Not all games are even on a computer. Shocking, but true.
Some games are "on a computer," but don't rely on native clients. For example, people whose main game is chess often play chess on a computer, but using a native client is optional. (and cross-platform anyways in most cases)
So there are lots of other possibilities beyond the false-dichotomy presented.
I grew up playing Oregon Trail and Moon Unit on computers. The closest thing to a "community mod" that we had was, "Cracked by The Nibbler." Now I play chess, because most games suck. New graphics + same shit. Not intellectually stimulating, not physically stimulating, just mindless button-mashing. I'm not saying there is no skill involved, just that it is mindless skill without a contextual connection to my life. And if I want that, Tetris is already a thing, and runs fine anywhere. Tetris is more intellectually stimulating than most new games, though. It is at least mindless mental exercise.
I don't think many people who dislike MS Windows are worried about games. In fact, I think lots of people who use other operating systems for actual work on a computer also have a windows machine to play games. And even if you think windows is the devil, there would be little security risk because you wouldn't have any important private data on that machine.
If you're saying you do your real work in windows because that is your preferred gaming platform, then I would indeed say that is "stupid and clueless" if you're a computer nerd and either do paid work on a computer, or engage in serious hobby computing. Not for choosing windows, there are probably good reasons for that. But if you're a serious user, you wouldn't choose your OS based on games. Especially when dual-boot and VMs are both real things.
You're inventing the "is ought" fallacy, they're not using it. None of the people you're accusing of that fallacy actually said what you accuse them of saying.
They're just giving an opinion, they're not claiming to demonstrate logically that it is true. And their opinion isn't even that somebody must have checked just because they can and ought to have.
Your response is a Straw Man, based on just flat assuming that the "many eyes" theory, as you misunderstand it, is the source of the opinion. People are actually giving other reasons than that. In this case the person believes that OSS programmers are higher quality, based on the incentives for the different groups and who is attracted to those incentives. It is a good explanation of how the person feels about it, but it isn't a logical analysis for you to be trying to refute. You can't refute opinions.
Nobody is saying that OSS is perfect or without bugs, and your assumption that is what they mean, even when they didn't say it, is some sort of magical thinking. A weird upside-down magical thinking, where you accuse others of having religious-type motives, so that you can attack their religion-like views, except that the magical connection between cause and effect is supposed entirely by you, and not endorsed at all by your victim.
In this particular case, the person already gave their own counter-point at the end. It is clear you weren't trying to add to it. You didn't even disagree with any of the points actually raised.
I didn't use an absolute, so adding "some" wouldn't narrow it at all. I mentioned that the protesters exist. "Some" is redundant in that context.
If you're claiming that I was substantively wrong, it would be a high hurdle, because closing US bases has higher negatives than the US being there. And almost all the politicians take the "jobs" route of supporting the bases, even if they throw a bunch of anti-American language into their statements. The fact is that the US has proposed substantial reductions of troops numerous times over the past 30 years, and every time there has generally been a German diplomatic freak-out, and the plans are scrapped or scaled back in response. When the German government stops throwing its weight onto the side of those protesting the reductions, that is when it becomes relevant what other opinions are in play.
From the US perspective, it would be a lot better to shift most of those troops to Poland. The bases would be cheaper to operate, and the Poles really really want increased US protection.
Cameras in every home would kill millions. Literally.
Sure, if you contract out the installation to the lowest bidder, I can imagine that there would be a few instances of cameras falling off their mounting and hitting people in the head, or maybe causing electrical fires. I doubt there would be millions of such incidents, though.
Good job, you've made it through the first level of your analysis.:) Since you didn't uncover a mechanism for it to cause death, keep trying. I'm sure you can figure out how to get from there to the other thing I said, "war is hell."
besides, there already are. on every cell phone, tablet and most laptops
It is true that I didn't repeat the context of the cameras being for the purpose of the government recording your private activities in order to make you safe. That was the premise I was replying to: "You know, it would probably save someone's life to install video cameras in every private residence and monitor citizens 24 hours a day."
I was saying, no, if you install cameras in such a way to do that level of surveillance, millions would die. War is hell.
