Gromnir

you are kidding right? obama said the syrians had crossed a line in syria with gas attacks, but then he did virtual nothing. you may think such action were justified, but to say it don't appear weak to many voters in US or fighters in mideast is silly. the way obama handled libya were to be keeping distance, which made voters and westerners very happy... right up until things started falling apart in libya again. nevertheless, actions o' the US in libya sends a message that the US is unwilling to get their hands dirty. and again, it ain't as if obama woke up two days ago and realized that isis/is were a potential problem. the perception is that he left iraq in a state o' political shambles, creating a situation whereby IS could walk in and grab more territory than any islamic terrorist organization in history has managed to hold (they is printing freaking license plates for chrissakes,) capture US heavy armour such as m-1 tanks, and the damn in mosul that could flood the most populous river valley in iraq which could result in the depths o' up to 500,000 people. that crap didn't happen overnight. etc. and is not about a president being able to resolve the situation in israel. duh. that being said, obama distanced himself from the israelis and the arabs. the arabs don't believe the US will get involved, but they see the US inextricably linked to israel. the israelis don't trust obama specifically given comments he has made about israel and netanyahu. the US has less influence with israel and the palestininas than any president we can care to mention. ... you is being a bit silly. am not saying you should blame obama. review our post. we noted that you saying you hasn't heard obama being blamed is shocking to us. obama is taking much heat in the US press, and we do not find such blame to be at all surprising. Presidents always take heat when things go bad, and things is very freaking bad. pretend that obama doesn't deserve some blame is boardering on obtuse, but that ain't the issue. issue is you claim you has never heard obama being blamed, and you act perplexed that any could blame. is nothing shocking in obama getting blame. only thing shocking is that obama ain't getting more heat outside the US. he will eventually. is from a cnn article we just read today. cnn... not fox "That is not the first time the administration has been criticized for lacking a strategic vision for countering ISIS. Republicans on Capitol Hill have repeatedly criticized Obama for undermining American influence globally by not acting decisively enough on Iraq and Syria -- among other global crises." and "Many have also criticized Obama's inaction in Syria as contributing to ISIS' growth by failing to bolster the moderate rebel forces. "Without sufficient financial and military support, moderate rebel factions have dwindled as some fighters and entire groups opted to join ISIS and other Islamist factions fighting against government forces. The hands-off approach in Syria even prompted the American ambassador to the country, Robert Ford, to resign recently because he could no longer defend the policy, he told CNN in June. ""Had there been more military assistance ... the opposition would have probably been able to gain ground a couple years ago more quickly," Ford said. " (And) the ability of al Qaeda and Islamist extremist groups to recruit away from the moderates would have been less." "And aside from the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons arsenal, Ford said there is "nothing we can point to that has been very successful in our policy." "Ford and others have called ISIS a national security threat to the United States and fears are growing that its fighters could return to Europe or the United States and carry out terrorist attacks. ""To stand back and do nothing is to simply see this cancer metastasize further," Ford said." etc. HA! Good Fun!

josh didn't like bg game humor. he Really didn't like bg game humor. he likes big heads though. ... humor doesn't travel well and seems to be highly personal. am all in favor o' there being humor in PoE, but is gonna be interesting to see how obsidian handles. gonna make a humor toggle for dialogues? that seems doubtful. HA! Good Fun!

