YouTube video
A succinct commentary on a cool thing.
edit: courtesy of Cracked. Thanks, Janus.
Dude obviously doesn't know what an engineer is. uhuh Some mother****er knows exactly how that mouse works, why it was created that way and out of what materials.
srsly though, I understand and agree with his point. I got into a debate with a friend of mine a few years ago while he was driving us somewhere- he was whining about taxes and stated that his ideal world would be a survival of the fittest where every individual sinks or swims on his own merit. My response was basically "good luck building and powering your own car then."
Bit of a shaky retort now that I think about it, but the point was that while there does come a point where personal responsibility is important, Humanity's greatest strength is its ability to cooperate with one another to achieve something far greater than the sum of its parts. Generally speaking, the things we do that help an individual indirectly help us all.
Tzeentch
Some mother****er knows exactly how that mouse works, why it was created that way and out of what materials.
Spoiler:
cutting edge
😖hifty:
Important, and definitely hard to really get your head around for any given service/product, if it's possible at all. Everything's connected now. Modern cars are a good example, though. I think I was first introduced to the concept—ugh, not the concept of cars—when I read a piece in an in-flight magazine about the production of Coke cans, I'll try to find something online that does it justice.
This is all 100% accurate, and yet I don't sound a thing like any of these accents.
Yeah, my bad.
Originally posted by psmith81992That's good. I'd say that it'd be enough to make Putin pull back some, and that'd be fine by me. But if you want his complete capitulation, then I don't think it's enough. Obama and the EU would have to go even further, and that would start to harm the EU a little too sorely.
It's very weird indeed, they could have done this months ago. The point is, they can do something that would gravely affect Russia's economy while only moderately affecting the rest of the world.
Originally posted by psmith81992Well the definition of warmonger I'm going by is Wiktionary's, and my hardback copy of Oxford's: a person who seeks to bring about or promote war. By those definitions, even as a non-pejorative, you seem to be one.
Trying to stop something anti western doesn't make it a "western value". We did what the rest of Europe was powerless to do at that time. How does that make it a western value? I made the specific distinctions because apparently your definition of a war monger is a very broad one.So to throw it back on you, do you believe any military aggression against anti western values (that threaten the rest of the world), makes one a war monger?
Further, do you believe the support of the outright annihilation of Hamas makes someone a war monger? If so, you and I are so far apart on the issue, there's no point in continuing dialog and we'll just agree to disagree.
I would call anti-communism a facet of being pro-capitalism, and I'd call being beholden to capitalism a value, both personal and national. Engaging in pro-Cap/anti-Com military engagements certainly feels like going to war for the sake of ideals. Just to be a clear, I'm not opposed to going to war to protect, or... and this is iffy... to promote a nation's values or ideas. I'm torn depending on the exact scenario and context. The West taking on Russia directly to protect Ukraine's territory... I'm not so sure.
As for the current Hamas thing... Again, I'm torn. To specifically seek the "outright annihilation", as you put it, of the group---as in, to kill them all--smacks of irrational nationalism and jingoism. You know the, "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out!" kind of rhetoric? I've never liked that attitude, no matter who it's from or who it's directed toward. Even Canadians can pull that shit. But Hamas have openly stated that they'll never accept Israel's existence--their charter is pretty clear on their intent. I'm not against their destruction, it's the collateral damage that will pile high on top that makes me wonder if it's worth it.
I'm with Blax that a full scale engagement with Hamas is unwarranted in this case. It was an overreaction to an otherwise small event. However, I don't think that the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli nationals by Hamas (or whichever Palestinian responsible) should go unanswered for. I don't know what the most reasonable, proper course of action is.
Originally posted by NephthysYou probably have an Anime accent by now.
YouTube videoThis is all 100% accurate, and yet I don't sound a thing like any of these accents.
