The worlds' addiction to laziness and greed will ensure that doesn't happen. You have been warned. China is but an embryo slowly morphing into the mighty dragon it will become. It is already too late. Just sit back and enjoy the show.
LOL
China is fucked.
They're staring down the barrel of a self-inflicted one-child demographic problem that couldn't be worse if it'd been orchestrated by an all-powerful super-villain who hated China.
They've got hundreds if not thousands of Superfund sites... but no Superfund.
A billion of their people are living in mud hut poverty, and the ones that aren't are living in a real estate bubble that's gargantuanly monstrously huge.
Their provincial debt problems are absolutely staggering.
They have an unbelievably corrupt and oppressive communist government.
The thing they're best at, cheap unskilled labor, is being increasingly exported to southeast Asia.
They've been an irrelevant inconsequential naval power since they burned Zheng He's ships eight fucking centuries ago. Today, they can't even sail to Taiwan.
Sure, China's going to dominate the world. Sure.
China is fucked.
"China is but an embryo slowly morphing into the mighty dragon it will become. It is already too late."
Well sir, you are lucky to have ended up in your pretentious little mountain top.
I am lucky; I am content. Some of it's attributable to hard work, but most of the truth is I was born on 3rd base.
It's nice of you to somehow think I "deserve" more. But it seems you're just projecting your own dissatisfaction (with either your lot in life, or that of the middle class at large) upon me. How weird.
The headline asks why Americans work so much. I gave my answer. Who are you to tell me I'm wrong? That I'm getting screwed? That I should demand more?
By the article, at 60 hours a week you are filling three times your share towards the requirements of the economy right now. You should be getting paid three times the rate per hour as the 1930's person, at which point you could probably just work a 40 hour week and retire at 55. But you're not.
In the 1930s my occupation didn't exist as anything remotely resembling what I do today.
It's a little odd for you to pretend to know what I "should" be getting paid, compared to then, on the basis of some speculation about productivity.
I work a job I enjoy and expect to able to retire by 50 (55 if the markets perform really poorly), and you think this is something to bitch about? What a sad fucked up little worldview to have.
I work 50-60 hours per week. That extra work now means I'll be able to quit working entirely around age 50-55.
I make the most of my time off now and don't feel overworked. I enjoy my job.
It does seem that most people are working extra hours to make the interest payment on the debt they incurred buying shit they didn't need with money they didn't have, but vaguely planned to earn later. Maybe that's just observational bias. Everybody likes to think they've got it all figured out and are acting rationally and responsibly, in a manner superior to the "average" person; I'm probably no exception.
How could a federal database of people with mental health problems (instantly searchable during the background check) possibly be in compliance with HIPAA?
Yeah, they're bastards, but if you want to understand nuclear disarmament, look at what happened to Ukraine.
After the breakup of the Soviet Union, they willingly gave up their nuclear weapons to Russia in exchange for the solemn promise, pinky swear, that their sovereignity would be respected.
And Russia waited a little while and took the Crimean peninsula.
Now I ask you, having observed that, what nation would ever be stupid enough to give up their nuclear weapons, ever?
Xenon would be better. Above an inspired concentration of about 70%, it's a general anesthetic. Sleep first, perfect pain relief, then hypoxia, then death.
Of course, observers would still see movement and agonal breathing, and would (incorrectly) exclaim that the condemned is "suffering" despite being under general anesthesia.
'But "regretfully, that information was not fully communicated throughout the full team," '
My experience from working in ICU and ER years ago:
Nurse to Intern: "This guy has been in Liberia"
Nurse to Intern: "This guy has been in Liberia!"
Nurse to Intern: "This guy has been in Liberia!!"
Intern to Resident: "This guy has a fever."
Charge Nurse to Orderly: "Hey, can you put that guy in a chair so we can free up exam room four?"
Resident to Intern: "What do you suggest?"
Intern: "Ummmm, fluids and antibiotics?"
Resident: "Check."
Can't know, but when I hear phrases like "full team", that's what I am reminded of. Very very unfortunate. Beyond all of the additional exposure, the guy didn't get the care he likely needed to have a chance at survival.
Heh, could be. But, you've got to keep one thing firmly in mind when it comes to nurse:intern interactions: the average intern hears 6 pieces of bullshit from a nurse for every piece of important, accurate information.
Next to a July intern, a confident seasoned nurse is the most dangerous person in the hospital.