Regardless of if you subscribe to theories that "they" might be doing exactly that, we can hopefully agree that the cameras on your phone and laptop were not installed for that purpose and in such a way that the government can use them to "keep you safe." It wouldn't be able to be a secret, because then they couldn't use it to actually keep you safe. At a minimum they'd have to be able to call 911 and say, "yeah, some guy just broke in through the window and has a gun and the residents are asleep upstairs." If they're just secretly watching then it isn't keeping anybody safe, and it isn't the context you're responding to.
Right. If you had assumed I'm not an idiot, and I meant what I said, it makes perfect sense that I wasn't talking about a book I didn't mention, and I was talking about real history.
When the literal words a person says make more sense than your presumptions about what a person might say, go with what they actually said.;)
You're just totally wrong, and you seem to be making up numbers.
24 hours isn't any kind of limit or milepost here. 72 hours is the only checkpoint. The doctors can hold you for up to 72 hours based entirely on their own professional judgement.
Being held for over 72 hours requires other people to agree. Generally on a 72 hour hold, nobody is doing anything after 24 hours; that isn't a time frame that has legal requirements for a habeas corpus hearing, or any other review. It also isn't an amount of time where you're be expected to have gotten over an acute freak-out. Holding you the full 72 hours then releasing you is exactly what happens when it is a mistake. If you're getting a review after 24 hours it means they're already asking a judge for a longer hold order. If you come in on a suicide watch, and act totally normal, they're not going to believe you they're going to observe you as long as they're allowed.
The whole idea that they realize he was lying so they let him out is silly. If you convince them he is that dishonest, he is probably lying to get out earlier. They don't have a mechanism to decide which lie is the truth, so they're going to assume, for safety's sake, that he's still suicidal.
You don't have to like it, they didn't ask first. But that is how things actually work. And if it is a legal family member that reported it, they can probably hold you 14 days before asking a judge, unless you already hired a lawyer before they got you inside, or have somebody outside who can hire the lawyer on your behalf.
The way I've always heard it told, instead of defending a line from WWI that they wouldn't be able to defend, and having Paris bombed to rubble, they surrendered and switched to guerrilla tactics in order to preserve their cultural treasures.
It seems to be mostly Americans from the political "right" who have that silly idea that the French just surrendered. They never stopped fighting, but they did save Paris. Every other plan I've heard about what they could have done instead amounts to, "well, they could have forced the Germans to level Paris before capturing France." That's the best they could have done by themselves at the start of the war.
If you get your understanding of European events from media associated with US politics, you're going to be eating nothing but propaganda. Sorry, "Freedom News."
Perhaps one reason I have a different understanding is that my grandfather was a US pilot during WWII, and got medals for flying lots of pilot rescue runs. Being able to land a cargo plane in a field behind enemy lines to rescue downed allied pilots was very dangerous, and often would not have been able to happen at all without trained French Resistance fighters on the ground.
A better way to understand the modern French military, (first off, they're a NATO member lol) is to understand their complaints about the Iraq war: they were not opposed to invading Iraq, killing Saddam, and all that stuff. They actually supported that part, in principle. The reason they stood against the war was because the US plan didn't look like it would be successful to them. They didn't think Iraq was going to just flower into a western democracy automatically, based on being invaded and occupied. Indeed, they wanted a plan that either didn't involve occupation, or that would have enough soldiers to maintain order; about half a million. In retrospect, the French were right about the military needs of the adventure.
You should visit Europe sometime, that will lay to rest this silly idea of that the EU is being "dominated" by the US.
And ask European voters if they support politicians willing to increase defense spending to levels their own generals say would allow self-sufficient national defense.
I expect you'll find that European countries are entirely independent, have legit shared security concerns with the US, agree with the US on desired military outcomes, and do not fund the outcomes they expect. Why not? Because good ol' Uncle Sam will pay it for them.
The US desires and has achieved a Europe without major military conflict. If we were trying to dominate them, they wouldn't be united, and there would be continuing wars. And slightly over half of them would be nicer to us, because there would be teams. As it is they're on their own team, so they're happy to be defended but they're not going to give thanks for it, or say anything nice about other teams.
they aren't outsourcing it, the situation with defense was forced upon them, and who wants a fully armed german military? Europe burned down twice because of that.
