213374U

Yes, nevermind them. Because, as far as science is concerned, consensus is irrelevant. Much like "belief". But apparently, many people can't seem to distinguish between science, politics and faith either. So preach on, brother.

Doubtful. You'd probably get shot and thrown to the sharks after you drove some poor bastard mad with a lecture on the moral basis of democratic socialism or some such.

My link can beat up your link.

Can't speak for Monte, but do I think properly equipping the armed forces is more important than the absurd comfort of BBC fat-cats? Hell yes. You can't be serious. It's the sports department we're talking about, for God's sake!

No, I think it's because you don't make a thread out of it. I only found about it by pure luck - I'm not even interested in COD or MOH! As if I didn't already have enough excuses for not getting any work done, the other day I find about Arsenal of Democracy, and now this. Thanks a lot, Llyranor. Thanks a lot.

Shh. In a world where guilt manipulation makes and breaks governments (which de facto establishes that emotion > reason in the field of management and problem solving), that's a no-no. It's not exactly a new idea by any means, either. http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articl...a_lifeboat.html

Actually Spanish vessels (learning from past mistakes, it seems) are sailing with embarked private security personnel armed with large-caliber MGs since last week.

Yeah, this "free for all" mentality is the way to go - even if it gets the pirates blown out of the water by the guys with the 50. cals. That's fine, right? Somalis go "improve their living standards" by seizing ships, and business interests "protect their investments" by deploying heavily armed PMCs on the ships. Everybody wins, and Somalia remains a corruption-ridden failed state. And as with everything ranging from bovine farting-induced global environmental failure to the woes of former colonial areas, it's "our" fault, so they are "justified" in what they do. Oh, the arrogance. And by the way, as Wals suggested, the pirates themselves are getting the breadcrumbs from these multi-million ransom deals. But what they do get, they aren't investing in schools, basic agriculture, or anything that would eventually allow them to mount a sustainable economy. It's just booze and hookers for them. An "improvement" on Sharia and starvation, to be sure. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8...1864300,00.html edit: typos

It does, if true, conflict with general relativity. Special relativity is a different matter.

No? I thought you took pride in your knowledge of the Soviet Union. Look up Operation Lentil, or any other of the many forced mass relocations, expulsions or deportations implemented by the USSR. Labeling a group of people "counter-revolutionaries" or whatever doesn't change the fact that it's genocide or excuses responsibility from it, and neither does the circumstance that many of the genocides perpetrated by the Soviet Union took place during wartime. edit: In fact, your defense of Soviet oppression has been proving my point. Sorry for not noticing before, blame my lack of sleep.

You're not even trying. It's cute how you justify as "understandable", the mass deportations, purges, summary executions, show trials, russification etc, that constitute as a whole the largest centrally organized genocide effort in history, but dismiss out of hand other authoritarian regimes on grounds that they are "right wing". I already gave you Miguel Primo de Rivera's dictatorship as an example of a practically bloodless regime that worked well. Your rhetoric (for a lack of tangible arguments) is destroyed with a simple counterexample. Can you put down the hammer and sickle for a second and look at things from a factual perspective? The whole "no war but class war" schtick may be cool, but you can only do so much with it.

I'm thinking... if you were a TV producer, you'd be out of a job faster than you can say "Lenin". And, as usual, you are cherrypicking. Saddam was unequivocally a mass murderer, but that was the point. Is Iraq better off now? If so, it's time you gave American imperialism the credit it's due. At any rate, I wasn't specifically advocating military juntas - Soviet leaders weren't military men, but they knew a thing or two about repression and keeping order. So why don't you explain in detail how democracy and more "freedom" are under all circumstances, always, better? I was asking for opinions.

I'd like to know if you think this is always true, though, and why. Hate and oppression are older than weapons deals. Interahamwe mobs were armed simply with machetes, and they were scary effective. A freer world may be a better place to live in, but it's little good if you are, in fact, dead. For example, with Saddam Hussein, oppression prevented Iraq from spiralling down into civil war. Mexico could use some old fashioned military repression around some places. Colombia, where druglords and pseudo-marxist guerrillas "coexist" with democracy, is another good example. In Pakistan, chances are they are starting to regret they pressured uncle Pervez into resigning. Primo de Rivera's military dictatorship brought good things to Spain, if only for a short time. Examples abound, really, where more freedom isn't such a good idea. It's a complex issue, so I'm always looking for more opinions. The relation between fear, repression and peace and order isn't fixed and depends on who, where and when you're looking at.

