supporting your argument, the CIA encouraged belief in UFO sitings to use as cover for SR-71/A-12 and U-2 flights. Mind you, and I need to say this on/., but this has nothing to do with weather or not there really are UFOs; it's just that if more people believe in then fewer will think that a jet they may see from extreme range/altitude is really a jet.
dude, the war ended 144 years ago. let it go. seriously.
technically that same army not only pointed guns, but actually invaded my town, NYC, to put down draft riots. This was dramatized in the movie Gangs of New York; the Navy didn't fire on the City in reality as happened in the movie, but the Army sure did shoot up the town with troops and artillery; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Draft_Riots.
It is. The CO2 from the coal-fired plant would not go away. It would be converted into ethanol and then released back as CO2 when the ethanol was burned.
The reason some people are so excited about bio-fuels is they are supposedly "carbon neutral." They take CO2 out of the atmosphere, then release it back when burned. If one were to use CO2 from coal combustion instead, then the CO2 stored in the alcohol is coming out of the ground. In other words, inserting algae into the coal -> atmosphere chain does not change the carbon balance, only interrupts it.
It is possible that adding algae into the chain could make energy production more efficient (more joules of energy per ton of total CO2 emissions) and may still be worth doing.
My concern is that the coal plant owner would convince the general public (who by and large do not understand such basic scientific laws as conservation of mass) that their CO2 is a "green energy source" and therefore should not be taxed/capped as a greenhouse gas. In other words, using coal exhaust to feed the algae is basically playing a shell game -- "which one has the CO2 under it now?"
The point to remember is that bio-fuels do not provide a net benefit to CO2 reduction. Ever. They're simply carbon neutral or approximately so.
You're wrong, at least partially. The ethanol does not displace extra electricity production, but could displace extra oil production. Think of it this way. Right now there are A LOT of coal plants. They aren't going anywhere any time soon. Hooking them up to this to make lots of ethanol would enable us to displace a lot of oil that is currently being burned in cars. So, this CO2 does get "burned" twice, but it does save the CO2 from the gallons of gasoline that are not being burned, but would have been if we hadn't done this.
I have no problem with the caps. Your argument is valid. The problem that I have, and I think most folks have is not the concept of the cap, but the costs per GB. Users in other countries are getting faster rates for fewer dollars. Users in the US are faced with few, usually 1, choice for HS connections. We have only 1 choice, and we believe they are charging us too much for it.
I feel the costs offered by TWC are off by a factor of 5-10; more or less. If they brought either down the cost, or upped the caps by that factor, then most folks wouldn't balk. I'd be willing to pay $75/month for their highest quoted DL rate capped at 500GB-1TB of data.
Overall, too, most folks, myself included, feel that we are heavily overpaying for cable TV service, and that is spilling in to this argument. Why are the rates for TV going up so much faster than inflation when I am not getting more channels, or better quality? (For the record, I already pay for the DTV/HDTV package, and still my rates rise between 10-20% a year for TWC in NYC.)
I remember my college professors doing this from the Quad during the open houses every year while I was in college. I went to Syracuse University from 94-98, and got a BS in Electrical Engineering. This is cool, don't get me wrong, but far from news; or maybe I'm just a geek. Hmm, well this is/., and I am trying to prove how uncool these guys are...
Re:*Sigh* Only on Slashdot
on
American Nerd
·
· Score: 1
now that's embarrassing... thanks for the correction. i do work next to GCT, but i tend to mix up amtrack since i never take it. LIRR, NJT, or metro north is all i ever take...
I actually don't think it's a conspiracy. I have heard about those trains too. There's more to the story that I started write about yesterday in my big comment there.