Complete bullshit. That is stuff that should be cleared up by a 101-level understanding of international events. When the US "threatens" to reduce the number of troops stationed in Germany, the Germans protest. Literally, holding signs outside the US installations. It is what they ask of us, to keep lots of troops there. It is a major source of jobs, and helps Germany to maintain their lopsided manufacturing dominance.
Who wants a "fully armed German military?" I don't know, but not the Germans. Maybe Russia. Germans would riot in the streets if somebody tried it, too.
Believing they might is not the same as "assuming they might." If you assume something, it means you suppose it to be true, without proof.
Saying something might be true is the opposite of assuming. It means, considering a possibility. There is no belief without proof there, instead there is lack of belief, based on lack of proof.
If in fact you accept that those sorts of diplomatic machinations are opaque, then you have to accept almost everything as being without proof. Therefore it is logical, and requires no assumptions, to say that known unknowns could have any value. You just can't know what is behind the curtain. If you draw the curtain back, you've simply removed the curtain, you still don't know what was behind it while it was still in place.
And it is a common, known pattern for US allies to be willing to be very close in secret, but to ask the US to participate in fake controversies that make them look more distant to their people. For example in the middle east it is common for governments to privately allow military over-flights, but then to denounce them in public as some sort of affront to their national dignity.
Wow, to a more objective observer, it looks like Netanyahu is being the dick. He's inflexible and acting up so that Adelson and his crony's can use him to tar Obama. Looks like it's working on it's intended audience. Nobody with any brains thinks "decisive military action" will be anything but bad for everyone involved or nearby. I know this "incompetent for the position" is a newer emphasis from the wingnuts, I try to keep abreast of the far-right and far-left talking points. That allows me to identify you and categorize you appropriately.
My apologizes if any of these words are too big, read it slowly and use a dictionary if you have to.
I just wanted to add that, on the issues of war and peace that Netanyahu and Obama disagree on, the analysis that Obama is using (that regional wars are bad for Israel, and that war with Iran would be really really bad for Israel) is the same position that the Israeli Defense Force and intelligence community have been giving to Netanyahu. Bibi is the one ignoring his own generals and analysts and pushing policies that are considered very dangerous.
You cannot implicitly denounce invasive intelligence while enjoying its ill-gotten fruits.
You don't need the subjective value judgement for it to be true. There are probably formulations that are even more true. For example, you can't ask your friend to share their secrets while openly sheltering their enemies from them.
Not only will they say "no," they'll be offended and you won't be as close of friends anymore.
To complain afterwards, "he didn't let me be his best friend and help his enemy too, he made me choose" is just exceptionally whiny.
When did Germany get so whiny? They know they want our secrets, and they insist on having larger US military bases than the US wants there. (Because attempts to increase their own military is internally controversial for them) If they're going to rely on our protection and share in our secrets, they should be acting a lot more enthusiastic about it. As an American voter, I don't really want my politicians to continue to give Germany this sort of access and support, because they don't appreciate it, and won't return the favors if we ask.
Germany these days looks like it wants the whole country to become East Germany. I say let them go shelter under the Russian wing, and see if that is a big coup for Russia, or if all that German manufacturing shifts to their neighbors. Germans claim to love austerity programs these days, I'm sure they'd make the adjustment just fine.
He's a patriot, he isn't going to violate his oath just to push his agenda.
I support his agenda to scale back these programs, and I support him doing it from within. He's almost the only one trying, and I'm proud that he represents my State.
Vietnam is now the world's biggest producer of coffee, and catfish. Who drinks more cheap coffee than Americans? We also buy their catfish.
They will consider our request. Russia can't afford to refuse to sell submarines right now. Just look at the good deal they gave the Chinese on oil. What can they threaten, to lower their prices? Are Russians going to switch from vodka to coffee?
Because if the US invaded the North, instead of just trying to defend the South (a losing prospect for various geographic reasons) then there would have been rioting on the streets of the US. We didn't actually fight the war that the military wanted, we fought the parts of the war that the politicians could defend. We would have had to completely destroy the northern cities, with millions of dead. There was no excuse for that as a defense for the South, and the Communists actually had decent public support.
