefferson has to say on the matterWell, if you want to debate our rights being taken away then let's do it. We can start by talking about habeas corpus, the right against self-incrimination, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, the erosion of the Grand Jury, the erosion of gun rights, etc, etc, etc. But it's hard to take you seriously when you shoot down my idealism with the claim that by outlawing murder the Government is taking away one of your "rights".
While "the government should never take our rights away!" might be a nice-sounding slogan, what it actually means is a hell of a lot different to what (I assume) you intended to express.Perhaps. It might have sounded better if I had said "The Government has no right to take our rights away without due process of law". That probably would have been a better statement on my part and more in-line with the traditions and history that I was trying to defend.
Even without alternative routes you can still make a case for dynamic routing being easier to deal with then static routing. We used OSPF at my old job even for links without redundant connections because it was just easier to deal with -- we could work on parts of our network without worrying about having to deal with the routing tables on that router three hops and two cities away.....
Setting it up in the first place was a headache (the old configuration was a hodgepodge of networks using static and dynamic routing) but we never regretted doing it. Made our lives that much easier.
Then vote your damn Government out of power until they find some balance on this issue and stop building the surveillance soceity. You do still have the right to vote, don't you? Does every political party in the UK support the surveillance soceity?
Sometimes I think I would consider Pakistan versus being watched ALL THE TIME while I'm outside to be a wash.Would you still think that if you were a woman? How about an lawyer/jurist opposed to Musharraf? Can you not still speak out against the "surveillance soceity" without being censored or punished for doing so?
It's somewhat ironic but I think the UK set the stage for this when you neutered the House of Lords. One of the things our founding fathers worried about was mob rule -- that's why they created the Senate to "cool the passions of the House" and slow the progress of legislation (to be fair, it was also a compromise between the small states and large ones).
Having an un-elected Upper House full of people who only got there based on family name might not have been ideal -- but at least it was some sort of check on the power of the Commons. The only remaining check now is one that will never be used -- the withholding of Royal Assent.
I'd go along with that. It gets somewhat tricker though when the unions/corporations/lobbyists start using their money to indirectly influence the election though.
A union can't directly donate money to a political campaign here in the states -- but they can donate money to a private group that runs television ads saying the opponent of their candidate kicks puppies or whatever else it takes to convince people not to vote for him.
And you must have missed the part of history class where they taught that the Battle of Britain started in June 1940, nine months prior to the passage of Lend-Lease.
Seriously though even if Lend-Lease/other assistance (destroyers for bases comes to mind) was the sole thing that keep the Brits going, how does that diminish the bravery that they showed in continuing to fight on alone? They could have easily sought an armistice and probably would have emerged better off for doing so (the Empire would have survived instead of being bankrupted). The free world owes them a debt of gratitude for carrying on that fight even when things looked pretty bleak.
*sigh*, I think you largely missed the point. Let me spell it out for you using the words of Thomas Jefferson:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it
(emphasis mine)
Every law, by its very nature, takes away the rights of the people. The only way for a government not to take away rights is to abolish all laws.That's such a blatant oversimplification that I hardly know where to respond. The spirit of our Declaration of Independence (and all those other documents I referenced earlier) is that the Government exists to secure our rights -- my right not to be murdered by you trumps your right to do whatever you want. The Government derives it's power from the consent of the Governed and not the other way around.
How soon we forget our own history.
Hey, I didn't say he was perfect. I'm generally not in favor of Gun Control at all, which probably makes me an oddity amongst Democrats, but there you go.
Gun control will probably be one of the easiest issues for the country find common ground on. Most Democrats aren't married to the idea of restrictive gun control as a one-size-fits-all solution for the whole country. Most Republicans probably don't want to see explosive armor piercing cop-killing rounds in general circulation either. As usual an effective solution will require (*gasp*) compromise on both sides and that won't happen unless the citizenry speaks out and marginalizes the extremists on both sides of the issue.
I'm generally of the opinion that any citizen not convicted of a crime should have the right to own any semi-automatic weapon. I get nervous when the Government decides to go after "assault weapons" as though they are some special class more deadly then others. I get real nervous when the burden is shifted to the citizen to prove that he can own a gun, rather then the Government having to prove that he can't.
Fully-automatic weapons is a discussion worth having -- anybody with access to a machine shop and some basic skills can turn a semi into a full-auto, so any ban isn't really effective... But the regulation of fully-automatic weapons goes back a few decades and might actually serve a purpose.
No, but implying that the United States nuked Japan just to "test out some fancy new weapons" hardly indicates an open mind with regards to the United States. Anybody who bothered to open a history book and learn about the debate in the Truman Administration regarding those weapons would know that wasn't the case. We can debate the wisdom of using them until the Sun goes dark but they weren't dropped for the reason that you stated.
but the fact remains that weapons of mass destruction are not strategic weapons. They are weapons of terrorHow is a single nuclear weapon dropped on a city anymore of a "weapon of terror" then the firebombing raids conducted by both sides during WW2? Both actions were considered to have legitimate military value at the time. Hell, the firebombing of Tokyo killed more people then either nuclear blast did. And the concept of "total war" is not a new invention of WW2 either -- go read about Sherman's March to the Sea or the concept of scorched Earth defense.