This is absurd. If you are attacked by a thug armed with a knife, do you actually wait until he manages to cleanly stab you before you react? The attacks have a clear intent - their actual effectiveness is of little consequence. And you'll excuse me if I doubt that you have an informed opinion on what one should or should not do in a war. No to a), but that still doesn't negate the right of Israel to try and put a stop to them. As for b), probably not. The idea is likely to be to undermine popular support for Hamas by destroying living standards in the area. This is false, and you know it. Concessions had been made during the ceasefire, but progress was stalled by violations on BOTH sides. It was Hamas who chose not to extend the ceasefire, though. I guess they'd rather have artillery shellings than some trade. More absurdity. If you want to make friends with or at least not anger somebody, especially if that somebody is stronger, the least you can do is tell him you are not the one attacking him, and distance yourself as much as possible from the attacks. Of course, fighting the good fight while their people lack drinking water is much more important. They wouldn't be true revolutionaries if it wasn't, right?

You didn't answer. "Proportionality" is a mathematical concept. The international law definition is, like the rest of legislation "governing" warfare, utterly useless; purely subjective. What do you mean by that, anyway? Do you really believe that Hamas' capability to launch attacks against Israel can be dismantled by adhering to an orthodox interpretation of that doctrine? The point about Hamas not being able to control its militias has some merit, but you'll have to show some evidence that militants attacking Israel are acting independently of Hamas, while on the other hand, ceasefires have been respected in the past. Furthermore, (and I may be mistaken) I don't remember any instances of Hamas admitting that the attacks are the handiwork of elements beyond their control, which would lend a lot of credibility to these claims and the theory that Israel is actually the sole culprit in the spiral of violence.

Yeah, but they already have ridiculously stringent immigration laws. This is... silly.

So it's OK for the Palestinians to attack Israel, as long as it's just "a little"? I was under the impression that the first thing needed for negotiations to take place is a functional ceasefire.

How clumsy. Nice job at giving them fundies some ammo. Edit: Gold.

There would be diplomatic consequences - quite serious, I imagine - if British militants fired rockets into French territory. However, barring some sabre-rattling, there would be no serious voices calling for an actual war. There is a very big difference from "people who live in Palestinian territory," and "the government of Palestine (i.e. Hamas)."Okay, try this: an anti-British party takes power in the Channel Islands, and they start raining rockets on England one day. France, seeing the chance to stick one up HM's, starts supporting the folks on the Islands, more or less subreptitiously. Here, France would play the role of Syria. So, how long do you think it would take for the RAF to make a mess?

I don't know what you're implying. I think you need to elaborate on what exactly you think Israel should do about the Palestinians, and what do you think they are doing presently. It's not just that Hamas has X or Z as their goal - it's that they keep attacking Israel, their overwhelmingly stronger neighbor, that tends to attract hellfires. But defending their country is frowned upon... mindboggling, really. As for the US withdrawing their support from Israel, why are you so certain? Looking at US foreign policy in the past, it doesn't seem so clear cut. And don't forget where Israel is. But I suppose that with Obama, anything's possible...

Hinting isn't going to do it, you are going to have to state your position. You don't think the endless cycle of terrorist attack and punitive action causing civilian deaths galvanized positions on either side ? No, I don't think it has. On the Palestinian side, you have Hamas, whose stated goal is the destruction of the State of Israel. What I was hinting is that, if Israel reacted the same way, they would have a government in power with converse goals, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Either that, or they suck at genocide, frankly. edit: ofc, in Hamas' side it's just propaganda and tough talk.

Their orders likely are, by order of priority: 1) Kill or arrest Hamas militiamen 2) Preserve the lives of their soldiers 3) Preserve the lives of bystanders So I'd say they are pretty damn effective, considering that the #1 tactic employed by Hamas is using their own civilians as human shields and reaping the PR rewards their deaths bring. Or do you actually believe that the IDF's main priority should be the protection of Palestinian civilians?

Umm...

Right. Because Slovakia has plenty of directors of Kubrick's stature, producing some of the best comedy ever, like, everyday. \o/

That's an odd thing to say. Because then, you accept that "naturally", the most defiant voices should win out when Qassam rockets are a common occurrence in Israeli cities, no?