Hugo

No, but you could stop telling them to have sex.

Fine posts, logical1, and nuclear.

And does that mean that absolutely nothing should be done about it? And what about all the other points I mentioned?

It's interesting to note that before Pearl Harbor, there was a large peace movement in the US, campaigning for isolationism. After Pearl Harbor, of course, the movement vanished, and those who had participated threw themselves behind their President. As in pretty much all of the Grand Alliance countries, internal political differences were all forgotten, to be resumed after victory. Until such time, the defeat of the enemy was to be the sole focus.

And what understanding do you have? I invite you to debate on the nuances of Islam with me. What is your position?

Riff, I can remember explaining this to you time and time again, and you insist on pretending that you can't or won't understand, and quite frankly I don't feel like explaining it again. Go read my previous posts for your answer. Oh, by the by, do you know Japan has never publicly apologised or paid compensation for its massacres in China? Some reliable sources cite perhaps 13 million Chinese dead - 130 times your 100,000. Why aren't you screaming for justice in Japan? Could it be because your anti-American bigotry has actually blinded you to the rest of the world - except, of course, when you can find some evidence of American wrongdoing? Yes, I already explained how. The Americans have made apologies and attempted to repair the damage of wrongful social policies, but as I said, the Japanese don't even admit wrongdoing. Most Japanese school textbooks won't even mention Japanese atrocities and many postwar Japanese believe that Japan was attacked by America and fought a defensive war. Why the massive double standard? There's only one explanation: you hate Americans. Nova, Ah, the arrogance of youth. You're going to have to wait awhile to understand the irony in that, but for the meantime, I have a book recommendation: "A New Age Now Begins", by Page Smith. It's almost 2000 pages, so it'll probably take you a while, but it's pretty comprehensive and when you finish you'll have some idea of what you are talking about. The beginning of the industrial boom in North America was chiefly through protestants in the Northern colonies and the legendary work ethics of the Puritans and the Quakers, and the great prosperity of such Northern colonies as Penn's Colony (Pennsylvania). The South had no such work ethic, and chiefly lived off slave labour. Because of their dependence upon slavery, and the ready availability of cheap land, unlike the North, there was no incentive to become more efficient and to develop industry. Quite simply, all their needs could be met through agriculture, and all economic expansion made simply by moving further inland along the great rivers. Their economy was much less efficient, and unlike the Northern protestants their "captains of industry" concerned themselves mostly with social life and partying rather than profits. This great imbalance led to the increasing Southern fear of marginalisation by the North, which caused the Civil War and at the same time decided its outcome even as it began. If you want to know more, I invite you to read the book I recommended. -- Winston Churchill Does that mean "we have the tools" or "we need the tools" to you? Europe wasn't calling. Dear me! French involvement was irrelevant. Britain could not have held the entire continent of North America with supply lines stretching over an ocean and a continent against a hostile populace and a wily native resistance. The cost of holding the colony of America would have far outweighed the benefits of holding it anyway. Most of the Southern agricultural product was exported. That's why the Northern naval blockade was so effective at damaging the Southern economy during the Civil War. It didn't. Book recommendation #2: Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler. Why? Justify that with economic figures, please. Or at least provide a source. If it's your communist nutjob teacher I'm going to laugh at you.

Christianity produced Hitler? Have you read Mein Kampf?

Or being French. Or British. Or Belgian. Or Russian. Or Filipino. Or being from any of the other hundreds of countries in the world that America hasn't attacked. This point of yours is frankly ridiculous, and I won't waste my time "addressing" it further. Get back to me when you have something to say.

My great-uncle was indeed at D-Day, in the Royal Armoured Corps. He got the George Cross because his tank was hit by a German artillery round and disabled, and his commander wounded. He got the rest of the crew to safety and then returned alone after dark, repaired the tank and drove it back, along with his commander, who was still alive. He became a firefighter after the war and was actually awarded the George Cross a second time (it's the highest award a British civilian can receive) for rescuing several people from the basement of a collapsed and burning building. My grandfather who was at Dunkirk was relocated to Burma afterward to fight the Japanese. He was not decorated as highly, but he finished the war with the rank of Major and a letter from the Queen granting him that title for use in his civilian life. He was recently incensed because they referred to him as "Mr." on his disabled parking permit instead of "Mjr". They were exceptions, being in the Army. The men of family have usually served in the Royal Navy.