Oooh. I love a good counter-factual. As you know, GD, I share a many of your libertarian values, albeit from a different cultural tradition. Nonetheless, I utterly understand where you are coming from and am [broadly] sympathetic. The biggest problem with libertarianism, as someone attracted to it, is it's Utopianism. All utopian ideologies are inherently dangerous, as they offer easy solutions to intractable problems. I'd throw some Hobbes into my libertarianism, some gnarly realism that went against the grain. For me, this means that America has an unenviable but inevitable role to play in preserving liberty beyond it's shores. It's a bitter pill, but one best swallowed. 2003. GW Bush leaves Iraq alone. What happens next? Gadaffi remains in power. North Korea puffs outs it's chest, as does Iran, and now has nukes with a far-extended range. The Arab spring happens anyway, but ISIS analogues take over Egypt? I dunno. The world is a mess now, but given the realities of the Middle East and the thirty-year war within Islam (i.e. Shia versus Sunni) it was going to be a mess anyway. Sometimes having the mess that suits you best is the most you can hope for. The biggest mistake George W Bush made was paving the way for Obama. He is completely unsuited to the challenges your country faces. He is a sunny-skies president in stormy times. Like most leftists, he hasn't a clue what to do when there's no tax money to foist on client voters, and views foreign affairs as a distraction from consolidating party political power. I look at it like this - whatever space the America vacates leaves room for either (a) Islamists (b) Russians or (c ) The Chinese. Furthermore, your southern borders are hostile, and will become increasingly so as Latin America eyes you ever-more warily. As for A,B & C, as a Briton, there are not people I wish to see in the ascendant. If Europe falls, the West falls. America is the bulwark of Western values. We're in this together, this strange, fractured post-Cold War. So I understand why Isolationist values might appeal, but in the long-term they will do America little good. honesty doesn't sell well. tell American voters that going into iraq or libya or elsewhere in middle east is necessary for long-range stability o' the region, but that doing so is gonna require a +20 year commitment o' troops/police/ and wholesale infrastructure overhauling is not going to make folks happy. is different options for a half-arsed but politically viable approach, but regardless, is death by a thousand cuts. go in with troops but never fully commit (RAND studies showed that american troops in iraq were not even 1/3 what they needed to be to be acting as a viable police force) or pretend as if the locals, who is divided by religious and tribal divisions that make cooperation impossible, can magically fix their own problems as long as US supplies drone strikes, intelligence, and glorified care packages? both options is fail. necessary? dunno. am not gonna say we is certain how things in mideast play out if US is complete uninvolved. is also possible that some unrest in the mideast may be part of The Plan. one o' these days those folks is gonna realize that a couple o' decades o' peace and infrastructure building supported by oil revenues could bring about wholesale alterations o' their economies. the west is dependent on oil, but that dependence is nothing compared to middle east dependence on the west for near everything but oil. keep the arabs fighting may 'cause short-term instability in the region, but peace might actual be viewed as a greater long term threat... but that is just our natural cynicism getting off the leash again. regardless, honesty sucks. western nations don't like honesty anymore than does US voters. we don't complete blame politicians 'cause they can't make any positive changes unless they is in office, and is no way to stay in office if you is honest about short and long-term costs o' fixing problems in places such as iraq. "Wow so the problems in the ME are all Obamas fault, that's a new spin if I ever heard one" really? is a common criticism and it is gaining much popularity. US influence in the region has been waning for years. obama's handling (non-handling) o' the syria situation were making him look weak and impotent, but recent problems in libya, israel and iraq has all called obama leadership into question. libya were touted as the big success, until recently. now it is looking to some folks like just another example o' obama fail. kerry gets no respect amongst the palestinians or israelis, so the egyptians, who is outspoken enemies o' the muslim brotherhood, gets called into to mediate 'tween israel and hamas? wtf? am not even needing to bring up recent arguments o' obama fail regarding isis/is in iraq. ​am not saying all the criticism is fair, but that you ain't heard obama being blamed is shocking. Presidents typical get disproportionate blame. the notion that media sources outside the US is going easy on obama is striking us as a bit odd. HA! Good Fun!

somebody needs some alone time with the penguin. HA! Good Fun!

is noteworthy that US reconstruction efforts in japan appear to have worked very well as japan is now a peaceful trade partner and the third largest economy in the world. no radicalized extremist government. no hot-bed o' world terrorism. no crippling and endemic poverty. etc. that being said, nothing comes without a price. is the world a better place with j-pop, hentai, and tasteless japanese tv commercials? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCjxzpSrFP4 HA! Good Fun!

