I think being a follow-on to the Great War, the British people didn't have the appetite for another full-scale attack. To wit: the "Bloody Sunday" in which Michael Collins had the G group men assassinated simultaneously in Dublin. The Tans reacted by shooting up Croak Park during a GAA football match, killing innocent civilians. There were protests in London against the Tans rather than the Sinn Féin action. That brings us to another point, which is a prime guerrilla tactic is to force the larger power into over-reaction in order to create public outcry and morally weaken the position. Effective in Ireland, and obviously so during Vietnam. That's also the name of the game in Palestine: Hammas launches a couple of rockets that don't do any real damage and Israel gang-bangs entire cities, then all the Muslims and hippies through a fit over it and Israel gets all the bad press.
No, my point was that guerrilla tactics are legitimate and will win, more often than not -- assuming, of course, that the regular forces obey some sort of "rules of engagement." I would hardly think the VC would have been successful against the SS, or Caesar's army, adjusting for the technology gap. (I've heard him referred to as Genocide Julius by more than one person on account of the amount of bloodshed during the Gallic Wars)
The Norman invasion of England is still successful. The Norman invasion of England in 1170 mostly ended with names starting in Fitz being inextricably linked with Ireland, because they ended up assimilating (resistance was futile, as beer was involved); the Plantation of Ulster created several hundred years of strife, but Adams and McGuinness seem to be content to more or less surrender.
The European invasion of the New World has been extremely successful as well, as was the American/British/Canadian invasion of Normandy. The North Africa campaign was a success as well.
If Afghanistan were still a stable county, whether or not a Commonwealth member, capable of trading with the UK and the rest of the world, then 20 years of colonial domination and then parting would count as a success as it'd still be paying dividends. As it stands, that's not exactly the case, although at the time I'm sure it seemed to be.
See, that's 20 years -- a blink of an eye in a country that old, with a history going back thousands of years. Maybe I just have tad more stringent a definition of success.
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, And the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains An' go to your Gawd like a soldier. Go, go, go like a soldier, Go, go, go like a soldier, Go, go, go like a soldier, So-oldier ~of~ the Queen!
No, Libertarian Socialism is the technical term for Anarchism. One of the founding intellectuals of the movement, Mikhail Bakunin, was an outspoken opponent of Marx in the First International, saying that Marxist Communism would lead to a "Red Bureaucracy" and was a betrayal of Socialist principles.
Basically, the idea in Libertarian Socialism is for free individuals to group themselves on direct democratic principles along lines of free association, rather than submitting to a State that is purely an exercise of force. The Libertarian party in the US was infested by Randism and combines the anti-authoritarian aspect of libertarianism with unfettered capitalistic greed. Libertarian Socialism/Anarchism requires that people act in the group interest for the common good, but getting people to do that isn't exactly easy, which is why it wouldn't work on large scale.
Modern Left-Center type of "Social Democrats" were always viewed by both Anarchists and Communists as "counter-revolutionary," but that's the model that won out in most of Europe and which the US Democratic Party tends to lean as well. It's relatively benign, but seems to scare people on the economic right and let down people on the economic and social left quite often for not going "too far enough"
Yes, and for that I'm eternally grateful, in much the same way my mother once got free dental work in France because her father had fought in the war (though mainly in Belgium and the Netherlands, then into Germany) and the dentist thought it was the least he could do to repay the debt he felt he owed to America. I know its fashionable to make fun of France and whatnot, but they're not bad people, and they are America's oldest friend.
There could definitely be a reorganization of forces that the country could benefit from, but as attractive as the proposition of some sort of Libertarian Socialist (aka Anarchist) society devoid of central authority is, the chances of that being able to function for any length of time before faltering itself is pretty low. Catalonia when held by FAI/CNT in the Spanish Revolution (concurrent with the Spanish Civil War) is a prime example.
We were actually not doing too very well before regular military discipline was brought in by Von Stueben and some other European career officers who came over to help their Freemason brothers further the Enlightenment. The French naval blockade of the Chesapeake Bay and some bad weather up the York River didn't hurt either.
I have no idea how this is relevant, and you're probably trolling, but seriously... the 2006 Lebanon war was NOT the first time a guerrilla army turned back regular forces. Look at the Anglo-Irish war from 1918-1921 for an example, or friggin' Vietnam. Or Afghanistan... every time anyone has ever tried to invade Afghanistan (the British twice, the Soviets, Alexander the Great, even). As to the rest of your post, your UID is low enough that you should be old enough to know better. Quit being 16, it's not becoming.
I think the better question is, who the hell cares who sits in the seat so long as the ticket company and entertainment-industrial complex get the money they were charging for the ticket? If I buy a ticket, end up not being able to go, and can't return it but have a friend who will buy it, what does it matter if I sell it at a loss or a profit, or if I give it away? Ticketmaster isn't "out" any more money than they actually knew they were going to get. They just think they might be able to get a lot more from desperate people. They're kind of like the fat chicks of the economy.