Two years after Ground Zero, let us all pause for thought, if you have not already. Whatever your notions of the character of America the nation, let's remember Americans, the people, and the fact that the three thousand who died on 9/11 were all unique human beings like any of us, people with lives and families, human beings to whom all avenues of life are now closed before their time. They were merely the latest in a long line of people killed and oppressed for causes they perhaps didn't understand and certainly did not have any great interest in. The Jews who died in the gas chambers because of their religion, the Russians who were shot or died in slave labour camps to satisfy the paranoia of a tyrant, the Cambodians who were massacred simply because they were educated or travelled, and so on, were all victims, like those who died in 9/11. Perhaps it is impossible to achieve a world where there would be no more victims, nobody else killed to prove somebody else's point, but unless we try there is no hope for us.

Quite. To entitle the thread "Happy Anniversary" is quite possibly the most crass, insensitive and offensive thing you could have done here. Please remind me to come to the funerals of your children and dishonour their memories by casting aspersions on their character.

They wouldn't. And much would it avail them, I'm sure, as it availed the Iraqi armies in 1991 after 6 months to prepare and even longer in the knowledge that military opposition would probably come. This is a silly point to debate anyway. A second Korean War is pretty unlikely, and if Krazy Kim really thought he stood a snowball's chance in hell of surviving such a war he wouldn't be so keen to build nukes, now, would he? Don't take it from me, Nova, take it from him.

Sorry, but I don't see why I need to any more than I have. You have admitted that all of the abovementioned are definite problems, and maybe you disagree with the extent and the remedies, but nevertheless you consent that virtually all of these issues need to be addressed for the sake of the prosperity of the nation. With regard to the teen pregnancies, for instance, your point stands, but according to your figures we're only 0.7% lower than the highest peak. I wouldn't call that problem "solved". If crime had dropped 0.7% from it's highest rate ever, I wouldn't say that the crime problem was solved, would you? All I was intending to do is to dispel the notion that everything in Canada is rolling along just fine. Canada does have problems, real ones, that need addressing. I think, by your statements, that you agree with that - you agree that change and reform is needed in taxation structure, in healthcare funding, in education and so forth. Riff seems to be stating that no changes are necessary, that "Everythign is not wrong if you look at it. we are actually doing very very well", and clearly we both disagree with him on that score. That was all I was saying.

Nova, You mention slavery, but not the Civil War or the Emancipation Proclamation. You mention American industrial might, but you seem to think the USA was born a massive industrial power and have no grasp of the timeline. You claim that Britain could have stood against Germany indefinitely, but you plainly haven't heard of the lend-lease scheme or the Battle of the Atlantic. You think that America was built by France, but you greatly over-estimate the value of her contribution (Britain could not win the Revolution with or without France against her). You also seem to have forgotten who liberated the French from Germany... twice. There's not much point in us disussing this further while you refuse to acquaint yourself with the facts. It's also obvious that you just don't believe in fighting for anything, or nobility in any form. I will have you know that my family has a long history of military service, and many of my ancestors fought and died alongside Americans to free the world from tyranny. My great-uncle was awarded the George Cross for gallantry in Normandy. My grandfather watched many of his comrades-in-arms mown down at Dunkirk, dying in the vain hope of saving France from the Wehrmacht, and the SS and the Gestapo that followed them. My grandmother was a nurse and was burnt badly trying to save patients from her hospital after the Luftwaffe bombed it. I know my heritage, and I know my predecessors and fellow countrymen have fought evil and terror and often died fighting them. Many Canadians also fought this battle, but it seems that now many Canadians have forgotten what evil and terror look like and are determined that those lives shall have been spent in vain. I know that America is on the side of right, of freedom and justice, and that her enemy is evil and terrible. I hope that, again, America and her allies can prevail, because if they don't, the future of humanity will be truly horrible.

We just finished a very long thread in which it was established that that was not the case. We had input from a geneticist in this forum as well as many expert opinions from outside. I suggest you read it. If you truly believed in the equality of homosexuals, you wouldn't even care. The fact that you have concerned yourself with that question just confirms that, deep down, you have a problem with homosexuality. Not to get off-topic or anything.

First off, airlines have always had security procedures. Quite frankly, before 9/11 not many people thought that terrorists armed with packing knives would take over aircraft and fly them into buildings. They focused on the threats they knew about: bombs in luggage, guns and narcotics. To hold airlines responsible for not anticipating every mode of attack possible is ludicrous, as I said, these agencies are reactive, not proactive, and you cannot assume that you've thought of everything your opponent can do. Never underestimate your opponent. To build a wall or have a security procedure merely invites circumvention by your enemies, and this is precisely what happened here. Knowing that guns or bombs could not be smuggled on board aircraft with any degree of success, the terrorists elected to bring knives on board and make it a suicide mission. Secondly, El Al runs a very tight ship and I don't believe any El Al flights have been hijacked or bombed for a long time. But a lot of the procedures El Al uses would be unconstitutional in the US, and in order for US airlines to perform the same procedures the constitution would have to be rewritten to sacrifice more personal freedom for security - and it is said that he who sacrifices freedom for security will find himself with neither.

