Colrom

I agree. You say it better than I do. Thanks.

I think that that was because your argument presented itself as being excessively passive, which actually was not the case. China, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union all received significant amounts of aid from the United States. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I never said anything about isolationism or passivism - not a word - that is a characterization applied by others. Go check. You will not find those words in my writing here or elsewhere - anywhere except in this paragraph. I agree with what you say with regard to the way events unfolded for the US prior to our engagement in WWII. With the caveat that there were quite a number of Nazi sympathizers in the US and many pro Nazi rallys and lots of anti Jewish sentiment (not to mention anti Catholic sentiment and anti black sentiment) and many did not share FDR's views. It is not clear how things would have turned out if Germany had not declared war on the US. Perhaps it would have been much the same just later - perhaps not. Certainly Churchill worked hard to try to get the US into the war on Britain's side and was not certain that he would succeed. I trust his sincerety about that matter. He considered US entry to be the deciding factor for Britain. The critical issue for me is the distinction between responsibility and authority when it comes to claims of benevolent forceful interventionism. Analogies with WWII fail because a) we entered because others declared war on us and or attacked first - self defence is always a right b) we did not enter proactively to make the world better c) we actually had sympathies with the beliefs underlying the attrocious behaviors of those we wound up fighting. This all ties into issues relating to police authority and just war theory. The problem is that most powerful groups historically annoint themselves with authority. Claiming benevolent intent is pretty common too.

"Misintepreting"? I don't see much of that going around. I think this has more to do with the fact that Meta has repeatedly shot down your arguments and you have yet to answer to him effectively. Perhaps your arguments would be more credible if you actually backed up your statements with pertinent facts, and sources. But your problem is you've repeatedly shown here and in past threads that you don't so much as shape your opinions on facts but on a left-wing political dogma. You come up with the vaguest things to support your POV no matter the credibility, and when someone proves you wrong on any topic, you either don't admit it or you ignore it completely. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I presented a poll and it was mischaracterized and rejected. (By the way the error in a poll result with perfect sampling is approximately the square root of the counted result - so if you oversample to get 150 Sunnis and half say the US should leave and if you accept that they are a good sample of Sunnis and were not bent by the sampling conditions (such as the guy with the gun writing down their name) then the full result will be 50% +- 6% not +- 100% as metadigital claimed.) I presented a timeline about US involvement in WWII establishing that the US was not a proactive participant (Many contries were conquered while we stood by) and not a volunteer (we were always second in every declaration of war) and it was mischaracterized and rejected. It takes you guys seconds to say something that is nonsense and it takes me and others a long time to correct that nonsense. I don't have the time or the interest in you and your opinions to do that. You can bully all you want. I'm not impressed. The truth is out there - get it for yourself.

Well, good luck anyway. I hope it works out better this time. I think it will.

Wow! You guys are so different! Yikes!

Here in the US we generally don't repeat offensive stuff on public media unless we are willing to risk offending the audience. For example, most of the public media has not reproduced the truly offensive bits of the texts of the emails and instant messages from Rep. Foley to Pages. They simply describe the messages to their audience as being offensive. I wonder if someone were to make cartoons depicting obscene things about the Danish Queen whether: a) they would find themselves in jail or fined b) they would find themselves the target of vigilante royalists c) the cartoons would be aired on the public media in Denmark d) etc. Truly, folks need to stop pretending that they are benignly nieve and have no malicious intent when it is perfectly clear that they intend to cause harm and trouble. That includes those who repeat such things. All that aside, I was pleased at the Danish governments response, and by the response of Danish Muslim leaders and I would wish that more Muslims would not allow themselves to be enraged by these childish provocations. Of course Muslim response will be diverse. What a shame.

