JamesHackerMP

What do you mean by that? President Erdogan sounds a bit like he's advocating "lebensraum".

How would that work? Minorities in the US consider themselves Americans. And--though I hate to stoop to what a British acquaintance of mine calls 'whataboutery'--what about the Kurds in your own country? Would you like them to establish their own minority state? What "terror organizations" are the Canadian troops fighting for in Afghanistan? Let's be clear.

I think that's fake news, Altai, about having to sign a paper. That's ridiculous. As far as freedom of speech vs. treason, the United States actually gives a bit more leeway than other democracies when it comes to state secrets. It's difficult for the government to suppress anything that is published, prior to its being printed. Look up New York Times v. United States and you'll see what I mean.

I'm curious, Altai, have you traveled outside Turkey?

Hmmm, good point Michael. Take into account, that during the Weimar Republic, public participation in politics and political organizations was actually HIGHER than in present-day Germany. (If that tells us anything.)

Holy crap.....sorry to hear. Your soul maybe. But he won't be able to do much about the missile. But three days later, he'll mysteriously move the slab of concrete and come out of his fallout shelter.

And what authority would you trust more, than someone who used to spread that propaganda for a living? Seriously hotenough, your screen name must imply the temperature of the air between your ears.

Altai, do you really believe what you're saying about the US being behind this? Or are you just dicking around?

The built in danger to all democracies is "the tyranny of the majority." essentially the 50% + 1 run have the power to force the 50% - 1 to do what the former wants. by the way: what's "sofrito sauce"?

Where are you exactly that you get tsunami warnings?

I wonder, hotenough, if the US would ever be able to do anything positive in your eyes---even if it actually did. Democracy, at any rate, back to the original subject, getting away from America-bashing: The flaw in democracy is that it gives the People what they desire, but what they want at the moment isn't necessarily what's best as far as the People's long-term interests. And the People are fickle. A direct democracy would get out of control, that's why we have republics (or crowned republics/constitutional monarchies with representative government, like Canada). The leaders need a little leeway to make decisions, sometimes independent of the wilder winds of public debate, believe it or not. It's a flawed system, but it's really the only thing that's better than dictatorship/despotism/whatever you want to call the nastier forms of government.

What, like Michael Moore? If there's any questions about the US government you may have---that is, those of you who came to this website for a learning experience rather than bash-the-USA---I'd be happy to answer. Most of you patiently answered mine about Canada.

Oh yeah, Operation Gladio. They mentioned that in an episode of Archer. Anywho, how is this on topic? UNGA? Oh, the UN General Assembly: where the dictatorships outnumber the democracies by, what, 10 to 1? Certainly a lot of countries who will zero in on everything the US does while being blind to what goes on in their own backyards (or even their own countries)? Look at who's in it and that might clue you in. but I'm probably being hopeful. You know what I meant by "toy mines" right? The soviets dropped children's toys. They looked like toys but they exploded in your hand when you picked them up. The goal was to get adults away from the war effort (stop them from fighting the soviet union) by forcing them to have to stay home to take care of their mutilated, handicapped children. A wounded child, reasoned the Politburo, was harder to take care of than a dead one. Really? What standard is that? You ask most Americans, they don't understand why we meddle in the affairs of the rest of the world. There seems to be a lot of that going around here. I never said the US was Mr Nice Guy! I said--and I'll say it again for your benefit (maybe you're in Quebec and English is actually your second language?) that you do NOT play Mr Nice Guy when you plan for your nation's survival. If you do, you're being negligent to your own people. You assumed I believe that, and it seems to indicate a very bigoted approach in your thinking toward the United States. We could go on for days bitching about the present--and former!--superpowers of the world and not get anywhere. (Including the superpower with which Canada is in a personal union. As an American, I appreciate the valiant effort Canadians have made contributing to the war on terror, and the NATO action in Afghanistan. Is your army not vicious to Canada's enemies? I would hope to hell it is, for Canada's sake. In this bastard of a world you do not survive by being Mr Nice Guy. PS, what does this have to do with myths about the US Constitution and political system?

It's funny, hot enough, how people hold the United States to a completely different (much higher) standard than any other superpower, including the two that spawned what is today Canada. Unlike the Soviets, we didn't drop "toy mines" in any war. Benevolent? Of course not! And I would also HOPE NOT!! you don't defend your people by being Mr Nice Guy. Any government that tries to do so is guilty of gross negligence. As far as the spoils system, the federal government used to have such a thing. For example, the Republicans took the White House in 1880, so all the White House employees from the previous administration lost their jobs, including James Garfield's assassin. But under Roosevelt (Teddy) and other presidents, there were reforms to make the civil service permanent employees of the state, rather than the personal servants of the ruler (see Coup d'Etat: A Practical Handbook by Edward N. Luttwak). I'm not talking about the most senior people, the appointees today are a drop in the bucket compared to the almost 3 million federal civil servants. So no, we don't still have a spoils system. Again, it sounds like someone's holding us to a standard of perfect which, quite frankly, doesn't exist among democratic governments.

Another other thing: in a full-scale nuclear war using ICBMs with MIRVs, they don't drop one huge bomb in the middle of a target anymore: they spread out the target area (like a city) with multiple, smaller warheads. More efficient destruction that way. No more Fail Safe-style "20 megaton" warheads dropped in the middle of Manhattan that would do the same job but be harder to deliver. There was a show back in 2006 called Jericho. Any of you catch that?