There is no way the US would go back to attack Vietnam. There is no way. It is an insane prospect. It would not be entertained by anybody, in the military or in politics. And nobody at the State Department is going to use that sort of threat against Vietnam.
Any new US action in East Asia would be from the air and sea, and only with a broad coalition.
I believe we have already passed over into the New Cold War.
We pressed "reset" and the next thing we knew we had to push for sanctions. Everybody is gearing up for intrigue over fueling ports. I'm not saying there will be a new Cold War, just there already is one.
This year might find a significant increase in European defense spending.
Putin was always a tactics guy, not a strategy guy. But Russia has enough national identity that they can suffer on under central controls for a long time. Eventually their economy will collapse, and they'll give Crimea back. It could take 20 or 30 years.
The Baltic States? Would we really go to war with a nuclear armed state over them?
Yes.
We're talking about three countries no one has heard of, that have no significant cultural, historical, or economic ties to the US, with combined population roughly that of Maryland. I'm not certain you could sell it to the current United States Congress, never mind the general public, most of whom can't even find Latvia on the map.
You should own those statements. you might not be able to find NATO on a map, but our military can.
And Congress already did.
And nobody is going to do a poll, our military commanders in Europe are already there, and will already be part of the fight from the beginning, and they won't need authorization. They're already the ones authorized to protect NATO.
You really want to compare? Afghanistan is comparable to Lybia in terms of destruction and terrorist breeding ground creation. Syria is well comparable to Iraq in terms of deaths, suffering, civilian casualties, refugees, etc. The amount of bombing in Belgrade was quite substantial as well. I would not discount it.
That has got to be just about the lowest quality analysis I've seen in years. That is just, wow. Low information.
Slashdot Mirror
Not everybody cares about "community mods."
Not all games are even on a computer. Shocking, but true.
Some games are "on a computer," but don't rely on native clients. For example, people whose main game is chess often play chess on a computer, but using a native client is optional. (and cross-platform anyways in most cases)
So there are lots of other possibilities beyond the false-dichotomy presented.
I grew up playing Oregon Trail and Moon Unit on computers. The closest thing to a "community mod" that we had was, "Cracked by The Nibbler." Now I play chess, because most games suck. New graphics + same shit. Not intellectually stimulating, not physically stimulating, just mindless button-mashing. I'm not saying there is no skill involved, just that it is mindless skill without a contextual connection to my life. And if I want that, Tetris is already a thing, and runs fine anywhere. Tetris is more intellectually stimulating than most new games, though. It is at least mindless mental exercise.
I don't think many people who dislike MS Windows are worried about games. In fact, I think lots of people who use other operating systems for actual work on a computer also have a windows machine to play games. And even if you think windows is the devil, there would be little security risk because you wouldn't have any important private data on that machine.
If you're saying you do your real work in windows because that is your preferred gaming platform, then I would indeed say that is "stupid and clueless" if you're a computer nerd and either do paid work on a computer, or engage in serious hobby computing. Not for choosing windows, there are probably good reasons for that. But if you're a serious user, you wouldn't choose your OS based on games. Especially when dual-boot and VMs are both real things.
You're inventing the "is ought" fallacy, they're not using it. None of the people you're accusing of that fallacy actually said what you accuse them of saying.
They're just giving an opinion, they're not claiming to demonstrate logically that it is true. And their opinion isn't even that somebody must have checked just because they can and ought to have.
Your response is a Straw Man, based on just flat assuming that the "many eyes" theory, as you misunderstand it, is the source of the opinion. People are actually giving other reasons than that. In this case the person believes that OSS programmers are higher quality, based on the incentives for the different groups and who is attracted to those incentives. It is a good explanation of how the person feels about it, but it isn't a logical analysis for you to be trying to refute. You can't refute opinions.
Nobody is saying that OSS is perfect or without bugs, and your assumption that is what they mean, even when they didn't say it, is some sort of magical thinking. A weird upside-down magical thinking, where you accuse others of having religious-type motives, so that you can attack their religion-like views, except that the magical connection between cause and effect is supposed entirely by you, and not endorsed at all by your victim.
In this particular case, the person already gave their own counter-point at the end. It is clear you weren't trying to add to it. You didn't even disagree with any of the points actually raised.