For those not informed here is a Story from BBC News: The row over the latest cartoons in Denmark mocking the Prophet Muhammed has sparked international reaction. Danish people have been warned against visiting several Muslim countries, after a video showing far-right activists drawing the images was aired. And a majority of Iranian MPs have urged President Ahmadinejad to suspend relations with Denmark. Iran and Indonesia have both summoned the Danish ambassador to their foreign ministries in protest of the video. Activists from the Danish People's Party were filmed at a summer camp, drinking, singing and taking part in a competition to draw images of Muhammad, including one depicting him as a camel with beer bottles as humps. 'Threats' The Danish government, which condemned the drawings, has warned its citizens to expect "negative reactions" abroad and cautioned travel to the Middle East. "A militant group in Gaza has made threats against Danes in the Palestinian areas in connection with the [cartoon] matter," the Reuters news agency quoted the Foreign Ministry as saying. The footage is said to have first been posted on the website YouTube, and then later aired on two Danish television channels. The Foreign Ministry said that the channels had not broadcast excerpts of the video "to provoke Muslims, but to illustrate the matter". In Iran, 232 MPs have signed a letter to the president complaining about the video. Frances Harrison, the BBC's correspondent in Tehran, said the action will increase the pressure on the Iranian government to do more to show its displeasure. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already condemned those who insulted the Prophet as "low life" and "devoid of human values". The Ministry of Islamic Guidance there has also called on the Danish TV channel that broadcast the video to apologise for its action. Violent protests Security has also been increased around the Danish embassy in Tehran in preparation for a repeat of the outrage shown in February, when protesters threw stones and petrol bombs and some countries evacuated their staff. On Monday Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen denounced the drawing of the cartoons, in an apparent effort to prevent widespread protests from occurring again. Iran and Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood said the new cartoons insulted Islam. The publication a year ago of newspaper cartoons - one depicting Muhammad with a bomb in his turban - led to violent protests in which more than 50 people died in Muslim countries. Danish Muslim leaders, who last year travelled abroad to rally support for their protests, said they would not be provoked by the latest incident, the BBC's religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott reported.

I read somewhere that the effects of malnutrition on the development of NK children has been very significant. What a disaster! I don't think that asset freezes and nukes and embargos and such stuff will help much.

Metadigital, Please stop rephrasing my opinions to suit your rhetorical needs. Please misrepresent the opinions of someone else for a while.

"Immediately" is a bizzare word in this context. I don't remember using that word. How about "real soon". That's more my style. After all we have enough control so that we have time to pack our bags. My focus is not so much on getting out as on getting to the business of helping these people. We can't do that when we are constantly striving to be in control. We need to give up control so that we can get down to doing good. You know what I am about. When the issue is whether the US should stay to babysit I don't accept that it is relevant that the Iraqi government we funneled into winning the election and largely control wants us to stay. Of course they do. They may be out of power soon after we leave. The people are saying they want us to leave. Many Americans are saying they want us to leave. We should leave. Then we will be more free to help folks do good.

Sorry for the long timeline. It really is just up to the US being forced into the war. I can't find what I want - which is just a timeline of initial attacks, declarations of war and surrenders. The point of it is that the the was a war going on for a long time, that the US was not eager to participate, and that the US was forced into the war (albeit with some manipulations on our part that made that eventuality more certain). Much current retoric presents us as having entered the war voluntarily with a mission to free the world and especially the Jews. That is nonsense. I thought you might be leveraging that view and wanted to present counter evidence. Regarding WWI we entered that late as well and largely at the urging of JP Morgan who spent quite a bit of money sending speakers around the US talking up the idea of US involvement. He had significant business dealings at stake. I will discuss my thoughts about agression, defense, and engagement and isolationism, imperialism and engagement a bit later. I have to talk to my wife and eat and stuff now. PS - In the matter of the poll the 150 is an oversample size for the ethnic Sunnis in the poll. The total poll size is certainly much larger. It is not unusual to oversample minority populations in polls to provide better statistics on their views as a subgroup.

You might want to provide some proof, rather than just spouting opinion. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Here is an AP story on that topic. "Poll: Iraqis back attacks on U.S. troops By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer Thu Sep 28, 2:05 PM ET WASHINGTON - About six in 10 Iraqis say they approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces, and slightly more than that want their government to ask U.S. troops to leave within a year, according to a poll in that country. The Iraqis also have negative views of Osama bin Laden, according to the early September poll of 1,150. The poll, done for University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, found: _Almost four in five Iraqis say the U.S. military force in Iraq provokes more violence than it prevents. _About 61 percent approved of the attacks

Also from wiki about South Africas abandonment of nuclear weapons- "With the anticipated changeover to a majority-elected government in the 1990s, the South African government dismantled all of its nuclear weapons, making it the only nation in the world which voluntarily gave up nuclear arms which it had itself developed. The country has been a signatory of the Biological Weapons Convention since 1975, the Chemical Weapons Convention since 1995, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty since 1991." So it seems that the move was really done to keep the weapons out of the hands of the black majority government. More of a scuttling move than a real voluntary giving up of the weapons. They just wanted to deny the capability to the blacks. Ain't history illuminating?!