if the japanese current and FUTURE threat was as small as you suggest, the estimates of casualties for an invasion o' japan would not have been in the millions. also, as already stated, in 1945 the "crushed" japanese were killing chinese at a rate of 100k a month. and again, the situation were similar in germany, so, distinguish. in point o' fact, germany were far less o' a threat when allies crossed the rhine. you genuine suggesting that the allies should stopped? "The military and industrial powerhouse that is US looking over their shoulder? HA!" damn straight. what year were war in korea? US also were very much aware that the soviet union would be a post war threat. if germany and japan had been allowed to maintain their military industrial complex 'cause naive candyland kids like trash thinks it were mean-spirited to invade, we can't even imagine what the world map would be looking like today. germany want from a shattered ww1 loser to arguably the single most capable military power in the world in a very short period o' time. the europeans and the US were not gonna make the same mistakes with post ww2 germany... and to think that the US would treat japan special 'cause they were only capable o' killing large numbers o' asians as o' summer o' 1945? and again, the japanese didn't genuine want to surrender. the russians had no intention o' mediating a surrender. you didn't bother looking at links provided. am doubting you has read Frank's Downfall. but hey, am betting any number o' wannabee dictators and warlords would love your childish worldview. imagine if any invader could invade neighbors with impunity knowing that worst case scenario is that they is gonna be forced to return to their pre-war boarders. good on you for coming up with a wonderful new method for dealing with military aggression. HA! Good Fun!

well, as an example, the last time we were in ny we were staying at the penta hotel, or rather the hotel pennsylvania--they has changed the name o' that place a few times. we like the penta for one simple reason: it is across the street from msg. anywho, one night we hail a cab. am having our hair cut business style and were wearing a suit with a navy london fog trench coat. we get in cab and ask to be taken to the UN (long story.) the cabbie, who were eastern european, yells at us to get out o' the cab... we caught "puerto rican" in there somewhere. we have had girlfriends that says we look mediterranean. east coast we gets "puerto rican." west coast and chicago we get "mexican," alot. am well-tanned, at the very least. is not like we wear buckskins and feathers... no "free leonard peltier" t-shirts neither. HA! Good Fun!

But the thought you may get ripped off using a taxi shouldn't be a reason not to use one or negate the fact a taxi is more convenient that is the main reason we don't use a taxi when we go to NY. other reasons include but isn't limited to the following: rude cabbies racist cabbies who don't pick-up minority fares exorbitant cost seats with mysterious foreign substances heck, in the literal thousands o' trips we has made to the bay area, we has only used a cab two times. use bart instead. we were not wealthy the last time we were in london, so we didn't use cabs much, but while they is better than NY cabs at avoiding the aforementioned shortcomings, your tale o' tourist fleecing does suggest that london cabs ain't flawless... and we suspect they is still as expensive as we recall. convenience typical has a cost. HA! Good Fun!

Main reason being convenience, if you have been walking for 4 hours and the streets are really busy the taxi option makes loads of sense. Trust me ... Underground... so why go to the busy underground when we can walk 20 meters from a particular tourist attraction and get into a taxi? ... 'cause you paid ~$40 for the taxi? HA! Good Fun! Yes but as I mentioned we were ripped off, the taxi driver took us on an intentionally long route and thought we wouldn't notice which wouldn't happen on the underground. HA! Good Fun!