Good post, currently in airport lounge with spotty wifi so will get back with you in flight. Talk about dedication
Edit: Just noticed this. Good move by obama.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/29/obama-to-speak-at-white-house-expected-to-announce-sanctions-on-russia/
Nice. Shame it took hundreds of their citizens being violently killed before the EU decided to dig it's heels in deeper.
Somewhat related: contrast the violent, explosive, murder of hundreds of people and the subsequent non-military reactions from the EU... to the kidnap and murder of the three Israelis and their fully fledged military reaction. Not a judgement, but one scenario has a coalition of like-minds non-violently opposing a large power to achieve their means, and the other has a (relatively) large power using violence on a small, pathetic coalition to achieve their means. Both were escalated in their severity by the purposeful(?) killings of civilians from the responsive country--one is measured and reasonable, the other... not so much.
It's all jolly good timing.
That's good. I'd say that it'd be enough to make Putin pull back some, and that'd be fine by me. But if you want his complete capitulation, then I don't think it's enough. Obama and the EU would have to go even further, and that would start to harm the EU a little too sorely.
Well the definition of warmonger I'm going by is Wiktionary's, and my hardback copy of Oxford's: a person who seeks to bring about or promote war. By those definitions, even as a non-pejorative, you seem to be one.
I would call anti-communism a facet of being pro-capitalism, and I'd call being beholden to capitalism a value, both personal and national. Engaging in pro-Cap/anti-Com military engagements certainly feels like going to war for the sake of ideals. Just to be a clear, I'm not opposed to going to war to protect, or... and this is iffy... to promote a nation's values or ideas. I'm torn depending on the exact scenario and context. The West taking on Russia directly to protect Ukraine's territory... I'm not so sure.
As for the current Hamas thing... Again, I'm torn. To specifically seek the "outright annihilation", as you put it, of the group---as in, to kill them all--smacks of irrational nationalism and jingoism. You know the, "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out!" kind of rhetoric? I've never liked that attitude, no matter who it's from or who it's directed toward. Even Canadians can pull that shit. But Hamas have openly stated that they'll never accept Israel's existence--their charter is pretty clear on their intent. I'm not against their destruction, it's the collateral damage that will pile high on top that makes me wonder if it's worth it.
Emphasis on the bold text. That is precisely I would push for a complete annihilation. There will never be peace between Israel and Hamas. They will continue killing their citizens and ours, until they are all dead.
And for all the shit I give Obama because I do think he hasn't really done well during his presidency, I completely disagree with a lot of my retarded zionist friends about his stance on Israel. He publicly hasn't supported Israel but when you look at his actions, how could you not see his support? He continues funding Israel, repeatedly blocks various UN sanctions condemning Israel, etc. I don't really care if he personally supports Israel or is upholding the US' long standing policy of being Israel's #1 supporter, but he's definitely throwing his weight around in their support. Obviously not as strong as Bush did or most Republicans would want but can't really criticize him, he's just following his party ideals.
Originally posted by psmith81992If you define war as "collective killing for a collective purpose", and if you're amidst a genocide, then a war has already been waged upon you. At that point you're either defending yourself from an attack you didn't start, or you're dying. The burden of being "pro-war" wouldn't be yours anymore, it'd be the genocidal maniacs who attacked you. They'd be the warmongers.
Then I must say, that is one hell of a loose definition. If I "promote war" as a means of defending my people in the midst of genocide, does that make me a war monger? If the Jews promoted a retaliation for the Holocaust, does that make them war mongers? That definition makes zero sense without context.
Agreed though, loose definition. English is colorful like this.
Originally posted by psmith81992I'm not going to pretend to be even remotely knowledgeable about the nature of the coups, so I won't comment.
The lines are so blurred here, which is kind of my point. Containment was based on preserving capitalist ideals by defeating anti capitalist ideals. It's kind of hard to acknowledge one without the other. I agree that our "war for preservation" sometimes is masked by 3rd party objectives such as oil, but I felt Chilean and Guatemalan coups, and especially Vietnam, were very as much for the preservation of western values as the defeat of anti western values.