I didn't use an absolute, so adding "some" wouldn't narrow it at all. I mentioned that the protesters exist. "Some" is redundant in that context.
If you're claiming that I was substantively wrong, it would be a high hurdle, because closing US bases has higher negatives than the US being there. And almost all the politicians take the "jobs" route of supporting the bases, even if they throw a bunch of anti-American language into their statements. The fact is that the US has proposed substantial reductions of troops numerous times over the past 30 years, and every time there has generally been a German diplomatic freak-out, and the plans are scrapped or scaled back in response. When the German government stops throwing its weight onto the side of those protesting the reductions, that is when it becomes relevant what other opinions are in play.
From the US perspective, it would be a lot better to shift most of those troops to Poland. The bases would be cheaper to operate, and the Poles really really want increased US protection.
Cameras in every home would kill millions. Literally.
Sure, if you contract out the installation to the lowest bidder, I can imagine that there would be a few instances of cameras falling off their mounting and hitting people in the head, or maybe causing electrical fires. I doubt there would be millions of such incidents, though.
Good job, you've made it through the first level of your analysis. :) Since you didn't uncover a mechanism for it to cause death, keep trying. I'm sure you can figure out how to get from there to the other thing I said, "war is hell."
besides, there already are. on every cell phone, tablet and most laptops
It is true that I didn't repeat the context of the cameras being for the purpose of the government recording your private activities in order to make you safe. That was the premise I was replying to: "You know, it would probably save someone's life to install video cameras in every private residence and monitor citizens 24 hours a day."
I was saying, no, if you install cameras in such a way to do that level of surveillance, millions would die. War is hell.
Regardless of if you subscribe to theories that "they" might be doing exactly that, we can hopefully agree that the cameras on your phone and laptop were not installed for that purpose and in such a way that the government can use them to "keep you safe." It wouldn't be able to be a secret, because then they couldn't use it to actually keep you safe. At a minimum they'd have to be able to call 911 and say, "yeah, some guy just broke in through the window and has a gun and the residents are asleep upstairs." If they're just secretly watching then it isn't keeping anybody safe, and it isn't the context you're responding to.
Try to follow more closely.
Right. If you had assumed I'm not an idiot, and I meant what I said, it makes perfect sense that I wasn't talking about a book I didn't mention, and I was talking about real history.
When the literal words a person says make more sense than your presumptions about what a person might say, go with what they actually said. ;)
You're just totally wrong, and you seem to be making up numbers.
24 hours isn't any kind of limit or milepost here. 72 hours is the only checkpoint. The doctors can hold you for up to 72 hours based entirely on their own professional judgement.
Being held for over 72 hours requires other people to agree. Generally on a 72 hour hold, nobody is doing anything after 24 hours; that isn't a time frame that has legal requirements for a habeas corpus hearing, or any other review. It also isn't an amount of time where you're be expected to have gotten over an acute freak-out. Holding you the full 72 hours then releasing you is exactly what happens when it is a mistake. If you're getting a review after 24 hours it means they're already asking a judge for a longer hold order. If you come in on a suicide watch, and act totally normal, they're not going to believe you they're going to observe you as long as they're allowed.
The whole idea that they realize he was lying so they let him out is silly. If you convince them he is that dishonest, he is probably lying to get out earlier. They don't have a mechanism to decide which lie is the truth, so they're going to assume, for safety's sake, that he's still suicidal.
You don't have to like it, they didn't ask first. But that is how things actually work. And if it is a legal family member that reported it, they can probably hold you 14 days before asking a judge, unless you already hired a lawyer before they got you inside, or have somebody outside who can hire the lawyer on your behalf.
Naw, assholes that wide don't have friends with other friends. If they pranked their friend, they'd be the only one reading it.
The way I've always heard it told, instead of defending a line from WWI that they wouldn't be able to defend, and having Paris bombed to rubble, they surrendered and switched to guerrilla tactics in order to preserve their cultural treasures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
It seems to be mostly Americans from the political "right" who have that silly idea that the French just surrendered. They never stopped fighting, but they did save Paris. Every other plan I've heard about what they could have done instead amounts to, "well, they could have forced the Germans to level Paris before capturing France." That's the best they could have done by themselves at the start of the war.