Main reason being convenience, if you have been walking for 4 hours and the streets are really busy the taxi option makes loads of sense. Trust me ... Underground... so why go to the busy underground when we can walk 20 meters from a particular tourist attraction and get into a taxi? ... 'cause you paid ~$40 for the taxi? HA! Good Fun!

gemma is cute, but we saw too many o' her early movies to immediate think "class" when we see her. grace stands alone, but gong li and kate winslet deserve mention. HA! Good Fun!

home invasion example is perhaps your dumbest example ever. once german troops were pushed back to 1939 boarders, allied troops were s'posed to just stop, yes? but hey, those germans were beaten and would pose no serious threat to europe and the rest o' the world for at least 5 years. am not actual sure where you is from... candyland perhaps? if a man breaks into Gromnir's home, destroys our property and kills our family, once we chase that villain from our home, we has the option o' calling on the police for justice and for protection from future attacks by that bastard. no such option were existing for victims o' japanese aggression and no such option exists in the power politics model. driving japan off US soil did not diminish their future threat. driving japan back would result in US needing be looking over their proverbial shoulder indefinitely. oh, and that son of a b*#@% that broke into our home were also breaking into other folks' homes, destroying their property, killing their family and raping their wives and daughters. but hey, the fact that the japanese were killing ~100,000 chinese a month in 1945 is something we should pretend never happened. as for noam, he is a bright guy, and if he were voicing his opinion on development o' grammar in childrens' brains, we would listen with much attention. hey, you like myopic videos. HA! Good Fun!

did we mention that we don't like rats? we grew up in extreme rural sw south dakota, then moved to south chicago. we lived near the skyway not far from CVS, but we were east o' the skyway. went from having nearest neighbor be ~1 mile away to having most o' neighbors being rats, literally. no joke, the place where we lived had more rat residents than people. *shudder* woke up during hour o' the wolf one morning in december to find a rat, bold as you please, eating a corner of our blanket- the blanket which were on Gromnir at the time. later that day, we convinced our family that it were time to buy a cat regardless o' landlord's pet policy. is not that Gromnir has a fear o' rats, but we don't like'em, and we do notice them. HA! Good Fun!

apologies if already posted... and our gardener is named armondo s****. HA! Good Fun!

am recalling the last time we had to raise a puppy. it took over two freaking months to get that beast house trained. it were very frustrating. HA! Good Fun!

“[T]he most severe impact of a dam failure would be [for] the City of Mosul, located 50 kilometers [31 miles] downstream of the dam,” Petraeus’ and Crocker’s 2007 letter says. “Assuming a worse [sic] case scenario, an instantaneous failure of Mosul Dam filled to its maximum operating level could result in a flood wave over 20 meters [65 feet] deep at the City of Mosul, which would result in a significant loss of life and property.” Mosul alone is estimated to be home to more than 1.5 million people. Flood waters, albeit at a lower level, could reach all the way to Baghdad, more than 200 miles further down the Tigris, depending on the performance of another smaller dam further downriver. A 2011 report written by a USACE official and published in Water Power magazine estimated failure “could lead to as many as 500,000 civilian deaths.” https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/mosul-dam-control-terrifying-dam-iraq-life-death/story?id=24878057 perspective. the bomb at hiroshima were ultimately responsible for ~120k-135k deaths. isis now has the capacity to kill 3x as many people. we can all hope that such a thing does not occur, but that damn is in a near constant state o' collapse as it were pretty much built on sand and soil. all that needs happen is for isis to fail to adequate maintain the facility.

we will agree that in a perfect world history shouldn't be a popularity contest, but am thinking val misses the obvious reality that more than sixty years o' scholarship has resulted in the existence o' differing opinions on japanese willingness to surrender. the revisionist case is "in ruins," but even if it weren't, sixty years has hardly made the scenario as clear as trash would like it to be. truman didn't have those sixty years o' scholarship. if waters is muddy today (and they ain't as muddy as would be needed to benefit val or trash,) then how clear were they back at the end o' ww2? "They charge quite a bit, as the goals of all anthropomorphic-animal Jews is to make money and kill Palestinians." well seeing as how hamas is firing roockets into israel again, perhaps the "Frog-Jews of aeiouuaeioaeuioaueioaeiu 85" were successful. am suspecting that once again, palestinians will be dying in gaza. clearly more tinfoil is needed. HA! Good Fun!

a d20 roll will determine which will be more appropriate in any given situation. "oh, sorry. i know you need medical supplies and food, but john kerry rolled a 5, so we will be sending an ac-130 gunship your way in about five minutes. just be happy he didn't get a natural 1." HA! Good Fun!