My position is that nukes are horrible creations that have no morally justifiable useThat's a very admirable position that I can respect. But I question trying to apply your modern day morality (backed with full historical hindsight) to the impossible situation that Truman was in. Every single indication that he had suggested the Japanese were ready to fight to the death. Would you really have sent hundreds of thousands of Allied troops and millions of Japanese civilians to their deaths? Go look at how fiercely the Japanese contested Okinawa. Look at the Japanese civilians on Okinawa and the Marianas who chose to commit suicide rather then fall under the control of the United States. Tell me you'd really want to see that played out in the Home Islands.
In retrospect the nuclear attacks probably weren't required -- the second one definitely wasn't. Many historians place as much credit on the Soviet Union for the decision of the Japanese to surrender as they do the atomic bombings. Before the war even started, the Soviet Union was feared in Japan (read about the Battle of Khalkhin Gol). Once they got involved, the Soviet Union crushed the Japanese armies in Manchuria (Operation August Storm) in less then a week and stood poised to invade/occupy Hokkaido and probably a good chunk of Honshu by the time it was over.
The Japanese leadership likely decided that being occupied by the United States was infinitely better than being occupied by the Soviet Union and thus ended the war. In any case though, Truman didn't know any of this, the first bomb was dropped before the launch of August Storm and the rest is all hindsight. I do find it interesting though that you make the assumption that he only dropped the bomb to "test some fancy new weapons". Do you really believe that?
Anyway, if I keep arguing here I'm just going to get more "redundent" mods. Note to self: Don't ever use sarcasm on Slashdot.*shrug*, I'd keep discussing it until the cows come home. Let 'em mod you down. I suspect that you have karma to burn, as do I. I'm never afraid to express an unpopular viewpoint just because of the mods. And I browse at -1.
Yes.
Then get off your ass and fight to change it. You don't like Gerrymandering? Take it up with your state legislature, not your Congressman or US Senator. Your state representative(s) refuse(s) to listen to you? Then take it up with the voters in his district. Think that's too big of a task? Then start doing something on the county/city level. Find a candidate somewhere for some office (anything from dogcatcher to President) that sees what's going on and SUPPORT him or her. All politics are local and local politics allow individual voters to make a meaningful difference.
One man might not be able to make as much of a difference in an election for Congress or statewide office but you can make a difference on a local level. And that's ultimately where we are going to have to start. It's not going to be quick and it's not going to be easy but it is worth doing.
Capitalism has been restructured to create a slave state for most people- giving the illusion of just enough freedom and control to prevent them from revolting.Then start convincing people of this fact and get them to "revolt". You still have your freedom of speech in both the UK and the US the last time I checked. The only reason that cooperate interests have so much power in Washington (and London?) is because the population isn't paying attention. Work to change that.
I debated whether or not to even mention my involvement with him because half of the Democratic Party has yet to accept him, let alone the other half of the electorate.
I'll have to look into what his positions are on our trampled rightsFWIW, he was a civil rights attorney at one point in his life.
because Obama is the kind of "fresh air candidate" who will at least listen to the people.He's still going to need help. To quote him "Good ideas go to Washington to die". We'll never see any meaningful change come out of Washington until we decide to hold our Congressman to account for their actions. Nobody does though. How else do you explain that Congress (as a whole) has approval ratings in the 20s, yet people continue to send their existing Representatives back, year after year?
People are going to need to get involved in the process and speak louder and more forcefully then the special interests/lobbyists that have hijacked Congress. If that happens then I'm actually very hopeful that Obama can manage to unite this country. If it doesn't happen then I still feel that he will be a force for good -- but his grander ideas will probably fall off and die.
Maybe it should. And maybe people should study history more and realize that the rights of the people should not be taken away (by a Monarch or an elected Legislature) for any reason. That was one of the underlying principles of the Magna Carta and the Common Law -- the right to limit the power that the Monarch/Legislature/Government has over us and the idea that Governments derive their power from the consent of the Governed (to quote the US Declaration of Independence).
It seems that history taught us that we have the right to limit the power of the Monarch but not that we have the right (and necessity) to limit the power of the elected legislature. An elected legislature can trample on your rights as easily as a monarch can unless you take steps to prevent it.
That's one way to look at it, though the jaded apathy that I typically see on /. is hardly "motivational". Becoming jaded might be a good thing if it encourages you to stand up and fight for what you believe in. Becoming apathetic is never a good thing and it's ultimately the apathy of the population that has allowed our time honored institutions (Parliament and Congress) to become slaves to special well connected interests at the expense of the common man. Those interests are the only ones speaking out loudly enough to be heard.
Seriously, "Pakistan is more free than the UK"? How else should I respond to that type of statement? There are real people fighting and dying for their rights in that country. I suspect if they heard this type of whining from Americans or Brits they'd be pretty pissed off -- people aren't shooting us when we try to change the course of our nations.