I wonder though, given the majesty of hindsight, whether intervening in Vietnam was the smartest choice to make, given it's end result. If the country had become Communist 10 years prior to the South's fall, would America and the West have been worse off than they were post-war? Whatever damage that could have been done had the U.S. not gone to 'Nam, do you think it would have been worse than the cost of the Vietnam War? Did that war prevent something much worse than itself?
Originally posted by psmith81992If I was an Israeli national, living in the country, serving in it's mandatory military, I'd certainly feel differently. But since I don't, I'm not going to squander the opportunity to take a different approach.
Emphasis on the bold text. That is precisely I would push for a complete annihilation. There will never be peace between Israel and Hamas. They will continue killing their citizens and ours, until they are all dead.And for all the shit I give Obama because I do think he hasn't really done well during his presidency, I completely disagree with a lot of my retarded zionist friends about his stance on Israel. He publicly hasn't supported Israel but when you look at his actions, how could you not see his support? He continues funding Israel, repeatedly blocks various UN sanctions condemning Israel, etc. I don't really care if he personally supports Israel or is upholding the US' long standing policy of being Israel's #1 supporter, but he's definitely throwing his weight around in their support. Obviously not as strong as Bush did or most Republicans would want but can't really criticize him, he's just following his party ideals.
Hamas won't accept Israel's existence--probably never will, even if decades go by without any results. They occasionally kill Israeli soldiers and citizens, no doubt about it. But is the existence of an antagonist neighbor, and the fact of a handful of dead citizens, justification enough to blockade and then invade a territory composed mainly of disenfranchised and option-less civilians? The dead and suffering here are mostly civilian, just like in any war. If the death and toils could be bore by volunteer soldiers alone, it'd feel far more straight-cut, but since it's not... both sides deserve to be weighed. I'm not defending Hamas even slightly, but it's a retarded Zionist who doesn't even consider that there's a distinction to be made between them, the rest of the PLO, and the Palestinians as a people. Hamas's total annihilation will come at the cost of people who aren't involved. Just like in every war. And it's on their behalf that the conflict deserves to be scrutinized from more than one angle.
This is a devil's advocate approach, I know. But when it comes to issues of warfare and national violence, I abhor taking the approach of many nationalists and fanatical that there most certainly is "right", "true", or "just" approach, and dare not question any of it.
I wonder though, given the majesty of hindsight, whether intervening in Vietnam was the smartest choice to make, given it's end result. If the country had become Communist 10 years prior to the South's fall, would America and the West have been worse off than they were post-war? Whatever damage that could have been done had the U.S. not gone to 'Nam, do you think it would have been worse than the cost of the Vietnam War? Did that war prevent something much worse than itself?
In hindsight, it wasn't the smartest decision. If the country became Communist 10 years earlier, we wouldn't have recognized it as a significant threat. The threat of communism was masked by World War 2 and Fascism, so we didn't notice the potentially greater threat until the Russians began occupying Berlin. In retrospect, we shouldn't have gotten into a land war in Vietnam. However, it was a very delicate situation. We couldn't just bomb Northern Vietnam. The idea was to occupy the country, and install western friendly rulers. We grossly underestimated the difficulty of fighting a foreign war on foreign terrain against an enemy with home court advantage, being reinforced by the Russians and Chinese.
Hamas won't accept Israel's existence--probably never will, even if decades go by without any results. They occasionally kill Israeli soldiers and citizens, no doubt about it. But is the existence of an antagonist neighbor, and the fact of a handful of dead citizens, justification enough to blockade and then invade a territory composed mainly of disenfranchised and option-less civilians? The dead and suffering here are mostly civilian, just like in any war. If the death and toils could be bore by volunteer soldiers alone, it'd feel far more straight-cut, but since it's not... both sides deserve to be considered. I'm not defending Hamas even slightly, but it's a retarded Zionist who doesn't even consider that there's a distinction to be made--Hamas's total annihilation will come at the cost of people who aren't involved. Just like in every war. And it's on their behalf that the conflict deserves to be scrutinized from more than one angle.