You're delusional if you think I want a new car . You wrecked the economy, crushed the housing market, and saddled me with student loans that can never be forgiven and that will garnish my wages even after death. until last year, i didnt have a chance in hell of getting health insurance. Most of my friends work more than one job, not many of them earn a programmers salary like me and even if they did theyd be furious to find out most of it (after the universities generous cut) is going to an apartment owned by a capital investment firm that doesnt care about my broken shower. I've never met my landlord but i sure as hell know who my loan officer is. A car represents tax, title, license, maintenance, and fuel money I dont have. It represents parking tickets and accident insurance and a parking space. Not only do i lack the cash to buy this car, but chances are likely i'll never have the credit rating you did.
So you're saying, that because sales stats show young people didn't buy very many cars during the worst recession since the Depression, that young people don't want cars?
That's like saying teenage boys don't really want pussy because they can't get any. Your entire post is one bitter rationalization of how you don't really want the things you don't have money to buy.
I live downtown and I reverse-commute to the exurbs because the traffic is easier and im not as frightened of minorities as your generation was.
Nice touch tossing in the ad hominem racism attack at the end there.
4 decades ago the US landed a man on the moon. They couldn't do that today - heck we couldn't even get a man into low earth orbit today. So being 4 decades behind the US space program doesn't sound like a bad thing.
The US could put a man on the moon fairly easily, and soon.
We just choose not to, because it's expensive, and as a nation we've judged that there's no point in going there for an afternoon of tourism. Especially considering our reduced tolerance for the risk of a blow'd up spacecraft and messily killed astronauts, risks that were easily accepted in the 1960s.
China's still in the "tourism is a useful learning experience" stage with expendable human cargo.
I know it's Slashdot-fashionable to downplay US abilities and stature in the world, but don't conflate the different goals and attitudes into a statement on capability.
Uh, they have a licensed pharmacist right there to analyze the results, in the rest of the world a pharmacist can basically do everything an NP can do because they have to know medicine and pharmacology to do their job.
As a physician, every time I read something like this, I think... when the day comes that people get their "free" and "efficient" healthcare from the "friendly" and "responsive" NPs and other midlevels who "spend more time with me" and "empathize", they are going to get exactly what they deserve.
Kind of like that old saw about people getting the government they deserve. You're going to get the health care you deserve.
The notion of a pharmacist making a diagnosis of anything based on blood work is just so far out into the realm of absurd that it all I can do is shake my head.
Consider the possibilty that you don't know what you don't know.
Medical specialty board certification doesn't work that way.
It is not (NOT!) required to practice medicine.
State licensure and credentialing by each facility is required to practice medicine.
Board certification for many specialties is not even possible until the physician is 2 or 3 years out of residency training. Of course they are working and practicing in the specialty during that time. These physicians are usually referred to as "board eligible" because they're in the examination process.
There are many phsyicians in all specialties who are not "certified" by their respective specialty boards. They may have been unable to pass the exams. They may have never bothered to take the exams. They may have been certified previously, but chosen not to pay the high fees and jump through the hoops (many of which are silly) to recertify. They can still practice medicine. There is something of a growing stigma to not being board certified, but it isn't unheard of.
Full disclosure: I'm a physician, certified by my specialty board. I value board certification and think it means something when it comes to the competence of a physician. But it's not the end all, be all.
My specialty's board can be an expensive pain in the ass. More than once I've wished I could just give them the finger and get certified by a competing organization... but there is no competing organization.
It continues to astonish me to hear (presumably) smart people parrot this damn lie of statistics.
"The US has worse infant mortality than Cuba" and variations of that theme.
Never mind that a premature infant that dies within 24 hours in Cuba is marked in the "stillbirth" column. Never mind that a 25 week preemie who dies despite extraordinary NICU care in a US hospital is marked in the "infant death" column.
Yeah, our "infant mortality" is worse - because we count them as infants and not stillbirths!
Never mind reality. Never mind facts. Let's just parrot the same statistical LIE that advances whatever argument you emotionally favor.
Iraq, North Korea, Iran, etc... all of them are demonised for even thinking about developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. There's outrage if they hint that it's okay to have them.
Iraq, North Korea, and Iran have all demonstrated their complete lack of restraint when it comes to subjugating their own citizens.
There should be outrage and steps taken when they attempt to procure such weapons.
The United States, on the other hand, has had nuclear weapons for 60 years now, and used them exactly twice to end a war that the Japanese started. We've never used biological weapons.