I think of it as a pendulum. The Depression and WWII messed with peoples heads. World wide there was so much poverty and despair. There was sadness and suffering. Then, in the US anyway, the war ended and everyone had lots of money saved up. They had plenty, and our country was unharmed by the war(yes I am aware of Pearl Harbor and the fighting on the Aleutian Islands, but honestly does that compare to Europe, even North Africa? I don't think so, buddy.) So, back to my point, the highways and expanded cheap airfare, the latter triggered by the war making aircraft production comparatively cheaper, added in the new idea of the suburbs, and people found heaven. Look at the stuff Hollywood produced in the 50s. It was a total change from the past 20 years, and make no mistake, the movies during the depression and the war were all about hope and plenty; something that all but a lucky few didn't have.
Anyway, my point is that the culture had the means(money saved by the war jobs) and the desire(from the suffering from the depression and the war), to want exactly the kind of culture that the highways enabled. It's really that simple.
Europe, by contrast, didn't have the highways(Germany's the exception of course) as early as we did. Didn't have the money saved from war jobs; didn't have a country untouched by war. Put simply they didn't have the means or the mindset to do what we did. Europe had to try to rebuild. That's why they went to trains, and we did not. Add to that, later policies that kept the price of gasoline up, while we did not (Europe's gasoline taxes are much higher than the US's), and you have your answer.
The US in not a democracy as the Greeks defined it. We are a representative democracy; more of a republic really. Sure I'm quibbling, but this is/. after all.
As for voting in a little sanity, I assume you are not a fan of our president? I wonder why? JK! All I can say is that I hope the better person wins, and if the lesser of the two wins, then that he rises above our expectations. To paraphrase my favorite line in The Count de Monte Cristo, "Wait and hope... the sum of all human wisdom in contained in those lines."
You're right about defining the problem, but wrong as to why. 60 years ago, HST, if they had existed, would have worked very well in the US. That was before the suburb culture started here, just at the beginning of the car culture, and a time when the US was laid out much like Europe; big dense cities, small dense towns, and not much (farms or forrests) in between. When president Eisenhower, Europeans might remember him as the Supreme Allied Commander for the Allies during WWII, decided to build the interstate highways; copying Germany; to ease troop movements around our country and to help speed moving consumer products around our country, everything changed.
(As an aside ALL US military bases, expect the "secret ones cough cough Area 51" are near Interstate highways. They built the highways that way on purpose.)
Anyway, you had cheap cars, a population with the money to buy them and a "big house and a yard" (the suburban dream which I grew up in), and now highways which made it easy to live there and move to the cities. Before those highways, we had trains that connected most, if not all of our towns. The one I grew up in, like so many towns in the US, was centered at the time around the train station that, in Monroe NY's case, linked it with NYC. By the time my parents moved there, and I came into the picture, in the 70s, the town center was shifting towards the land nearer the highways. The local train system had collasped, and Amtrak was created out of many collasped commercial passenger train lines. They were all killed by the highways; and cheap gas. That process was replicated in small towns throughout the US. (That train line is now a bike/walking path that extends throughout the whole county; rather pretty actually.)
It's not that we hate trains, hate poor people, or infrastructure in general, it's that air fare was cheap at the same time cars, and living in the suburbs was cheap. The government continues to pour billions, collected in 48cents per gallon gasoline taxes, into those high ways.
My point being that the highways killed the trains with help from the Boeing 707/747(yes I know other aircraft from other manufactures helped, but I'm just making a point). The problem is that no one realized how much of a mistake we all made until the gasoline crisis of the 70s, which was quickly forgotten when gas got cheap again in the 80s.
If you want to see, and use, the best mass transit system in the US, come to NYC. The commuter rail is complained about, because it doesn't have enough trains/cars/lines. Here, people love it, and everyone uses it. Subway, Metro-north(east side of the Hudson River and into CT), Long Island Railroad, and New Jersey Transit. We have a new Air Train monorail that connects two of those commuter rail lines to two of our 3 airports, we are building a new subway line (#2 finally after a 40 year wait) in parallel to the heavily overcrowded #6 aka Lexington ave line.