Israel has been in a very precarious position since its creation in '48, and it has to retaliate with an iron fist to send a message to the 20 or so Muslim nations surrounding them that want them dead. That's obviously a very generic answer but I can't think of a better. more "political" way of doing things if I was in their shoes.
Originally posted by psmith81992The classic blunder--getting involved in a land war in Asia.
In hindsight, it wasn't the smartest decision. If the country became Communist 10 years earlier, we wouldn't have recognized it as a significant threat. The threat of communism was masked by World War 2 and Fascism, so we didn't notice the potentially [b]greater threat until the Russians began occupying Berlin. In retrospect, we shouldn't have gotten into a land war in Vietnam. However, it was a very delicate situation. We couldn't just bomb Northern Vietnam. The idea was to occupy the country, and install western friendly rulers. We grossly underestimated the difficulty of fighting a foreign war on foreign terrain against an enemy with home court advantage, being reinforced by the Russians and Chinese.[/B]
Originally posted by psmith81992That's just it, I don't know. I don't know what could have been done otherwise, what should have been done instead, and what I would do if it was up to me.
Then how would [b]you approach an enemy who is hell bent on your extermination, and will kill his and your citizens to achieve this goal? How would you respond each time they killed one of our citizens? Go *** for tat and kill one of theirs? Or send a message and make them look like the aggressor who clearly doesn't understand his or her pending extermination and is willing to take on collateral damage?Israel has been in a very precarious position since its creation in '48, and it has to retaliate with an iron fist to send a message to the 20 or so Muslim nations surrounding them that want them dead. That's obviously a very generic answer but I can't think of a better. more "political" way of doing things if I was in their shoes. [/B]
The entire conflict traces it's roots back a century, with blame being deservedly allocated to the European empires, the Germans, the League of Nations, the Arab states, the Israelis, and the Palestinians. Among others I'm sure.
There's no "right" answer for any of it. There's only reactions and responses on repeat. I think Hamas needs to be eliminated, but goddamn will I never say that "At what cost?" is not worth asking. No matter how deserving Israelis are of security, or how just their victories feel, it's always worth remembering their opponents are humans too. And even if you don't agree with them, they're worthy of empathy and understanding. Too often it's the complete lack of those traits that leads to conflict and violence in the first place.
Disclaimer: I don't actually want to argue this with any of you, but I recently articulated my position to a couple of friends and figured I may as well do so here. If you must respond, keep it to, like, two points. I do not want to argue about my opinions of the intent of the governing parties. I think I am sufficiently well-informed and far enough removed from the conflict to have formed a cogent position, and I will probably attribute deviation from this position to bias or asymmetrical information, or both. I would like to hear what your thoughts are on the merits of Israel's retention of land, i.e. why shouldn't it give any up? Why not truly share Jerusalem? I have not seen any convincing opinions on this in the pieces I've read that didn't devolve into religious mush, aside perhaps from general security concerns. Is that your reasoning?
To be frank, I don't think this carnage will end—in a manner that doesn't completely destroy the Palestinian people—until Netanyahu and his ilk and their supporters are gone and replaced by folks who are willing to swallow some bitter medicine in the name of a just, lasting peace. The Palestinians want an accord that gives them their land back, one without the caveats Israel has historically flaunted and abused. They don't want seam zones occupying a tenth of the West Bank, they don't want chunks of their population forcibly isolated from their own people by Israeli settler encroachments and military establishments, they don't want Israel to control their population registry and be able to withhold Palestinian taxes, and they would like to be accorded the same right to self-governance that the West so sympathetically (only about half sarcasm) granted the Zionists, meaning no foreign power can just waltz in and seize their land, detain them by the thousands, and feel good about providing fifty-seven-second courtesy calls before bombing their homes to hell with complete impunity. They want to be treated like human beings and to be recognized as a legitimate, unified people with rights under international law by the international community. Until they get that they're going to support the only people willing to fight, unless Israel finally breaks their collective will. Maybe that's the plan.