Regarding nuclear weapons, if you're truly unable to see the difference between Iran, Iraq, NK on one end of the spectrum... and the United States, the UK, France, USSR/Russia, China, and Isreal on the other... you're just being willfully ignorant. Simply put, one group is/was a collection of unstable, unpredictable, despotic regimes... and one is not.
On the other hand, the USA, which is the only country to ever use nuclear bombs against another country (civilians, no less),
Boo hoo. My heart bleeds. But let's not get sidetracked into a debate about whether or not the use of the atomic bombs on Japan were justified or not. I believe it was; you believe it was not; leave it at that.
who has invaded two countries in the past few years,
Reasonable people can debate the wisdom or justification of the Iraq invasion. Afghanistan and the Taliban, however, actively supported Al Qaeda and there is absolutely no reasonable argument to condemn our invasion of that country - especially since we're still there, expending a great deal of effort to support their new democratic government and rebuild their country.
who is the only western nation to not ratify the treaty that agrees not to send kids into battle
I'm not familiar with the treaty you refer to, but it's irrelevant as the US doesn't send kids into battle.
While you're in this hysterical anti-American frame of mind, why don't you condemn the United States for failing to draft and sponsor a global treaty banning the use of kittens as targets on machine gun ranges? Surely the fact that the Senate hasn't voted in favor of such a treaty means that kittens might be getting gunned down as we speak!
who don't believe their prisoners of war should have the protections of the Geneva conventions
Have you actually read any of the Geneva Conventions? It specifically excludes personnel not fighting as part of the uniformed armed forces of a recognized state - and for good reason. One of the purposes of the Geneva Convention is to minimize civilian deaths, and its protections were designed to exclude combatants who deliberately blend in with civilians, operate out of hospitals and mosques, target civilian relief agencies - because those tactics put civilians at risk.
Insurgents in Iraq, Al Queda and Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, and terrorists of any flavor are not entitled to any of the Geneva Convention protections. This is not complicated, or even controversial to anyone who's actually read the Geneva Conventions. It doesn't take a lawyer to understand them. They're quite clear.
That said, we treat them humanely anyway, because we're not sick twisted evil people like they are.
is actively buying and developing these kinds of weapons.
Which weapons are those? The US is maintaining its nuclear arsenal. It hasn't constructed chemical weapons in a very long time (decades now?), it has no offensive biological weapons program.
The article citing the US military's purchase of anthrax and the planned facilities to deal with it is somewhat concerning to me. However, I have little doubt that we will comply with whatever non-weaponizing verification requirements are set forth in the treaty. I
proof do you have that this trend really represents "tomorrow's" battles and not just some nutty boondoggle? There are plenty of military folks who are offering the same criticism -- that while we are preparing for war in space, the conflict of the future is much more likely to involve asymmetric threats.
Some things ought to be self-evident to even the most casual observer.
Control of space gives us an enormous advantage in all conflicts, even those pesky asymmetric threats. Satellite communcation, signal surveillance, imagery, GPS-guided bombs... they would all be incredibly useful for blowing up Soviet tanks in Europe, combating insurgents in Iraq, and everything in between.
There are plenty of places where we spend money poorly, but anything we do to tighten or expand our grip on space can only improve our ability to fight any comflict.
I am glad they have the capability to strike al-quada from space though. I am sure this will mean the war on terror will be over any day now.
The military has often been accused of preparing to fight and win yesterday's war. And idiots like you always have a sarcastic comment about how stupid military planners must be, since they didn't accurately predict the demands of today's battles.
And yet - when they plan for potential future conflicts, against adversaries other than the current crop of enemies, idiots like you still crawl out of whatever dark place you hide and spew sarcastic comments about how stupid military planners must be, since they aren't 100% focused on today's battles.
I guess the only consistent thing here is that you're a sarcastic idiot.
If you agree that your defense also works for Hamas suicide bombers
Not quite. My argument concerns tactics, not ideology. You may as well be saying that I'm an advocate for barbecuing live kittens because I don't object to the use of lighter fluid.
Hamas is an organization that needs to be crushed. They're not evil because of their tactics; they're evil because of their goals and reasons for fighting in the first place.
Or consider the Iraqi insurgents (well, they're non-Iraqi foreigners, for the most part) who bomb people lining up to be police officers. They aren't evil because they killed some people with a car bomb instead of a rifle; they're evil because they're trying to thwart the will of the Iraqi people so they can either (a) return to the Baathist days or (b) set up a Taliban-style theocratic dictatorship or (c) something worse.