Yes, some parts of the us know the value of rail, NYC in particular, but the rest will likely be taught the value in the coming years as gas, in spite of the recent drop, will rise again.
if they were to start with anywhere, I'd say look for where there is a lot of commuter aircraft flights. NYC to Montreal is not worth it; sorry, but there just isn't enough air traffic to support building that much rail there. Now, there is between say NYC, Boston, and Washington; hence why the build the over-priced, under powered Acela. The trains themselves are nice, pretty fast, and very convenient as opposed to using one of the 3 NYC airports. The tickets just cost a bit too much, and the trains run too slow. Why, well, the trains are actually used, and subsidize much of the rest of Amtrak. The other problem being that you'd have to demolish a buildings to get those tracks capable of a real high speed train. People won't allow it, which is why they went with the underpowered Accela, that runs on the old tracks that were mildly upgraded. Even then, the Boston - NYC corridor runs slower than the NYC - Philie - Washington run. I'll bet you could do a faster train most of the way from NYC to Chitown, but you'd still run into the "don't tear down my house" folks for a good part of the distance around both cities. I'd be pissed if I had to move for the train, good idea or not.
You make an interesting point, but you need to go back pretty far in American history to find it. The US had minor to major rebellions roughly every 10 years starting with the Whiskey rebellion during the term of our first president. The last significant one was the Civil War, but there have been others. Many union strikes were armed events that the union folks used guns to help protect their rights. The coal creek rebellion that occurred in Tennessee around 1895; i forget the exact year, was another. There was another one after WWI, in that same area; I saw a show on the History Channel a while back that talked about it, but I forget the details, but it was about unions and the coal industry. The US army was brought in to quell it. Many people died, but the laws did change.
In short, it takes an awful lot to piss us off to the point where we will risk our lives for something like that, but it does happen. The fact is, especially today, Americans live incredibly well. This TSA thing, which my GF's sister is a victim of losing a GPS, is not really that big of a deal. Sure it's annoying, but it doesn't involve loss of one's means to support themself or their family. That's what it takes, and that's why in the last 100 years or so, it's been mostly around unions.
Also, as an aside, what people often quote, about the "well armed populus" is from the writings of a famous; here anyway; American writer who lived in the 1800s. He, Henry David Thoreau, wrote a essay called Civil Disobedience, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Duty_of_Civil_Disobedience, about it. It's an interesting read, and one that most people that I know have had to read in high school.
The first hijackings were in the early 70s, like 73,
Like ummm.. Err, I mean what if maybe.. Err...
so you aren't disproving anything I'm saying.
Your points? Your point is your country should be able to kill whoever it wants for whatever reason it wants.
I never said that. I said you we tried doing it your way for 30 years, even after the first attacks on the WTC. Only after the second attack in less than 10 years, the one that took them down, did we do something radical. Beyond that, I've already said that we should not have invaded Iraq, that it was wrong.
Ultimately, the fact is that we tried using law enforcement, and it failed. It's only natural that we would use our military to defend ourselves. The problem is that one can never use the military and not cause civilian casulties. It's just not possible, particularly when the people we are trying to kill are hiding amongst them. You have never answered that point. We put our military in clearly marked bases, both within and outside the US. It's easy to find them. The people we are trying to kill are hiding amongst civilians. What are we supposed to do? Let them hide there? No. We ask the local country to handle it. If they won't, then we will.
In truth, I think the Iraq invasion was as much rage and frustration as anything else. The problem is that over those 30 years, and more specifically in the few years between the two WTC attacks, we didn't get the help we needed to stop the terrorism. That is Europe's fault. That is the fault of the Middle East.
Let me ask you another question. Do you know anyone from Hungry? What about a FSU nation, say Georgia? Should the US have tried to protect Hungry in 1956 when the USSR invaded? What about when Georgia was invaded a few months ago? Should we have invaded there then, taking on the Russians directly? We tried to get Europe to respond. The y did nothing. NATO did nothing. We sent our Navy. Is Europe right, are we there?
I'm an engineer and work with many folks who lived either in the FSU or within let's say Warsaw Pact nations. They didn't describe it as a positive experience; hence why they moved to the US as soon as they could. Most are angry with the US for not helping Hungry in 56, and Georgia more today. Are they wrong?