Damn. That really sucks. So there's no point in sheltering at all if you're too close? Of course, North Korea likely has very few hydrogen bombs. I wouldn't bet they are "deliverable" yet since they're more complicated weapons, probably--I assume--heavier than the old-style fission bombs. And it might not even be close to 1 megaton. If anywhere is hit by a NK missile, it's probably not going to be a 1 megaton hydrogen bomb. I just love how the shelter in the above diagram has "vents". Yeah, that's just what you need to protect yourself against radiation and fallout: a vent right into the open air. Looks like one of those plans they circulated in the 60s as a public band aid, not a really productive thing. You need an air intake with a centrifugal blower to let in oxygen (but filter out the fallout particles) and let out the carbon dioxide. In Switzerland, all houses built after 1960 must have government approved plans: so that they can see there is a workable fallout shelter in it. It's required by law. Who the hell has cobalt bombs? No point to doing it that way. You could hear the sirens in some part of Baltimore being tested every Monday at 1:00 p.m. when I was growing up (the 1980s). My parents carefully avoided actually telling me what it was for. We lived right outside the city limits in the suburbs, so the siren was probably a few miles away at least. Yeah, they'd be loud. 20 minutes should be enough to take cover---if you've got a fallout shelter. Oh another thing, the air intake pipe I mentioned: if a hydrogen bomb produces more heat and fire, wouldn't the fire burst right into the fallout shelter and incinerate its occupants immediately?

Turkey seems to be a completely independent part of the EU anyway. After a right-wing government came to power in Austria in the 1990s, they threatened sanctions. Turkey goes the way of dictatorship and they say nothing. Might as well blow up Brussels, it'll at least get their attention. (I mean that with some levity of course.)

The Great War trilogy is an extension of Guns of the South and How Few Remain. The CSA won the "war of secession", and the "second mexican war", and goes to war with the rump United States yet a third time after the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand in 1914. The War is "over here" instead of "over there". It was a good series. The American Empire trilogy covers the interwar years, and the rise of a dictator as President of the CSA (like Hitler did in Germany). Then there's a trilogy about WWII (I think it's called Settling Accounts or something) where the CSA gets its shot at revenge. General Custer, T. Roosevelt, Wilson, Eugene Debs, other real life personas make their appearances. Recently I also picked up Why I Hate Canadians and How to be a Canadian by Will Ferguson. They're pretty funny. (It's not an American bitching about Canada, it's a Canadian author taking a satirical look at his country's recent history and politics.)

Turtledove writes some neat books. I have read five of his books in entirety, and some of three of them: The Great War trilogy The Two Georges Blood and Iron (first in the "American Empire" trilogy) How Few Remain (didn't finish yet) Bombs Away (1st of the The Hot War trilogy--also didn't finish yet) Ruled Britannia (it sucked so I bailed) Read any of those yet, bcsapper? anyone?

I don't see what Syria, etc., has to do with the elimination of cash money in favor of digital. But I do understand your concern over corporate interests intervening in political affairs. I've found that money doesn't have much value unless it's stored in a bank's computers, that is, digital money. You can't buy off Amazon with hundred dollar bills, you're exactly correct about that. I might point out, however, that it's not just the current administration that does that. This is something that has been going on for years.

Besides, the Queen looks so cool on the money. Pity no one used those silly "presidential" dollar coins They actually stopped making them for general circulations because everyone hated them and no one used them. (Probably because the $1 note was never withdrawn, so people were never forced to use them.)

That's true. And of course there's the specter of identity theft!

Altai, there is a difference between "power" and "authority". If you read the Canadian constitution, in fact, there's not even a mention of the office of a prime minister (ditto Australia). Instead, it goes on quite a bit about the Queen's Privy Council of Canada and the office of Governor-General who is to "reign" on her behalf as a viceroy. In reality, she has no power in Canada, or in the UK, or any commonwealth realm for that matter. What's printed on paper often has a larger truth behind it. And in the UK, there's not even a piece of paper, at least, not a single document, that sets down the rules. These are rules which have been growing in size and scope since 1215. The issue of the crown possessing absolute power by the grace of god (Die Gratia Regina), was decided (more or less) in that year, when the King was forced, at sword point, to sign the Magna Carta. Though it took a while to sink in, the power of the crown has been in recess since then, or a little after that. Following a general election, the queen is obligated to "appoint" as PM the leader of the party that won the election, since the majority party leader is likely to command the "confidence" of the House of Commons. That, if I understand correctly, is how parliamentary democracy works. So the queen's "appointment" is entirely symbolic--it isn't an independent "choice" (therefore, authority, but no power). Once this prime minister is officially "appointed" by the queen (AFTER being put in place by the voters), and he/she "recommends" the cabinet to the queen (translation: the PM tells her whom to appoint, not the other way around), the PM and cabinet ("her Majesty's Government") basically tells the queen what to do, for the most part. Her constitutional "power" as you put it consists of three "rights": the right be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn. That's about it. The PM can respectfully nod his head during their weekly private audience, and then go and do whatever the hell he wants to. Ironically, the power possessed by your average president in your average presidential democracy doesn't come close to that of a prime minister if your average commonwealth realm (like UK, Canada, etc.) But those prime ministers come and go at the whim of the electorate and party politics. It's not an easy concept to understand, but there it is.

Um....and how did you arrive at the conclusion that it's really the USA in guise of ISIS?