Or consider the Nazis you brought up. They weren't evil because they chose to set the ovens at 2000 degrees instead of 1900; they were evil because they chose to kill the Jews in the first place.
When passing judgment on others, the how isn't nearly as important as the why.
There are many times that obediance must take precendance over one's conscience.
Not in a free country.
Not in any country.
If you live in a dictatorship and are given a morally repugnant order, you can choose to risk death by standing up to your evil leaders, or you can choose to risk death by becoming a willing slave to their will and fighting their enemies. It's an unpleasant choice, but it must be made.
Humans don't always get to choose a happy and safe life, but all humans can choose to die honorably.
Mothers and children and grandparents who are trying to live normal lives, threatening no one and having no influence on national policies or the movement of armies are innocent. Especially if that country is not even a democracy. What part of that are you having problems with?
Children are innocent.
Mothers and grandparents are at best enablers of the war effort. Where was grandpa 20 years ago when the dictator seized power? Why isn't mom speaking out? Why isn't dad joining or organizing some kind of resistance to his evil leader's policies?
Oh, I get it. They're civilians, and they're more deserving of life than our servicemen who had the courage to stand up and be counted. They live in a dictatorship, some place where it's dangerous to speak out, so that absolves them of any responsibility to act.
So they go on living their lives, growing food, stitching uniforms, assembling rifles, washing the floor at the bar where their soldiers relax, driving the trucks that keep their nation's wartime economy going...
... while our Marines are dying by the thousands taking places like Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Wake Island.
Those Japanese civilians chose the easy path of supporting their government rather than the difficult path of resisting it. And yet you'd rather an American Lance Corporal died invading Japan than see Grandpa Coward killed by a nuke... because Grampa's a civilian.
That's the part I'm having a problem with.
Your argument justifies terrorism and the gassing of 6 million Jews as well.
Terrorism, perhaps. Genocide, of course not. Get a clue, and quit constructing absurd strawman arguments.
I can't fault someone for fighting the only way he can - maybe that's 'terrorism' or striking at soft targets to influence the will of the enemy 'civilians' supporting the war effort. I can, and do, fault him for choosing to fight in the first place. And I can, and will, try to kill him first.
You are now implicitly allowing the terrorists to have their way with us. Good job.
No. I think we should be ruthlessly exterminating them too.
I don't believe 'War On Terror' is a particularly helpful label, but I do believe that we are at war, and I expect to take casualties in this war. I expect to see more friends get hurt and killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. I expect the enemy to eventually get through and kill more Americans on US soil. In fact, I expect a lot more Americans to get killed.
That's why I'm going back to the Middle East next month with about 1000 of my closest friends. We will bleed, they will bleed more, the world will change, and in the end, we will win.
The fact that I believe the terrorists will hurt us again, and again, and again before this is all over does not mean I'm going to allow them to do it. I'm willing to spend a lot of time away from home, at some risk to myself, to support my nation's attempts to reshape the part of the world that gave birth to violent Islamic extremists.
WTF do you do, besides posting whiny strawmen arguments on Slashdot?
However, the entire reason for this discussion, is that the bomb kills people that were never part of the fight - it kills CIVILIANS, who did not pick the fight at all
The only true innocents were kids. The adult civilians supported their leaders (or they chose not to rise up against them), they worked in factories that built things for the war effort, they worked in fields that grew food for soldiers, they gave aid and comfort to their military, they cheered their nation's victories and mourned its losses.
"Civilian" is a nice term, and our ability to avoid targetting civilians yet still win wars is a modern luxury borne of trivial details like precision munitions and overwhelming military superiority.
Hey, every death is tragic, but I don't lose any sleep over those deaths. They were part of the fight - directly or indirectly - by supporting the war effort in the ways noted above. Those Japanese civilians who lacked the courage to stand up to their leaders are not more deserving of life than the American Marines, airmen, sailors, and soldiers who would have died during an invasion of Japan. I will not apologize for their deaths, and I am disgusted by Americans who think we should apologize or somehow feel guilt or shame about nuking the Japanese.
If the Bomb merely destroyed those that picked the fight - the military and the politicians
Bah. Next you'll be arguing that since the privates and corporals didn't pick the fight then it's (a) unethical to kill hordes of enemy soldiers, and (b) the only ethical way to wage war is to target sergeants and above. This is, of course, crap.
And it is also crap, also of course, to suggest that it was wrong or unethical to seize a golden opportunity amidst a long, bloody war to blast the hell out of an enemy city and scare a few Russians while risking essentially no allied lives.