Exactly. The rest of the world was already trying to defend Europe when you cowards did business with the Nazi's and refused to get involved. Not until you got dragged in to the war did you stick up for anybody.
First we are bad for not getting involved, and worse, we are cowards for it. Then we are bad for getting involved? What exactly should our foreign policy be then? Also, the rest of the world wasn't trying to defend Europe. Europeans were trying to defend Europe, and using their colonies to help them do it. Hmm, Europeans and their colonies, yeah, that wasn't them doing anything wrong. Yeah, those colonies were America's fault too, right?
You must be kidding me. [about.com] That or you really have no idea what is going on.
That doesn't disprove my argument at all. I wasn't calling Afganis part of the problem.
How does that have anything to do with terrorists from the Middle East taking over US commercial aircraft 20 years later in the 1970s?
You must be kidding me. [about.com] That or you really have no idea what is going on.
The russians invaded in 79. The first hijackings were in the early 70s, like 73, when, according to your link, the Russians triggered a Coup. Again, that disproves nothing from what I have said.
I said nothing about the world being better under communism. You want to pretend that the cold war wasn't a pissing contest you go right ahead. You are a victim of propaganda if you do.
Only a pissing contest? Hmm, and beliving it was anything more than that was propaganda. Either you're a troll, or you are far more full of your own propaganda that you're mind is closed to hear the truth.
Ultimately, this comes down to you still aren't disproving any of my points. Do you know how to argue? All you keep doing is bringing up unrelated things. Share really.
Slashdot Mirror
The military continues to do these things to this day. This is why we have intelligence centers for each branch of hte military.
supporting your argument, the CIA encouraged belief in UFO sitings to use as cover for SR-71/A-12 and U-2 flights. Mind you, and I need to say this on/., but this has nothing to do with weather or not there really are UFOs; it's just that if more people believe in then fewer will think that a jet they may see from extreme range/altitude is really a jet.
yeah much worse than all of those reinactors, right?
of course not, who would be shooting at dead people?
again, the war's over. let it go man!
dude, the war ended 144 years ago. let it go. seriously.
technically that same army not only pointed guns, but actually invaded my town, NYC, to put down draft riots. This was dramatized in the movie Gangs of New York; the Navy didn't fire on the City in reality as happened in the movie, but the Army sure did shoot up the town with troops and artillery; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Draft_Riots.
just a comment on your sig...
I love the reference to Sneakers. Great old tech flick.
It is. The CO2 from the coal-fired plant would not go away. It would be converted into ethanol and then released back as CO2 when the ethanol was burned.
The reason some people are so excited about bio-fuels is they are supposedly "carbon neutral." They take CO2 out of the atmosphere, then release it back when burned. If one were to use CO2 from coal combustion instead, then the CO2 stored in the alcohol is coming out of the ground. In other words, inserting algae into the coal -> atmosphere chain does not change the carbon balance, only interrupts it.
It is possible that adding algae into the chain could make energy production more efficient (more joules of energy per ton of total CO2 emissions) and may still be worth doing.
My concern is that the coal plant owner would convince the general public (who by and large do not understand such basic scientific laws as conservation of mass) that their CO2 is a "green energy source" and therefore should not be taxed/capped as a greenhouse gas. In other words, using coal exhaust to feed the algae is basically playing a shell game -- "which one has the CO2 under it now?"
The point to remember is that bio-fuels do not provide a net benefit to CO2 reduction. Ever. They're simply carbon neutral or approximately so.
You're wrong, at least partially. The ethanol does not displace extra electricity production, but could displace extra oil production. Think of it this way. Right now there are A LOT of coal plants. They aren't going anywhere any time soon. Hooking them up to this to make lots of ethanol would enable us to displace a lot of oil that is currently being burned in cars. So, this CO2 does get "burned" twice, but it does save the CO2 from the gallons of gasoline that are not being burned, but would have been if we hadn't done this.
that was funny, thanks for the laugh... had to say something
I have no problem with the caps. Your argument is valid. The problem that I have, and I think most folks have is not the concept of the cap, but the costs per GB. Users in other countries are getting faster rates for fewer dollars. Users in the US are faced with few, usually 1, choice for HS connections. We have only 1 choice, and we believe they are charging us too much for it.
