Oh, come on. You cannot be serious about that. I'm not talking about preferences in lifestyle here but of political and social views. You can do better than that. There are already too many unfitting comparisons and analogies in this thread. No need to add one more
And if you read my text carefully, then you realized that I'm not suggesting that anyone here is sharing Hitler's mindset, but that you can get quite close to it, when you let personal feelings of anger dominate over your rational mind. You don't need somebody like me to tell you that, or?
Also it's symptomatic how everything I wrote is completely ignored and only the one point is being picked, where an attack seems possible.
I guess my real point is that WW2 mobilized the simple fabric of the whole American nation. The war on terror is nowhere close to it. It's nowhere near.What is war if not a large-scale armed conflict?
The invation of Poland started September 1st, but I'm inclined to agree it didn't become a world war until September 3rd. A conflict between Germany and Poland isn't a world war. That said, I don't think it became a world war before December 7th 1941 anyhow, that's the moment when pretty much every continent were involved in war in Europe, Africa and the Pacific at the same time, the time when the lines got linked, you might say.Every history book I've ever seen sets the first day of the war as September 1st, 1939 - not September 3rd.
Give their cables to Assange, and he'll publish'em. Too bad he didn't get his hands on Russian cables first. Then the US would give him political asylum and not a single company or bank would mess with him. Isn't it funny?Russia wants Assange to get a Nobel.
Care to open up your diplomatic cables Russia?
<sexy azian hitlers>
/thread
First of all, i was dead serious in my Godwin accusation.Oh, come on. You cannot be serious about that. I'm not talking about preferences in lifestyle here but of political and social views. You can do better than that. There are already too many unfitting comparisons and analogies in this thread. No need to add one more
And if you read my text carefully, then you realized that I'm not suggesting that anyone here is sharing Hitler's mindset, but that you can get quite close to it, when you let personal feelings of anger dominate over your rational mind. You don't need somebody like me to tell you that, or?
Also it's symptomatic how everything I wrote is completely ignored and only the one point is being picked, where an attack seems possible.
But that's not the war on terror there, what are you talking about? All operations were deemed finished in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's just occupation now, and the US is still scared shitless of terrorists, or so they seem to be. So it's not "won" or "lost" cos the actual war on terror is still going on. The illegal war on Iraq is a totally different thing and I think you should not mix, in this case, not apples with oranges, but more like rotten apples with cashews.
Perhaps I'm not a journalist either? Perhaps a doctor isn't a doctor if he's got a political agenda? And what about authors? Are they authors if they're maoists? No? What about neocons?
It's not up to him, it's not up to the US government and it's not up to anyone to define a journalist negatively.
The invation of Poland started September 1st, but I'm inclined to agree it didn't become a world war until September 3rd. A conflict between Germany and Poland isn't a world war.
And I should have specified that I was referring to said journalist.I never stated anything opposite to what you are going off about. I was just stating that someone else defined journalist differently. I also don't think the definition of what Wikileaks is excludes the protection granted under law. I also never stated that having an agenda discredits any profession. If my poor ability to write has created that misconception then I apologize.
Yeah, a war.Not a world war - but a war nonetheless.
First of all, i was dead serious in my Godwin accusation.
Three things. First of all, i am talking about both the War On Terror and Iraq. While different in many aspects, they are similar in that they a) are both wars and b) are both wars of questionable legal and moral status.
Second, you are, all the time, using a vocabulary of warfare, maybe even of war crimes, as in "occupation", for example. You yourself said that the "war on terror" is an "armed conflict", so it's not part of civil society, which means normal laws can hardly be applied. But if you say it is not a war, you can't accuse anyone of war crimes. Which is what you do the whole time, maybe even rightly so: accusing the USA of war crimes. Unwantingly, you support the logic behind Guantanamo Bay: It's not civil life, so there's no need to treat the prisoners like normal criminals with Miranda Rights and everything, but it's not a war either, so the prisoners are no POWs under protection by the Geneva Convention. Is this really what you want?
Third, if a war ends in a defeat or a win and even if it's declared a win if all goals once set are reached, has nothing to do with it being a war.
Anyways, the non-smoking vegetarian mentioned above just arrived so i'll leave people being wrong on the internet alone for the night.
Sarah Palin should just stick with porn and keep her mouth shut.
Why shouldn't she? Are my opinions too unpleasant for her to address? Is it difficult to understand that people have differing opinions on this issue? If you want to blow me off thats fine but understand that not everyone agrees with what is going on here and it's not because "we don't understand".
So would you mind telling me how WWII would have ended if the gov'ts of the Allies didn't work in secrecy? What about technological information? The details and plans for future nuclear plants held by the US's NRC are contained in confidential documents, should we release those to world? Should we let people know how to infiltrate the security systems of power plants, refineries, military bases, etc.? Where does it end? When can there be secrecy?
Confidential documents go beyond the cables of gov't diplomats, I will agree that a lot of them are bullshit and pointless but there are many that need to remain secret. The other issue with release documents is that of context, how can one ensure that a released document will be understood in the context of its information?
this argument is leaning to one side (IMO) and no matter what is said to counter the argument, its wrong. im glad people are passionate about their views on this but an open mind is a good thing. im not talking about everyone and im not going to point anyone out but ill just say that this is a pointless argument when one side is so locked and just wants to counter everyones opinion. unfair. its easy to make yourself look right when you smash down the answers/replys of the other partys no matter how relevent they are. think about that...