Slashdot Mirror
The worlds' addiction to laziness and greed will ensure that doesn't happen. You have been warned. China is but an embryo slowly morphing into the mighty dragon it will become. It is already too late. Just sit back and enjoy the show.
LOL
... but no Superfund.
China is fucked.
They're staring down the barrel of a self-inflicted one-child demographic problem that couldn't be worse if it'd been orchestrated by an all-powerful super-villain who hated China.
They've got hundreds if not thousands of Superfund sites
A billion of their people are living in mud hut poverty, and the ones that aren't are living in a real estate bubble that's gargantuanly monstrously huge.
Their provincial debt problems are absolutely staggering.
They have an unbelievably corrupt and oppressive communist government.
The thing they're best at, cheap unskilled labor, is being increasingly exported to southeast Asia.
They've been an irrelevant inconsequential naval power since they burned Zheng He's ships eight fucking centuries ago. Today, they can't even sail to Taiwan.
Sure, China's going to dominate the world. Sure.
China is fucked.
"China is but an embryo slowly morphing into the mighty dragon it will become. It is already too late."
ell oh ell
You're so cute.
When it was "cool" to put wood paneling on the outside of cars.
Nice craftmanship, but they look ridiculous. To each his own.
Well sir, you are lucky to have ended up in your pretentious little mountain top.
I am lucky; I am content. Some of it's attributable to hard work, but most of the truth is I was born on 3rd base.
It's nice of you to somehow think I "deserve" more. But it seems you're just projecting your own dissatisfaction (with either your lot in life, or that of the middle class at large) upon me. How weird.
The headline asks why Americans work so much. I gave my answer. Who are you to tell me I'm wrong? That I'm getting screwed? That I should demand more?
By the article, at 60 hours a week you are filling three times your share towards the requirements of the economy right now. You should be getting paid three times the rate per hour as the 1930's person, at which point you could probably just work a 40 hour week and retire at 55. But you're not.
In the 1930s my occupation didn't exist as anything remotely resembling what I do today.
It's a little odd for you to pretend to know what I "should" be getting paid, compared to then, on the basis of some speculation about productivity.
I work a job I enjoy and expect to able to retire by 50 (55 if the markets perform really poorly), and you think this is something to bitch about? What a sad fucked up little worldview to have.
I work 50-60 hours per week. That extra work now means I'll be able to quit working entirely around age 50-55.
I make the most of my time off now and don't feel overworked. I enjoy my job.
It does seem that most people are working extra hours to make the interest payment on the debt they incurred buying shit they didn't need with money they didn't have, but vaguely planned to earn later. Maybe that's just observational bias. Everybody likes to think they've got it all figured out and are acting rationally and responsibly, in a manner superior to the "average" person; I'm probably no exception.
But I don't think so.
How could a federal database of people with mental health problems (instantly searchable during the background check) possibly be in compliance with HIPAA?
Yeah, they're bastards, but if you want to understand nuclear disarmament, look at what happened to Ukraine.
After the breakup of the Soviet Union, they willingly gave up their nuclear weapons to Russia in exchange for the solemn promise, pinky swear, that their sovereignity would be respected.
And Russia waited a little while and took the Crimean peninsula.
Now I ask you, having observed that, what nation would ever be stupid enough to give up their nuclear weapons, ever?
Xenon would be better. Above an inspired concentration of about 70%, it's a general anesthetic. Sleep first, perfect pain relief, then hypoxia, then death.
Of course, observers would still see movement and agonal breathing, and would (incorrectly) exclaim that the condemned is "suffering" despite being under general anesthesia.
What, did someone move it after it sank?
'But "regretfully, that information was not fully communicated throughout the full team," '
My experience from working in ICU and ER years ago:
Can't know, but when I hear phrases like "full team", that's what I am reminded of. Very very unfortunate. Beyond all of the additional exposure, the guy didn't get the care he likely needed to have a chance at survival.
Heh, could be. But, you've got to keep one thing firmly in mind when it comes to nurse:intern interactions: the average intern hears 6 pieces of bullshit from a nurse for every piece of important, accurate information.
Next to a July intern, a confident seasoned nurse is the most dangerous person in the hospital.