I feel the costs offered by TWC are off by a factor of 5-10; more or less. If they brought either down the cost, or upped the caps by that factor, then most folks wouldn't balk. I'd be willing to pay $75/month for their highest quoted DL rate capped at 500GB-1TB of data.
Overall, too, most folks, myself included, feel that we are heavily overpaying for cable TV service, and that is spilling in to this argument. Why are the rates for TV going up so much faster than inflation when I am not getting more channels, or better quality? (For the record, I already pay for the DTV/HDTV package, and still my rates rise between 10-20% a year for TWC in NYC.)
Someone should have told Hannibal!
I remember my college professors doing this from the Quad during the open houses every year while I was in college. I went to Syracuse University from 94-98, and got a BS in Electrical Engineering. This is cool, don't get me wrong, but far from news; or maybe I'm just a geek. Hmm, well this is /., and I am trying to prove how uncool these guys are...
Tony Robbins, is that you?
now that's embarrassing... thanks for the correction. i do work next to GCT, but i tend to mix up amtrack since i never take it. LIRR, NJT, or metro north is all i ever take...
Too embarrassing!
I actually don't think it's a conspiracy. I have heard about those trains too. There's more to the story that I started write about yesterday in my big comment there.
/. after all.
I think of it as a pendulum. The Depression and WWII messed with peoples heads. World wide there was so much poverty and despair. There was sadness and suffering. Then, in the US anyway, the war ended and everyone had lots of money saved up. They had plenty, and our country was unharmed by the war(yes I am aware of Pearl Harbor and the fighting on the Aleutian Islands, but honestly does that compare to Europe, even North Africa? I don't think so, buddy.) So, back to my point, the highways and expanded cheap airfare, the latter triggered by the war making aircraft production comparatively cheaper, added in the new idea of the suburbs, and people found heaven. Look at the stuff Hollywood produced in the 50s. It was a total change from the past 20 years, and make no mistake, the movies during the depression and the war were all about hope and plenty; something that all but a lucky few didn't have.
Anyway, my point is that the culture had the means(money saved by the war jobs) and the desire(from the suffering from the depression and the war), to want exactly the kind of culture that the highways enabled. It's really that simple.
Europe, by contrast, didn't have the highways(Germany's the exception of course) as early as we did. Didn't have the money saved from war jobs; didn't have a country untouched by war. Put simply they didn't have the means or the mindset to do what we did. Europe had to try to rebuild. That's why they went to trains, and we did not. Add to that, later policies that kept the price of gasoline up, while we did not (Europe's gasoline taxes are much higher than the US's), and you have your answer.
The US in not a democracy as the Greeks defined it. We are a representative democracy; more of a republic really. Sure I'm quibbling, but this is
As for voting in a little sanity, I assume you are not a fan of our president? I wonder why? JK! All I can say is that I hope the better person wins, and if the lesser of the two wins, then that he rises above our expectations. To paraphrase my favorite line in The Count de Monte Cristo, "Wait and hope... the sum of all human wisdom in contained in those lines."
doh!
at least I know someone got my reference!
I totally agree with your, let's say, higher vision. I'll just quibble on where to put it. Still, your overall point is still valid.
You're right about defining the problem, but wrong as to why. 60 years ago, HST, if they had existed, would have worked very well in the US. That was before the suburb culture started here, just at the beginning of the car culture, and a time when the US was laid out much like Europe; big dense cities, small dense towns, and not much (farms or forrests) in between. When president Eisenhower, Europeans might remember him as the Supreme Allied Commander for the Allies during WWII, decided to build the interstate highways; copying Germany; to ease troop movements around our country and to help speed moving consumer products around our country, everything changed.