If you get your understanding of European events from media associated with US politics, you're going to be eating nothing but propaganda. Sorry, "Freedom News."
Perhaps one reason I have a different understanding is that my grandfather was a US pilot during WWII, and got medals for flying lots of pilot rescue runs. Being able to land a cargo plane in a field behind enemy lines to rescue downed allied pilots was very dangerous, and often would not have been able to happen at all without trained French Resistance fighters on the ground.
A better way to understand the modern French military, (first off, they're a NATO member lol) is to understand their complaints about the Iraq war: they were not opposed to invading Iraq, killing Saddam, and all that stuff. They actually supported that part, in principle. The reason they stood against the war was because the US plan didn't look like it would be successful to them. They didn't think Iraq was going to just flower into a western democracy automatically, based on being invaded and occupied. Indeed, they wanted a plan that either didn't involve occupation, or that would have enough soldiers to maintain order; about half a million. In retrospect, the French were right about the military needs of the adventure.
You should visit Europe sometime, that will lay to rest this silly idea of that the EU is being "dominated" by the US.
And ask European voters if they support politicians willing to increase defense spending to levels their own generals say would allow self-sufficient national defense.
I expect you'll find that European countries are entirely independent, have legit shared security concerns with the US, agree with the US on desired military outcomes, and do not fund the outcomes they expect. Why not? Because good ol' Uncle Sam will pay it for them.
The US desires and has achieved a Europe without major military conflict. If we were trying to dominate them, they wouldn't be united, and there would be continuing wars. And slightly over half of them would be nicer to us, because there would be teams. As it is they're on their own team, so they're happy to be defended but they're not going to give thanks for it, or say anything nice about other teams.
they aren't outsourcing it, the situation with defense was forced upon them, and who wants a fully armed german military? Europe burned down twice because of that.
Complete bullshit. That is stuff that should be cleared up by a 101-level understanding of international events. When the US "threatens" to reduce the number of troops stationed in Germany, the Germans protest. Literally, holding signs outside the US installations. It is what they ask of us, to keep lots of troops there. It is a major source of jobs, and helps Germany to maintain their lopsided manufacturing dominance.
Who wants a "fully armed German military?" I don't know, but not the Germans. Maybe Russia. Germans would riot in the streets if somebody tried it, too.
This isn't the 1950s.
Do you assume they might have?
Believing they might is not the same as "assuming they might." If you assume something, it means you suppose it to be true, without proof.
Saying something might be true is the opposite of assuming. It means, considering a possibility. There is no belief without proof there, instead there is lack of belief, based on lack of proof.
If in fact you accept that those sorts of diplomatic machinations are opaque, then you have to accept almost everything as being without proof. Therefore it is logical, and requires no assumptions, to say that known unknowns could have any value. You just can't know what is behind the curtain. If you draw the curtain back, you've simply removed the curtain, you still don't know what was behind it while it was still in place.
And it is a common, known pattern for US allies to be willing to be very close in secret, but to ask the US to participate in fake controversies that make them look more distant to their people. For example in the middle east it is common for governments to privately allow military over-flights, but then to denounce them in public as some sort of affront to their national dignity.
Wow, to a more objective observer, it looks like Netanyahu is being the dick. He's inflexible and acting up so that Adelson and his crony's can use him to tar Obama. Looks like it's working on it's intended audience. Nobody with any brains thinks "decisive military action" will be anything but bad for everyone involved or nearby.
I know this "incompetent for the position" is a newer emphasis from the wingnuts, I try to keep abreast of the far-right and far-left talking points. That allows me to identify you and categorize you appropriately.
My apologizes if any of these words are too big, read it slowly and use a dictionary if you have to.
I just wanted to add that, on the issues of war and peace that Netanyahu and Obama disagree on, the analysis that Obama is using (that regional wars are bad for Israel, and that war with Iran would be really really bad for Israel) is the same position that the Israeli Defense Force and intelligence community have been giving to Netanyahu. Bibi is the one ignoring his own generals and analysts and pushing policies that are considered very dangerous.
You know, it would probably save someone's life to install video cameras in every private residence and monitor citizens 24 hours a day.
Or maybe the ends don't justify the means?