No one is preventing people from speaking as they please and publishing their opinions. They're blocking their employees from wasting time at work reading bullshit websites. As TSA employees are Government employees, and are therefor working on your dime, don't you at least want to get your money's worth out of them? Sure, it would probably be better if we didn't have them on the payroll anyway and just did away with the department as it's mostly political eyewash designed to make people feel safer rather than be safer, but that's another story all together. But hey, it's more fun to shout about fascist nazi communist censors, isn't it?
I'm not a fan of monopolies or anything, however if not for monopolies on "public utilities", then you'd have to have multiple runs of cable (impractical and physically destructive), or companies would have to allow other companies to use their infrastructure but then charge them for it. Seems to me, this would likely limit the incentive for expand infrastructure (the leasing fee for the second provider likely wouldn't make up the difference lost in access charges to the end user, otherwise the second company. If it did, the second company would have to be more expensive than the first to make a profit, and then they wouldn't get any customers). After Ma Bell got broken up, we started to get deluged with advertisements for crappy, second-rate phone services, and infrastructure hasn't really expanded to keep up with increased demand. Otherwise, we wouldn't even be having this thread because this would be a solved issue, but it's clearly not. It would probably make more sense to just force the carriers to expand their infrastructure and make them pay for it with their own money, not public funds. They already got public funds to expand before, and did a half-assed job of it. They owe us.
I occasionally find that I enjoy a product, but I don't think I've ever really rooted for a company. They're not people, nor are they moral actors, meaning there is no real good/evil associated with the company. There may be good or evil associated with the corporate leadership, but that's different. Maybe a company like RedHat, which pretty much lives or dies by its support of the community (they pay for a very great deal of kernel development and other high-profile projects) would come close, but wtf do I care if Google stays solvent or not? Another search engine will come along and then that'll be the flavor of the month for a while, and it's no skin off my back either way.
It also doesn't really take into account the fact that most of the companies that supply a company like IBM are not the type of companies that "end users" would be buying from directly. I mean, how many of us are in the market for chip fabrication equipment or something of that nature? There might be some spill-over effect, but just going by the statement in the summary, I fail to see how it would be of any benefit to us for IBM to take that stance.
Slashdot Mirror
Is that one of those "i think its ok when they say it" things?
Don't ... forget to... drink... your ovaltine?!?! a lousy commercial!?
I think being a follow-on to the Great War, the British people didn't have the appetite for another full-scale attack. To wit: the "Bloody Sunday" in which Michael Collins had the G group men assassinated simultaneously in Dublin. The Tans reacted by shooting up Croak Park during a GAA football match, killing innocent civilians. There were protests in London against the Tans rather than the Sinn Féin action. That brings us to another point, which is a prime guerrilla tactic is to force the larger power into over-reaction in order to create public outcry and morally weaken the position. Effective in Ireland, and obviously so during Vietnam. That's also the name of the game in Palestine: Hammas launches a couple of rockets that don't do any real damage and Israel gang-bangs entire cities, then all the Muslims and hippies through a fit over it and Israel gets all the bad press.
No, my point was that guerrilla tactics are legitimate and will win, more often than not -- assuming, of course, that the regular forces obey some sort of "rules of engagement." I would hardly think the VC would have been successful against the SS, or Caesar's army, adjusting for the technology gap. (I've heard him referred to as Genocide Julius by more than one person on account of the amount of bloodshed during the Gallic Wars)
The Norman invasion of England is still successful. The Norman invasion of England in 1170 mostly ended with names starting in Fitz being inextricably linked with Ireland, because they ended up assimilating (resistance was futile, as beer was involved); the Plantation of Ulster created several hundred years of strife, but Adams and McGuinness seem to be content to more or less surrender.
The European invasion of the New World has been extremely successful as well, as was the American/British/Canadian invasion of Normandy. The North Africa campaign was a success as well.
If Afghanistan were still a stable county, whether or not a Commonwealth member, capable of trading with the UK and the rest of the world, then 20 years of colonial domination and then parting would count as a success as it'd still be paying dividends. As it stands, that's not exactly the case, although at the time I'm sure it seemed to be.
See, that's 20 years -- a blink of an eye in a country that old, with a history going back thousands of years. Maybe I just have tad more stringent a definition of success.
And quoting Kipling...
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier ~of~ the Queen!
No, I got the joke... but it's debatable as to whether or not we really speak English ;-)
No, Libertarian Socialism is the technical term for Anarchism. One of the founding intellectuals of the movement, Mikhail Bakunin, was an outspoken opponent of Marx in the First International, saying that Marxist Communism would lead to a "Red Bureaucracy" and was a betrayal of Socialist principles.