(As an aside ALL US military bases, expect the "secret ones cough cough Area 51" are near Interstate highways. They built the highways that way on purpose.)
Anyway, you had cheap cars, a population with the money to buy them and a "big house and a yard" (the suburban dream which I grew up in), and now highways which made it easy to live there and move to the cities. Before those highways, we had trains that connected most, if not all of our towns. The one I grew up in, like so many towns in the US, was centered at the time around the train station that, in Monroe NY's case, linked it with NYC. By the time my parents moved there, and I came into the picture, in the 70s, the town center was shifting towards the land nearer the highways. The local train system had collasped, and Amtrak was created out of many collasped commercial passenger train lines. They were all killed by the highways; and cheap gas. That process was replicated in small towns throughout the US. (That train line is now a bike/walking path that extends throughout the whole county; rather pretty actually.)
It's not that we hate trains, hate poor people, or infrastructure in general, it's that air fare was cheap at the same time cars, and living in the suburbs was cheap. The government continues to pour billions, collected in 48cents per gallon gasoline taxes, into those high ways.
My point being that the highways killed the trains with help from the Boeing 707/747(yes I know other aircraft from other manufactures helped, but I'm just making a point). The problem is that no one realized how much of a mistake we all made until the gasoline crisis of the 70s, which was quickly forgotten when gas got cheap again in the 80s.
If you want to see, and use, the best mass transit system in the US, come to NYC. The commuter rail is complained about, because it doesn't have enough trains/cars/lines. Here, people love it, and everyone uses it. Subway, Metro-north(east side of the Hudson River and into CT), Long Island Railroad, and New Jersey Transit. We have a new Air Train monorail that connects two of those commuter rail lines to two of our 3 airports, we are building a new subway line (#2 finally after a 40 year wait) in parallel to the heavily overcrowded #6 aka Lexington ave line.
Yes, some parts of the us know the value of rail, NYC in particular, but the rest will likely be taught the value in the coming years as gas, in spite of the recent drop, will rise again.
trains are easy to take in the us... even the Accela... FYI.. I work 1 block from GCT where it stops in NYC.
if they were to start with anywhere, I'd say look for where there is a lot of commuter aircraft flights. NYC to Montreal is not worth it; sorry, but there just isn't enough air traffic to support building that much rail there. Now, there is between say NYC, Boston, and Washington; hence why the build the over-priced, under powered Acela. The trains themselves are nice, pretty fast, and very convenient as opposed to using one of the 3 NYC airports. The tickets just cost a bit too much, and the trains run too slow. Why, well, the trains are actually used, and subsidize much of the rest of Amtrak. The other problem being that you'd have to demolish a buildings to get those tracks capable of a real high speed train. People won't allow it, which is why they went with the underpowered Accela, that runs on the old tracks that were mildly upgraded. Even then, the Boston - NYC corridor runs slower than the NYC - Philie - Washington run. I'll bet you could do a faster train most of the way from NYC to Chitown, but you'd still run into the "don't tear down my house" folks for a good part of the distance around both cities. I'd be pissed if I had to move for the train, good idea or not.
not to be confused with the other MLT.. Mutton lettuce and tomato. Especially when the mutton is real nice, and the tomato is fresh...
anyone convicted of a felony in the US loses the right to vote.
You make an interesting point, but you need to go back pretty far in American history to find it. The US had minor to major rebellions roughly every 10 years starting with the Whiskey rebellion during the term of our first president. The last significant one was the Civil War, but there have been others. Many union strikes were armed events that the union folks used guns to help protect their rights. The coal creek rebellion that occurred in Tennessee around 1895; i forget the exact year, was another. There was another one after WWI, in that same area; I saw a show on the History Channel a while back that talked about it, but I forget the details, but it was about unions and the coal industry. The US army was brought in to quell it. Many people died, but the laws did change.