You're delusional if you think I want a new car . You wrecked the economy, crushed the housing market, and saddled me with student loans that can never be forgiven and that will garnish my wages even after death. until last year, i didnt have a chance in hell of getting health insurance. Most of my friends work more than one job, not many of them earn a programmers salary like me and even if they did theyd be furious to find out most of it (after the universities generous cut) is going to an apartment owned by a capital investment firm that doesnt care about my broken shower. I've never met my landlord but i sure as hell know who my loan officer is. A car represents tax, title, license, maintenance, and fuel money I dont have. It represents parking tickets and accident insurance and a parking space. Not only do i lack the cash to buy this car, but chances are likely i'll never have the credit rating you did.
So you're saying, that because sales stats show young people didn't buy very many cars during the worst recession since the Depression, that young people don't want cars?
That's like saying teenage boys don't really want pussy because they can't get any. Your entire post is one bitter rationalization of how you don't really want the things you don't have money to buy.
I live downtown and I reverse-commute to the exurbs because the traffic is easier and im not as frightened of minorities as your generation was.
Nice touch tossing in the ad hominem racism attack at the end there.
I hope tomorrow is a happier day for you.
Huh. Interesting. I must've missed the "Cindy Sheehan is a hero" memo. At least one of us is out of touch.
The US could put a man on the moon fairly easily, and soon.
We just choose not to, because it's expensive, and as a nation we've judged that there's no point in going there for an afternoon of tourism. Especially considering our reduced tolerance for the risk of a blow'd up spacecraft and messily killed astronauts, risks that were easily accepted in the 1960s.
China's still in the "tourism is a useful learning experience" stage with expendable human cargo.
I know it's Slashdot-fashionable to downplay US abilities and stature in the world, but don't conflate the different goals and attitudes into a statement on capability.
Uh, they have a licensed pharmacist right there to analyze the results, in the rest of the world a pharmacist can basically do everything an NP can do because they have to know medicine and pharmacology to do their job.
... when the day comes that people get their "free" and "efficient" healthcare from the "friendly" and "responsive" NPs and other midlevels who "spend more time with me" and "empathize", they are going to get exactly what they deserve.
As a physician, every time I read something like this, I think
Kind of like that old saw about people getting the government they deserve. You're going to get the health care you deserve. The notion of a pharmacist making a diagnosis of anything based on blood work is just so far out into the realm of absurd that it all I can do is shake my head.
Consider the possibilty that you don't know what you don't know.
Medical specialty board certification doesn't work that way.
... but there is no competing organization.
It is not (NOT!) required to practice medicine.
State licensure and credentialing by each facility is required to practice medicine.
Board certification for many specialties is not even possible until the physician is 2 or 3 years out of residency training. Of course they are working and practicing in the specialty during that time. These physicians are usually referred to as "board eligible" because they're in the examination process.
There are many phsyicians in all specialties who are not "certified" by their respective specialty boards. They may have been unable to pass the exams. They may have never bothered to take the exams. They may have been certified previously, but chosen not to pay the high fees and jump through the hoops (many of which are silly) to recertify. They can still practice medicine. There is something of a growing stigma to not being board certified, but it isn't unheard of.
Full disclosure: I'm a physician, certified by my specialty board. I value board certification and think it means something when it comes to the competence of a physician. But it's not the end all, be all.
My specialty's board can be an expensive pain in the ass. More than once I've wished I could just give them the finger and get certified by a competing organization
It continues to astonish me to hear (presumably) smart people parrot this damn lie of statistics.
"The US has worse infant mortality than Cuba" and variations of that theme.
Never mind that a premature infant that dies within 24 hours in Cuba is marked in the "stillbirth" column. Never mind that a 25 week preemie who dies despite extraordinary NICU care in a US hospital is marked in the "infant death" column.
Yeah, our "infant mortality" is worse - because we count them as infants and not stillbirths!
Never mind reality. Never mind facts. Let's just parrot the same statistical LIE that advances whatever argument you emotionally favor.
Squaaawk! Infant mortality! Ssquaaak! Cuba! Squaaaaaaaaawk!
Goodbye /.
...
I just can't keep picking through the blatant ad stories, totally irrelevant junk, shockingly incompetent editing
Iraq, North Korea, Iran, etc... all of them are demonised for even thinking about developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. There's outrage if they hint that it's okay to have them.
... and the United States, the UK, France, USSR/Russia, China, and Isreal on the other ... you're just being willfully ignorant. Simply put, one group is/was a collection of unstable, unpredictable, despotic regimes ... and one is not.
Iraq, North Korea, and Iran have all demonstrated their complete lack of restraint when it comes to subjugating their own citizens. There should be outrage and steps taken when they attempt to procure such weapons.