May just be cheaper to fire 'em of, then, aye? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The clean up costs associated with firing them off can be a problem too. Although recent events in New Orleans and Mississippi suggest that cleanup of disasters is not a major concern for some folks.

From wiki: "Nuclear weapons South Africa developed a small finite deterrence arsenal of gun-type fission weapons in the 1980s. Six were constructed and another was under construction at the time the program ended. Viable delivery None of the six bombs were particularly sophisticated, being designed to be delivered from one of several aircraft types then in service with the South African Air Force (SAAF). The Canberra B12 in service with 12 Squadron SAAF was chosen as the primary air drop vehicle as it was highly reliable, spares were readily available from several countries (unlike the Buccaneer - and the maritime reconnaissance Shackleton, grounded due to UK refusal to supply spare parts), and it had both a significantly greater radius of action and a much higher operating altitude than both the Buccaneer and Cheetah. There was also much more internal space for the fitting of weapons system control equipment. Further, the Buccaneer was designed with a rotating bomb-bay, which needed modification to carry the first-generation 'shape' weapon, raising complexity and reliability issues, and increased fuel consumption, leading to the Canberra B12 being the preferred 'viable means of delivery' in the early part of the program. However, South Africa had a relatively sophisticated intercontinental ballistic missile programme running concurrently with the nuclear programme, and was known to be working on more sophisticated nuclear weapons capable of delivery from such a platform. According to published data one of the missiles, the RSA-4, may have been capable of delivering a 700 kg nuclear warhead from its South African launch site to any point on earth. In September, 1979 a flash over the Indian Ocean detected by a U.S. satellite was suspected of being a South African nuclear test, in collaboration with Israel (this event is known as Vela Incident). No official confirmation of it being a nuclear test has been made, and multiple expert agencies have disagreed on their assessments. In 1997, Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad stated that South Africa had conducted a test, but later retracted the statement as being a report of rumors. Pahad apparently had no inside information about the program.[1] A number of other sources have quoted anonymous Israeli officials verifying that some sort of test took place, but none of this has been officially confirmed by the Israeli, South African, or United States governments. However, in February 1994 Commodore Dieter Gerhardt, the convicted Soviet spy and former commander of South Africa's Simonstown naval base was reported to have said: "Although I was not directly involved in planning or carrying out the operation, I learned unofficially that the flash was produced by an Israeli-South African test code-named Operation Phenix. The explosion was clean and was not supposed to be detected. But they were not as smart as they thought, and the weather changed

Didn't South Africa have nukes and give them up? I think they did. So it is possible. That example notwithstanding I agree that it is unlikely that a country will give up military capabilities. But they might let them decay if there is no perceived need for them and they are costly to maintain.

Death threats or threats to destroy economies can reasonably be expected to have these kinds of effects - the targets arm themselves -especially when the threatener has a record of frequent treacherous behavior - which makes agreements worthless. As an aside, I am not afraid of North Korea with or without nuclear weapons.

We have no rightful authority to be there nor do polls indicate the Iraqis want us there. We should leave. Certainly killing somebody or breaking somebodies stuff doesn't give the perpetrator authority to take control of the people and stuff left behind. But we act as if it does - at least for us. It is a problem in our thinking that we assume that we have the authority to decide what is good for other people and to compell them to act in accordance with our plans. This viewpoint is a perverted child of the doctrine of "manifest destiny". If we want to help Iraqis, we ought to provide money and other aid through Iraqis living in Iraq for Iraqis living in Iraq. If the situation gets worse in Iraq that is a matter for legitimate authorities (if any really exist anymore) to address or not. We are not a legitamate authority for that purpose. We should also be getting ourselves on a better track by voting for good leaders and maybe handling the criminals in our own midst using the legal tools provided by our law, like impeachment . Judge Hades can help us there. I have absolute confidence that he will do everything he can to deliver onto us the best leadership possible. Help us Judge Hades. You are our only hope.

Soooooooooo Good! :D Thanks to you alanschu!