In short, it takes an awful lot to piss us off to the point where we will risk our lives for something like that, but it does happen. The fact is, especially today, Americans live incredibly well. This TSA thing, which my GF's sister is a victim of losing a GPS, is not really that big of a deal. Sure it's annoying, but it doesn't involve loss of one's means to support themself or their family. That's what it takes, and that's why in the last 100 years or so, it's been mostly around unions.
Also, as an aside, what people often quote, about the "well armed populus" is from the writings of a famous; here anyway; American writer who lived in the 1800s. He, Henry David Thoreau, wrote a essay called Civil Disobedience, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Duty_of_Civil_Disobedience, about it. It's an interesting read, and one that most people that I know have had to read in high school.
The first hijackings were in the early 70s, like 73, Like ummm.. Err, I mean what if maybe.. Err...
so you aren't disproving anything I'm saying.
Your points? Your point is your country should be able to kill whoever it wants for whatever reason it wants.
I never said that. I said you we tried doing it your way for 30 years, even after the first attacks on the WTC. Only after the second attack in less than 10 years, the one that took them down, did we do something radical. Beyond that, I've already said that we should not have invaded Iraq, that it was wrong.
Ultimately, the fact is that we tried using law enforcement, and it failed. It's only natural that we would use our military to defend ourselves. The problem is that one can never use the military and not cause civilian casulties. It's just not possible, particularly when the people we are trying to kill are hiding amongst them. You have never answered that point. We put our military in clearly marked bases, both within and outside the US. It's easy to find them. The people we are trying to kill are hiding amongst civilians. What are we supposed to do? Let them hide there? No. We ask the local country to handle it. If they won't, then we will.
In truth, I think the Iraq invasion was as much rage and frustration as anything else. The problem is that over those 30 years, and more specifically in the few years between the two WTC attacks, we didn't get the help we needed to stop the terrorism. That is Europe's fault. That is the fault of the Middle East.
Let me ask you another question. Do you know anyone from Hungry? What about a FSU nation, say Georgia? Should the US have tried to protect Hungry in 1956 when the USSR invaded? What about when Georgia was invaded a few months ago? Should we have invaded there then, taking on the Russians directly? We tried to get Europe to respond. The y did nothing. NATO did nothing. We sent our Navy. Is Europe right, are we there?
I'm an engineer and work with many folks who lived either in the FSU or within let's say Warsaw Pact nations. They didn't describe it as a positive experience; hence why they moved to the US as soon as they could. Most are angry with the US for not helping Hungry in 56, and Georgia more today. Are they wrong?
Me too, and I hope one day you can wake up and see through the propaganda, to use your words, that you have been fed.
Exactly. The rest of the world was already trying to defend Europe when you cowards did business with the Nazi's and refused to get involved. Not until you got dragged in to the war did you stick up for anybody.
First we are bad for not getting involved, and worse, we are cowards for it. Then we are bad for getting involved? What exactly should our foreign policy be then? Also, the rest of the world wasn't trying to defend Europe. Europeans were trying to defend Europe, and using their colonies to help them do it. Hmm, Europeans and their colonies, yeah, that wasn't them doing anything wrong. Yeah, those colonies were America's fault too, right?
You must be kidding me. [about.com] That or you really have no idea what is going on.
That doesn't disprove my argument at all. I wasn't calling Afganis part of the problem.
How does that have anything to do with terrorists from the Middle East taking over US commercial aircraft 20 years later in the 1970s? You must be kidding me. [about.com] That or you really have no idea what is going on.
The russians invaded in 79. The first hijackings were in the early 70s, like 73, when, according to your link, the Russians triggered a Coup. Again, that disproves nothing from what I have said.
I said nothing about the world being better under communism. You want to pretend that the cold war wasn't a pissing contest you go right ahead. You are a victim of propaganda if you do.
Only a pissing contest? Hmm, and beliving it was anything more than that was propaganda. Either you're a troll, or you are far more full of your own propaganda that you're mind is closed to hear the truth.
Ultimately, this comes down to you still aren't disproving any of my points. Do you know how to argue? All you keep doing is bringing up unrelated things. Share really.