The United States, on the other hand, has had nuclear weapons for 60 years now, and used them exactly twice to end a war that the Japanese started. We've never used biological weapons.
Regarding nuclear weapons, if you're truly unable to see the difference between Iran, Iraq, NK on one end of the spectrum
On the other hand, the USA, which is the only country to ever use nuclear bombs against another country (civilians, no less),
Boo hoo. My heart bleeds. But let's not get sidetracked into a debate about whether or not the use of the atomic bombs on Japan were justified or not. I believe it was; you believe it was not; leave it at that.
who has invaded two countries in the past few years,
Reasonable people can debate the wisdom or justification of the Iraq invasion. Afghanistan and the Taliban, however, actively supported Al Qaeda and there is absolutely no reasonable argument to condemn our invasion of that country - especially since we're still there, expending a great deal of effort to support their new democratic government and rebuild their country.
who is the only western nation to not ratify the treaty that agrees not to send kids into battle
I'm not familiar with the treaty you refer to, but it's irrelevant as the US doesn't send kids into battle.
While you're in this hysterical anti-American frame of mind, why don't you condemn the United States for failing to draft and sponsor a global treaty banning the use of kittens as targets on machine gun ranges? Surely the fact that the Senate hasn't voted in favor of such a treaty means that kittens might be getting gunned down as we speak!
who don't believe their prisoners of war should have the protections of the Geneva conventions
Have you actually read any of the Geneva Conventions? It specifically excludes personnel not fighting as part of the uniformed armed forces of a recognized state - and for good reason. One of the purposes of the Geneva Convention is to minimize civilian deaths, and its protections were designed to exclude combatants who deliberately blend in with civilians, operate out of hospitals and mosques, target civilian relief agencies - because those tactics put civilians at risk.
Insurgents in Iraq, Al Queda and Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, and terrorists of any flavor are not entitled to any of the Geneva Convention protections. This is not complicated, or even controversial to anyone who's actually read the Geneva Conventions. It doesn't take a lawyer to understand them. They're quite clear.
That said, we treat them humanely anyway, because we're not sick twisted evil people like they are.
is actively buying and developing these kinds of weapons.
Which weapons are those? The US is maintaining its nuclear arsenal. It hasn't constructed chemical weapons in a very long time (decades now?), it has no offensive biological weapons program.
The article citing the US military's purchase of anthrax and the planned facilities to deal with it is somewhat concerning to me. However, I have little doubt that we will comply with whatever non-weaponizing verification requirements are set forth in the treaty. I
proof do you have that this trend really represents "tomorrow's" battles and not just some nutty boondoggle? There are plenty of military folks who are offering the same criticism -- that while we are preparing for war in space, the conflict of the future is much more likely to involve asymmetric threats.
... they would all be incredibly useful for blowing up Soviet tanks in Europe, combating insurgents in Iraq, and everything in between.
Some things ought to be self-evident to even the most casual observer.
Control of space gives us an enormous advantage in all conflicts, even those pesky asymmetric threats. Satellite communcation, signal surveillance, imagery, GPS-guided bombs
There are plenty of places where we spend money poorly, but anything we do to tighten or expand our grip on space can only improve our ability to fight any comflict.
I am glad they have the capability to strike al-quada from space though. I am sure this will mean the war on terror will be over any day now.
The military has often been accused of preparing to fight and win yesterday's war. And idiots like you always have a sarcastic comment about how stupid military planners must be, since they didn't accurately predict the demands of today's battles.
And yet - when they plan for potential future conflicts, against adversaries other than the current crop of enemies, idiots like you still crawl out of whatever dark place you hide and spew sarcastic comments about how stupid military planners must be, since they aren't 100% focused on today's battles.
I guess the only consistent thing here is that you're a sarcastic idiot.
If you agree that your defense also works for Hamas suicide bombers
Not quite. My argument concerns tactics, not ideology. You may as well be saying that I'm an advocate for barbecuing live kittens because I don't object to the use of lighter fluid.
Hamas is an organization that needs to be crushed. They're not evil because of their tactics; they're evil because of their goals and reasons for fighting in the first place.
Or consider the Iraqi insurgents (well, they're non-Iraqi foreigners, for the most part) who bomb people lining up to be police officers. They aren't evil because they killed some people with a car bomb instead of a rifle; they're evil because they're trying to thwart the will of the Iraqi people so they can either (a) return to the Baathist days or (b) set up a Taliban-style theocratic dictatorship or (c) something worse.