I've got to call bullshit on that one. Cameras in every home would kill millions. Literally.
Read some history. War is Hell.
You cannot implicitly denounce invasive intelligence while enjoying its ill-gotten fruits.
You don't need the subjective value judgement for it to be true. There are probably formulations that are even more true. For example, you can't ask your friend to share their secrets while openly sheltering their enemies from them.
Not only will they say "no," they'll be offended and you won't be as close of friends anymore.
To complain afterwards, "he didn't let me be his best friend and help his enemy too, he made me choose" is just exceptionally whiny.
When did Germany get so whiny? They know they want our secrets, and they insist on having larger US military bases than the US wants there. (Because attempts to increase their own military is internally controversial for them) If they're going to rely on our protection and share in our secrets, they should be acting a lot more enthusiastic about it. As an American voter, I don't really want my politicians to continue to give Germany this sort of access and support, because they don't appreciate it, and won't return the favors if we ask.
Germany these days looks like it wants the whole country to become East Germany. I say let them go shelter under the Russian wing, and see if that is a big coup for Russia, or if all that German manufacturing shifts to their neighbors. Germans claim to love austerity programs these days, I'm sure they'd make the adjustment just fine.
He's a patriot, he isn't going to violate his oath just to push his agenda.
I support his agenda to scale back these programs, and I support him doing it from within. He's almost the only one trying, and I'm proud that he represents my State.
Vietnam already has free market communism, with significant individual economic and artistic freedom.
Vietnam is now the world's biggest producer of coffee, and catfish. Who drinks more cheap coffee than Americans? We also buy their catfish.
They will consider our request. Russia can't afford to refuse to sell submarines right now. Just look at the good deal they gave the Chinese on oil. What can they threaten, to lower their prices? Are Russians going to switch from vodka to coffee?
The funny thing about the Sun Tzu quote is that that is part of his military philosophy that rejects encirclement actions.
History has proven that one. Encirclement is a larger military victory than letting the enemy making a tactical retreat.
Putin is using military tactics instead of diplomatic strategy, that is why he is trying to encircle them instead of persuade them.
Because if the US invaded the North, instead of just trying to defend the South (a losing prospect for various geographic reasons) then there would have been rioting on the streets of the US. We didn't actually fight the war that the military wanted, we fought the parts of the war that the politicians could defend. We would have had to completely destroy the northern cities, with millions of dead. There was no excuse for that as a defense for the South, and the Communists actually had decent public support.
There is no way the US would go back to attack Vietnam. There is no way. It is an insane prospect. It would not be entertained by anybody, in the military or in politics. And nobody at the State Department is going to use that sort of threat against Vietnam.
Any new US action in East Asia would be from the air and sea, and only with a broad coalition.
I believe we have already passed over into the New Cold War.
We pressed "reset" and the next thing we knew we had to push for sanctions. Everybody is gearing up for intrigue over fueling ports. I'm not saying there will be a new Cold War, just there already is one.
This year might find a significant increase in European defense spending.
Putin was always a tactics guy, not a strategy guy. But Russia has enough national identity that they can suffer on under central controls for a long time. Eventually their economy will collapse, and they'll give Crimea back. It could take 20 or 30 years.
The Baltic States? Would we really go to war with a nuclear armed state over them?
Yes.
We're talking about three countries no one has heard of, that have no significant cultural, historical, or economic ties to the US, with combined population roughly that of Maryland. I'm not certain you could sell it to the current United States Congress, never mind the general public, most of whom can't even find Latvia on the map.
You should own those statements. you might not be able to find NATO on a map, but our military can.
And Congress already did.
And nobody is going to do a poll, our military commanders in Europe are already there, and will already be part of the fight from the beginning, and they won't need authorization. They're already the ones authorized to protect NATO.
You really want to compare? Afghanistan is comparable to Lybia in terms of destruction and terrorist breeding ground creation. Syria is well comparable to Iraq in terms of deaths, suffering, civilian casualties, refugees, etc. The amount of bombing in Belgrade was quite substantial as well. I would not discount it.
That has got to be just about the lowest quality analysis I've seen in years. That is just, wow. Low information.
US interest rates only go up in order to intentionally slow down growth to prevent an over-heated economy and a boom/bust cycle.