The Cat Came Back Written By: Harry S. Miller (with later folk additions) Copyright Unknown Old Mister Johnson had troubles of his own He had a yellow cat which wouldn't leave its home; He tried and he tried to give the cat away, He gave it to a man goin' far, far away. But the cat came back the very next day, The cat came back, we thought he was a goner But the cat came back; it just couldn't stay away. Away, away, yea, yea, yea The man around the corner swore he'd kill the cat on sight, He loaded up his shotgun with nails and dynamite; He waited and he waited for the cat to come around, Ninety seven pieces of the man is all they found. But the cat came back the very next day, The cat came back, we thought he was a goner But the cat came back; it just couldn't stay away. Away, away, yea, yea, yea He gave it to a little boy with a dollar note, Told him for to take it up the river in a boat; They tied a rope around its neck, it must have weighed a pound Now they drag the river for a little boy that's drowned. But the cat came back the very next day, The cat came back, we thought he was a goner But the cat came back; it just couldn't stay away. Away, away, yea, yea, yea He gave it to a man going up in a balloon, He told him for to take it to the man in the moon; The balloon came down about ninety miles away, Where he is now, well I dare not say. But the cat came back the very next day, The cat came back, we thought he was a goner But the cat came back; it just couldn't stay away. Away, away, yea, yea, yea He gave it to a man going way out West, Told him for to take it to the one he loved the best; First the train hit the curve, then it jumped the rail, Not a soul was left behind to tell the gruesome tale. But the cat came back the very next day, The cat came back, we thought he was a goner But the cat came back; it just couldn't stay away. Away, away, yea, yea, yea The cat it had some company one night out in the yard, Someone threw a boot-jack, and they threw it mighty hard; It caught the cat behind the ear, she thought it rather slight, When along came a brick-bat and knocked the cat out of sight But the cat came back the very next day, The cat came back, we thought he was a goner But the cat came back; it just couldn't stay away. Away, away, yea, yea, yea Away across the ocean they did send the cat at last, Vessel only out a day and making water fast; People all began to pray, the boat began to toss, A great big gust of wind came by and every soul was lost. But the cat came back the very next day, The cat came back, we thought he was a goner But the cat came back; it just couldn't stay away. Away, away, yea, yea, yea On a telegraph wire, sparrows sitting in a bunch, The cat was feeling hungry, thought she'd like 'em for a lunch; Climbing softly up the pole, and when she reached the top, Put her foot upon the electric wire, which tied her in a knot. But the cat came back the very next day, The cat came back, we thought he was a goner But the cat came back; it just couldn't stay away. Away, away, yea, yea, yea The cat was a possessor of a family of its own, With seven little kittens till there came a cyclone; Blew the houses all apart and tossed the cat around, The air was full of kittens, and not a one was ever found. But the cat came back the very next day, The cat came back, we thought he was a goner But the cat came back; it just couldn't stay away. Away, away, yea, yea, yea The atom bomb fell just the other day, The H-Bomb fell in the very same way; Russia went, England went, and then the U.S.A. The human race was finished without a chance to pray. But the cat came back the very next day, The cat came back, we thought he was a goner But the cat came back; it just couldn't stay away. Away, away, yea, yea, yea

Oh! Oh! Oh! I have a question! I have a question! Does that mean that Judge Hades like George Bush has authority as well as responsibility and gets to order troops and stuff to do things to people there - like boss them around and kill some of them and make stuff and take stuff and things like that - to make things better still according to his deciding? Wow! That could be interesting.

I think I like my villains to be like my player character, but cracked - like looking in a broken mirror - with a story I can understand. The twins in IWD II were nice in that way (but not well enough developed).

I thought Kreia had good potential but I didn't really get it with her in the end. She reminded me of Ravel in Torment. But it seemed like there was something missing from her story at the end. I think that RPG developers should avoid sacrificing the story of critical characters in order to meet deadlines - even when those story elements are not otherwise critical for the player.

Now that the world has the US with Republican leadership to decide who needs help and what help they need and who should live and who should die - with the self proclaimed authority to execute those decisions - many may think that we no longer need God. Isn't that something!

I think Irenicus was a very good villian. He would have been better for me if he had been presented in more sympathetic/tragic terms earlier and explained a bit better at each stage of discovery to help sustain the sympathy and also the repulsion. He has some really good lines - especially his speech about his forgotten love - which was quite touching. Bhodi was easier to understand - more primative and ferrel and less tortured (oddly). A fine basic monster.