Or consider the Nazis you brought up. They weren't evil because they chose to set the ovens at 2000 degrees instead of 1900; they were evil because they chose to kill the Jews in the first place.
When passing judgment on others, the how isn't nearly as important as the why.
If you live in a dictatorship and are given a morally repugnant order, you can choose to risk death by standing up to your evil leaders, or you can choose to risk death by becoming a willing slave to their will and fighting their enemies. It's an unpleasant choice, but it must be made.
Humans don't always get to choose a happy and safe life, but all humans can choose to die honorably.
Mothers and children and grandparents who are trying to live normal lives, threatening no one and having no influence on national policies or the movement of armies are innocent. Especially if that country is not even a democracy. What part of that are you having problems with?
...
... while our Marines are dying by the thousands taking places like Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Wake Island.
... because Grampa's a civilian.
Children are innocent.
Mothers and grandparents are at best enablers of the war effort. Where was grandpa 20 years ago when the dictator seized power? Why isn't mom speaking out? Why isn't dad joining or organizing some kind of resistance to his evil leader's policies?
Oh, I get it. They're civilians, and they're more deserving of life than our servicemen who had the courage to stand up and be counted. They live in a dictatorship, some place where it's dangerous to speak out, so that absolves them of any responsibility to act.
So they go on living their lives, growing food, stitching uniforms, assembling rifles, washing the floor at the bar where their soldiers relax, driving the trucks that keep their nation's wartime economy going
Those Japanese civilians chose the easy path of supporting their government rather than the difficult path of resisting it. And yet you'd rather an American Lance Corporal died invading Japan than see Grandpa Coward killed by a nuke
That's the part I'm having a problem with.
Your argument justifies terrorism and the gassing of 6 million Jews as well.
Terrorism, perhaps. Genocide, of course not. Get a clue, and quit constructing absurd strawman arguments.
I can't fault someone for fighting the only way he can - maybe that's 'terrorism' or striking at soft targets to influence the will of the enemy 'civilians' supporting the war effort. I can, and do, fault him for choosing to fight in the first place. And I can, and will, try to kill him first.
You are now implicitly allowing the terrorists to have their way with us. Good job.
No. I think we should be ruthlessly exterminating them too.
I don't believe 'War On Terror' is a particularly helpful label, but I do believe that we are at war, and I expect to take casualties in this war. I expect to see more friends get hurt and killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. I expect the enemy to eventually get through and kill more Americans on US soil. In fact, I expect a lot more Americans to get killed.
That's why I'm going back to the Middle East next month with about 1000 of my closest friends. We will bleed, they will bleed more, the world will change, and in the end, we will win.
The fact that I believe the terrorists will hurt us again, and again, and again before this is all over does not mean I'm going to allow them to do it. I'm willing to spend a lot of time away from home, at some risk to myself, to support my nation's attempts to reshape the part of the world that gave birth to violent Islamic extremists.
WTF do you do, besides posting whiny strawmen arguments on Slashdot?
However, the entire reason for this discussion, is that the bomb kills people that were never part of the fight - it kills CIVILIANS, who did not pick the fight at all
The only true innocents were kids. The adult civilians supported their leaders (or they chose not to rise up against them), they worked in factories that built things for the war effort, they worked in fields that grew food for soldiers, they gave aid and comfort to their military, they cheered their nation's victories and mourned its losses.
"Civilian" is a nice term, and our ability to avoid targetting civilians yet still win wars is a modern luxury borne of trivial details like precision munitions and overwhelming military superiority.
Hey, every death is tragic, but I don't lose any sleep over those deaths. They were part of the fight - directly or indirectly - by supporting the war effort in the ways noted above. Those Japanese civilians who lacked the courage to stand up to their leaders are not more deserving of life than the American Marines, airmen, sailors, and soldiers who would have died during an invasion of Japan. I will not apologize for their deaths, and I am disgusted by Americans who think we should apologize or somehow feel guilt or shame about nuking the Japanese.
If the Bomb merely destroyed those that picked the fight - the military and the politicians
Bah. Next you'll be arguing that since the privates and corporals didn't pick the fight then it's (a) unethical to kill hordes of enemy soldiers, and (b) the only ethical way to wage war is to target sergeants and above. This is, of course, crap.
And it is also crap, also of course, to suggest that it was wrong or unethical to seize a golden opportunity amidst a long, bloody war to blast the hell out of an enemy city and scare a few Russians while risking essentially no allied lives.