Powerful people in Hamas were willing to negotiate before, willing to recognize the State of Israel in accordance with the Arab League's plan provided the Palestinian people were given the same recognition. If Israel is willing to end hostilities and give up land—without playing any of their usual games—and the United Nations grants extant Palestine its desired status, I think the Palestinians would gladly acquiesce, be it through Hamas or a resurgent PA or PLO or some mushed together union, whatever.
If Israel insists otherwise, and I'm scared that it always will, we can look forward to more bullshit pretenses, the rapid erosion of remaining goodwill towards Israel—which, to be clear, is bad for almost literally everyone down the line; when Israel's allies can't stomach it, can you imagine how much propagandist power its enemies have?—a resultant doubling down of Zionist fervor and aggression internally, and the continued ravaging of the Palestinian people.
to be clear
Although I think the manner of Israel's founding was unjust, I am sympathetic to its people and, as of now, their right to their own state. To a degree, what's done is done, and I will never advocate such total disenfranchisement of a people as would be required by the dissolution of Israel. And I greatly admire Israel's historical fortitude.
I also propose that Netanyahu and his ideological peers and predecessors are resolute scumbags and are going to continue to destroy their country's credibility in the eyes of the international community, which they don't care about as long as they have America's support. Hamas has committed terrible crimes during their insurgency, but they've gotten worse because the West has given them no other recourse. Think about the demographics involved here. If the Palestinian people are able to govern themselves, there will be a reckoning as they feel appropriate. Expressing outrage that Hamas has—passively or directly—martyred dozens or perhaps even hundreds of its own people is a pretty silly way to justify slaughtering thousands of them.
BUT THAT'S JUST MY OPINION GUYS
Haha, now what's the deal with ISIS, amirite?!
haermm
😐
The classic blunder--getting involved in a land war in Asia.
That's just it, I don't know. I don't know what could have been done otherwise, what should have been done instead, and what I would do if it was up to me.
think Hamas needs to be eliminated, but goddamn will I never say that "At what cost?" is not worth asking.
Before I address the rest of your concerns, this one needs clarification:
Why not truly share Jerusalem? I have not seen any convincing opinions on this in the pieces I've read that didn't devolve into religious mush, aside perhaps from general security concerns. Is that your reasoning?
You're advocating a two state solution, I get that. But at what point do you think that's possible, when one side wants the extermination of the other side. Granting a two state solution will make it strategically advantageous for the Palestinians to launch attacks against the Israelis, and because they're sharing the state in your two state solution utopia (just kidding), there will be even more collateral damage.
As for the rest, I'll address it tomorrow, it's getting late.
Edit: Really disagree with the following post:
Powerful people in Hamas were willing to negotiate before, willing to recognize the State of Israel in accordance with the Arab League's plan provided the Palestinian people were given the same recognition. If Israel is willing to end hostilities and give up land—without playing any of their usual games—and the United Nations grants extant Palestine its desired status, I think the Palestinians would gladly acquiesce, be it through Hamas or a resurgent PA or PLO or some mushed together union, whatever.
Let me make one thing perfectly clear before I pass out. The main disagreement I have with some of you is regarding whether or not the US should police across its own borders. I think we should despite knowing that "nobody" made us the world police. Dennis Prager once said something along the lines of, "why do the streets of LA need police but the rest of the world doesn't"? Nobody elected us but we're the only ones that can do it and in certain situations, we must. I think we should go into Syria although that's probably not popular opinion with Iraq and Afghanistan still in everyone's memories. But anyways, that's usually the crux of the arguments we have on international policy. Once we disagree on that issue, it becomes harder to reconcile the specific international issues.