Gromnir would like to buy a vowel. kinda funny, but even silent reading such words makes our brain... lurch. is no phonemes we should be struggling with, but it were like hitting a speed bump. most curious. HA! Good Fun!

am having Zero good ideas about feats and traits til we see how combat actual works. at the moment, Gromnir don't even know how secondary statistics is generated or how they impact combat mechanics, so guessing'bout critical modifiers n' such is kinda like guessing if a recipe is needing extra seasoning before we get a chance to taste. HA! Good Fun!

curious aside: a most vocal critic o' tsuyoshi hasegawa has been sadao asada. prof. asada wrote his own works on the subject, but his recommendation o' a more accurate and elegant interpretation o' events were the following: http://www.amazon.com/Downfall-The-Imperial-Japanese-Empire/dp/0141001461 (is a good read, but it would not be making trashman's reading list (or yours?) as it suggests that the bombs saved millions o' lives- asian and caucasian.) criticism o' hasegawa typically appears thus: "Hasegawa fails to sustain his main arguments with the necessary evidence. At best, he leaves the revisionist case as he found it, in ruins. Indeed, he makes the rubble bounce by convincingly demonstrating that the Soviet Union very much was racing to get into the Pacific War in order to facilitate its expansionist policies in the Far East. Those who seek the definitive analysis on the end of the Pacific War will have to look elsewhere. A good place to begin is Frank’s Downfall." --prof. michael kort so, whatever you think o' the new theories, the revisionist stuff is widely seen as little more than hokum. HA! Good Fun!

"Having spent a great deal of time in the history department of a couple highly respected major universities in the U.S." have you spent a great deal o' time in history departments as a night janitor perhaps? your comments is less than illuminating. 'course the only one in this thread who has actual mentioned any reputable historians is Gromnir. has Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, for example, been on the history channel? that would be kinda cool actually. gonna need do a video search now and see if we can find some video. oh, and we love the irony. do you think your posts is free o' all grammar mistakes? that is so cute. Gromnir does purposeful, so what is your excuse? "That said, real history isn't a popularity contest anyways. Also, Trashman is correct." you do realize that your comments is self contradictory, no? 'course you is possibly suggesting no more than that trashman perspective is the current winner o' the popularity contest. even if trashman perspective were the one with the tiara and the sash, you has done a marvelous job o' undercutting him and his perspective. odd. in any event, the notion that japan were willing to surrender is called the "revisionist" perspective for a reason. has not been the dominant theory, ever. HA! Good Fun! edit: we found UCTV video for prof. Hasegawa, but no history channel. if you has such link, we would appreciate you sharing it.

I don't give a rats ass about his estimates of casualties during a full-scale US invasion. There was no need for any furhter invasion. No need for any furhter war. The US wasn't saving anyone at that point anymore. is good that you reveal your lack o' any desire or capacity to be reasonable. sure, virtual all reputable historians believe either that the bombs scared japan into surrender, or that it were actual the russian deceleration o' war that set nails to proverbial japanese coffin, but that doesn't fit with your world view, so you chose not to give a "rats ass" 'bout reason or history. is no different than your pov on israel-arab conflict. no surprise. you don't give a "rats ass" what anyone says. HA! Good Fun!

too late to add cassowary we s'pose. 6' o' hissing bird-stoopid ferocity would look & sound nifty when animated. HA! Good Fun!

clarification for folks who misread history and maybe is confused: japan did send telegrams to soviets requesting mediation. is not same as claims that there were actual negotiations or that japan were ready to capitulate. soviets answered request by attacking japanese forces in manchuria. chance for japanese leaders to keep territory and avoid war crimes ended when soviets declared war, but japan were quite willing to fight the Americans, even after bomb dropped. HA! Good Fun!