Basically, the idea in Libertarian Socialism is for free individuals to group themselves on direct democratic principles along lines of free association, rather than submitting to a State that is purely an exercise of force. The Libertarian party in the US was infested by Randism and combines the anti-authoritarian aspect of libertarianism with unfettered capitalistic greed. Libertarian Socialism/Anarchism requires that people act in the group interest for the common good, but getting people to do that isn't exactly easy, which is why it wouldn't work on large scale.
Modern Left-Center type of "Social Democrats" were always viewed by both Anarchists and Communists as "counter-revolutionary," but that's the model that won out in most of Europe and which the US Democratic Party tends to lean as well. It's relatively benign, but seems to scare people on the economic right and let down people on the economic and social left quite often for not going "too far enough"
Yes, and for that I'm eternally grateful, in much the same way my mother once got free dental work in France because her father had fought in the war (though mainly in Belgium and the Netherlands, then into Germany) and the dentist thought it was the least he could do to repay the debt he felt he owed to America. I know its fashionable to make fun of France and whatnot, but they're not bad people, and they are America's oldest friend.
There could definitely be a reorganization of forces that the country could benefit from, but as attractive as the proposition of some sort of Libertarian Socialist (aka Anarchist) society devoid of central authority is, the chances of that being able to function for any length of time before faltering itself is pretty low. Catalonia when held by FAI/CNT in the Spanish Revolution (concurrent with the Spanish Civil War) is a prime example.
We were actually not doing too very well before regular military discipline was brought in by Von Stueben and some other European career officers who came over to help their Freemason brothers further the Enlightenment. The French naval blockade of the Chesapeake Bay and some bad weather up the York River didn't hurt either.
I have no idea how this is relevant, and you're probably trolling, but seriously... the 2006 Lebanon war was NOT the first time a guerrilla army turned back regular forces. Look at the Anglo-Irish war from 1918-1921 for an example, or friggin' Vietnam. Or Afghanistan... every time anyone has ever tried to invade Afghanistan (the British twice, the Soviets, Alexander the Great, even). As to the rest of your post, your UID is low enough that you should be old enough to know better. Quit being 16, it's not becoming.
whatever you guys, i'm hella keeeeewwwww'
instead of just Hillary Clinton?
I think the better question is, who the hell cares who sits in the seat so long as the ticket company and entertainment-industrial complex get the money they were charging for the ticket? If I buy a ticket, end up not being able to go, and can't return it but have a friend who will buy it, what does it matter if I sell it at a loss or a profit, or if I give it away? Ticketmaster isn't "out" any more money than they actually knew they were going to get. They just think they might be able to get a lot more from desperate people. They're kind of like the fat chicks of the economy.
No one is preventing people from speaking as they please and publishing their opinions. They're blocking their employees from wasting time at work reading bullshit websites. As TSA employees are Government employees, and are therefor working on your dime, don't you at least want to get your money's worth out of them? Sure, it would probably be better if we didn't have them on the payroll anyway and just did away with the department as it's mostly political eyewash designed to make people feel safer rather than be safer, but that's another story all together. But hey, it's more fun to shout about fascist nazi communist censors, isn't it?
a soupercomputer?
i don't know... what were they thinking allowing comments in the first place?
Based on the typical YouTube comment (or video, for that matter), I already hard sort of expected that to be the case.
You need to learn to think outside of the box
I'm not a fan of monopolies or anything, however if not for monopolies on "public utilities", then you'd have to have multiple runs of cable (impractical and physically destructive), or companies would have to allow other companies to use their infrastructure but then charge them for it. Seems to me, this would likely limit the incentive for expand infrastructure (the leasing fee for the second provider likely wouldn't make up the difference lost in access charges to the end user, otherwise the second company. If it did, the second company would have to be more expensive than the first to make a profit, and then they wouldn't get any customers). After Ma Bell got broken up, we started to get deluged with advertisements for crappy, second-rate phone services, and infrastructure hasn't really expanded to keep up with increased demand. Otherwise, we wouldn't even be having this thread because this would be a solved issue, but it's clearly not. It would probably make more sense to just force the carriers to expand their infrastructure and make them pay for it with their own money, not public funds. They already got public funds to expand before, and did a half-assed job of it. They owe us.
I occasionally find that I enjoy a product, but I don't think I've ever really rooted for a company. They're not people, nor are they moral actors, meaning there is no real good/evil associated with the company. There may be good or evil associated with the corporate leadership, but that's different. Maybe a company like RedHat, which pretty much lives or dies by its support of the community (they pay for a very great deal of kernel development and other high-profile projects) would come close, but wtf do I care if Google stays solvent or not? Another search engine will come along and then that'll be the flavor of the month for a while, and it's no skin off my back either way.
It also doesn't really take into account the fact that most of the companies that supply a company like IBM are not the type of companies that "end users" would be buying from directly. I mean, how many of us are in the market for chip fabrication equipment or something of that nature? There might be some spill-over effect, but just going by the statement in the summary, I fail to see how it would be of any benefit to us for IBM to take that stance.
That sounds like the general location of Poland?