Wrath of Dagon
-
Posts
2152 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Everything posted by Wrath of Dagon
-
Prism Program ( Big Brother gone too far?)
Wrath of Dagon replied to BruceVC's topic in Way Off-Topic
I've come to admire Jeff Sessions more and more lately. In any case, national security is a legitimate function of government, so no matter how bad it gets, they still have to do the job. As far as respect for Obama, you first have to show respect to get respect. As far as killing Americans in America with drones, not always a bad idea : http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/alabama-hostage-safe-after-fbi-kills-kidnapper-with-help-of-military-drone/ But I guess Rand Paul wouldn't like that unless the drone delivered beer. Of course in that case it wasn't a question of killing, but if the drone had a laser ray gun it might have been. -
First you neglect the terror effect of having to run to the shelter every time there's a warning siren. The rockets did plenty of property damage, but generally people are in shelters when they fall. Second Israel can't just ignore rockets falling on their territory, any other country in that situation would have to retaliate. Third if Hamas could fire continuously with impunity, the Iron Dome likely wouldn't be able to cope with salvos of rockets. Fourth you don't know what kind of weapons are being smuggled in from Egypt, Israel had intercepted an entire ship from Iran full of sophisticated weapons.
-
Can't find the original article I've read, but here's one with similar content, primarily this jumped out at me: http://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/total-destruction-of-the-tamil-tigers-the-rare-victory-of-sri-lankas-long-war/
-
Prism Program ( Big Brother gone too far?)
Wrath of Dagon replied to BruceVC's topic in Way Off-Topic
What would you suggest instead? I suggest we elect a less corrupt and overreaching one. -
Prism Program ( Big Brother gone too far?)
Wrath of Dagon replied to BruceVC's topic in Way Off-Topic
I think it's very dangerous to leave the military in the hands of this corrupt, overreaching government. -
Sounds terrible, can Bioware even come up with an actual plot any more? (I don't want to prejudge though, initial impressions are often wrong)
-
I'm sorry, I don't follow your logic, if the Germans had won lots more people would've been exterminated, it's only because the Allies won there's peace and prosperity. Oh, now I see. I originally replied in response to Tsuga C. So now I don't even understand what we are arguing about in the first place. What was your original point really? My point was that your example of no one being exterminated wasn't valid because it didn't consider both possible outcomes (Allies winning vs Axis winning).
-
Insect so huge, it eats carrots : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/8930070/Worlds-biggest-insect-is-so-huge-it-eats-carrots.html
-
There are some settlements Israel doesn't intend to give up; this may not be the obstacle it seems, one solution proposed would be to trade Israeli land adjacent to the West Bank for the land those settlements occupy.
-
They have the right under the Oslo accords to provide for natural growth of the settlements they've already annexed. Also it's meant to be an offset for all the terrorists they're releasing.
-
I guess this is that 50% of the time when I don't know what the hell you're talking about.
-
I'm sorry, I don't follow your logic, if the Germans had won lots more people would've been exterminated, it's only because the Allies won there's peace and prosperity. Since the British mandate has been brought up, here's an interesting article I came across a few years ago : http://www.historynet.com/lashing-back-israel-1947-1948-civil-war.htm
-
You're leaving out the small detail that it was Germany that lost, else the world would now be one big concentration camp. There are no Israelis in Gaza, there are many in the West Bank, so not exactly the same situation.
-
If Hamas takes over the West Bank, there will certainly be another Intifada and a huge amount of violence, almost certainly followed by full Israeli re-occupation with all that entails. As far as Netanyahu, he can always pull a Sharon and form a new centrist party if his coalition collapses over the peace treaty. Most Israelis do want real peace, and if they get a reasonable agreement some way would be found to implement it.
-
Wouldn't you think it a better idea then if Obama put pressure on the Israelis so that they suddenly had something to lose, and pushed for more frequent elections on the Palestinian side? What's the point in pushing Israel when the Palestinians have no intention of negotiating true peace? http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3908/ramallah-peace-process And the last time we pushed for Palestinian elections, we got Hamas. Btw, Israel is so evil they're providing medical treatment to the enemy for free : http://news.yahoo.com/syrians-brave-risks-seek-treatment-israel-155233310.html
-
How is the situation dangerous as opposed to all other talks that have been attempted? Would you prefer the Obama administration did nothing? It's dangerous because when it collapses, the Palestinians will want to retaliate in some way, even though neither party really believes in negotiations, since Abbas is too weak and unpopular to concede anything and so it's not worth it to Israelis to concede anything. So yes, beyond some usual platitudes, Obama should've done nothing.
-
Kerry has created a very dangerous situation when the talks almost inevitably will collapse.
-
Oh, they were surrounded, it's just that Hitler was a famous anglophile and let the brits evacuate from Dunkirk, almost half a million of them in fact. Brits were his big pals. They gave him Czechoslovakia, then they gave him Poland, they helped him sell plundered gold, they even declared a phoney war on him when they were put under pressure from their own citizens. They let him prepare for a real eastern action, because at that time Germany didn't even have enough ammunition to last a week, so they couldn't just go ahead and start a REAL war on him now, could they. Actually it was 200 thousand British, and about another 140 thousand French and others. Let them escape? Let's at least not make up history. Meh. Apart from the Battle of Britain and (marginally timewise) El Alamein- which involved 3 understrength jerry divisions instead of an Army Group for Moscow and a full army + bits of a panzerarmy for Stalingrad- Britain lost every major battle against the germans over the same time period too. German losses in the first 6 weeks of Barby were more than their losses over the entire war up to that point even with the poor russian performance. Soviet forces were also proportionately hugely greater than the British, so that's neither here nor there. The point is the disasters for the Soviets (whatever the reasons, and I don't mean to denigrate the bravery of the Soviet soldier in any way btw) were orders of magnitude greater than for the British, so to draw any kind of equivalence there is ridiculous.
-
I guess I missed the part where millions of British soldiers were repeatedly surrounded and wiped out by the Germans. Until Kursk, with the notable exceptions of Moscow and Stalingrad, the war on the Eastern front was a series of catastrophic disasters for the Soviets.
-
Obama administration immediately orders 350 million units.
-
The Science of Why We Don't Believe in Science
Wrath of Dagon replied to alanschu's topic in Way Off-Topic
Mini-nukes is probably the best chance of nuclear energy making a come back in the US : http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/30/mini-nuclear-plants-next-frontier-us-power-supply-or-next-solyndra/ -
The defendant in Florida does have to present some evidence of self-defense before he's allowed to claim self-defense in court : http://www.ohioverticals.com/blogs/akron_law_cafe/2012/04/zimmermans-low-burden-of-proof-on-the-issue-of-self-defense/
-
To claim self defense, in most states, you have to show some evidence that it was self defense (because claiming self defense is an affirmative defense), although the bar is set low, and then the prosecution has to prove that it wasn't self defense. SYG doesn't change the burden of proof, it only drops the requirement of the duty to retreat to claim self defense. In Ohio to claim self defense, the defendant has to prove by preponderance of evidence that it was self-defense. Edit: Here's another case of self-defense: http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/houston-gas-station-shooting-syg-or-not-break-it-down-with-aoj/ I guess you could say the woman should've retreated when she was first threatened, but why does she have to?
-
Excusable homicide was also in the judges instructions, although no one ever claimed it was excusable (i.e. unintentional). The judge has to include all parts of the law which may be relevant, it's up to the jury to determine what the facts are and which parts of the law apply.
-
I tremble for my country when I think how they lie : http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2013/07/how-not-to-correct-the-record.html