You haven't addressed a single one of my points. You won't cite any sources and you won't justify your opinions. At times, it seems you are agreeing with me, and yet you continue this thread as though it were an argument.

Excuse me, but I have something to point out here. What does America owe the rest of the world anyway? The USA was built by hard-working immigrants out of a wilderness. They fought for their independence and democracy and forged their nation in toil and blood. No foreign loans or investments helped build it. The land did originally come from the aboriginal Americans, but that issue is with them and I don't remember any Sioux or Iroquois terrorists attacking the WTC. America does not owe the outside world for its creation. America does not exist because of the rest of the world, it exists in spite of it, in spite of all the wars since the Revolution, through Hitler and Hirohito and all the others who would bring America down. America has been most generous to the outside world. Whereas many nations in history have exploited and enslaved their vanquished foes, America has invested her money and resources in rebuilding them. American aid and money pours out into the rest of the world, and the insufferably sanctimonious demand that that is not enough, that even more of America's self-created wealth must flow out and that even more American sons must die to resolve the problems of the rest of the world. Why? People such as Nova feel that success is shameful and that the USA must be punished for its success. I feel that success, gained honestly, is to be lauded and emulated. All that Nova's attitude amounts to is racism, because it's notable that despite the fact that Japan has been enormously successful since WWII, and despite the fact that Japan does owe the world significantly (both the nations that suffered under it in WWII, and the USA that rebuilt it), Nova is not calling for increased Japanese aid to the rest of the world and that Japanese servicemen be sent all over the world to police it's problems. So there you go, Nova. I'm calling you a bigoted and unreasonable anti-American who believes in the punishment of success and the reward of failure. Do you have a response? For my part, I'm British, and I am well aware that without the aid of the USA my country would probably have been under the Nazi jackboot in 1940. I'm also happy that Britain has been able, in some measure, to repay the favour by standing firm with America against their common foes as we have done throughout the 20th Century. I feel that I can stand tall and be proud of my country, and that we stand beside our allies and fight the good fight. I don't have to be ashamed that my country has no morals, can't tell good from bad and is too cowardly to get involved in anything, even though it will inevitably affect it for good or ill.

Suing the airlines is like imprisoning the murder weapon. The airlines may have allowed it to happen by their inaction, but by failing to give more generously to charity I am allowing people in Africa to starve by my inaction - am I a murderer? After all, I have money to spare - I could give more generously if I wanted to. The airlines were not responsible. The FBI and the CIA were not responsible. They were all trying to prevent such a thing from happening, but to hold them responsible because it happened is like holding the police responsible for every crime that's successfully committed. Those aforementioned agencies are reactive, not proactive, and cannot anticipate everything. If they did not do their jobs as well as they could or should have, that is lamentable. However, if they had been negligent and Al-Queda did not exist, 9/11 would not have happened, therefore, they still are not responsible. Al-Queda was responsible, and President Bush made them pay, as Clinton promised and failed to do so a long time ago.

OK, this is where your ignorance really shines. The modern carrier group, the most awesome naval force ever created by man, is "pathetic." Sure, you can lob a tactical nuke and eliminate it, but you risk the enemy taking that as the signal for nuclear escalation and laying off your cities and industrial areas. Some strategy! I don't think the Russians were ever that stupid, and if you have any evidence to the contrary I'd like to hear it. I'll tell you what General Sir John Hackett, long-standing NATO general and military strategist, had to say about Soviet nuclear policy. It was that, while the Kremlin initally viewed the nuclear weapon as just another tool and planned for a nuclear battle and a nuclear battlefield, the fact that Washington viewed nuclear weapons as separate from conventional ones forced them to rethink their strategy and develop weapons systems and strategies for the strictly conventional battlefield. After all, there is no pertinent reason why the Politburo would risk the destruction of Moscow and Leningrad for the sake of the annexation of West Germany. Once again with the ignorance. Artillery is support weaponry, not main battle weaponry. If US ground forces roll into Korea in strength any and all NK artillery batteries will be overrun before they've fired a second salvo. Not to mention constant air attack, incredibly accurate counterbattery fire and so forth. Come off it! Goose-stepping makes you a better soldier? The training level of the PLA is an absolute joke. Why 5 minutes? As I said, without a good ground force artillery is useless. US counterbattery fire and air support would make mincemeat of NK artillery. You might lose large parts of South Korea in the process, but that is a cross that will have to be borne. Once the full power of the US military is brought to bear the rout of the NK army will be far faster than the advance. You seemingly have no idea how powerful the USA is. It is the world's largest, best trained and most advanced military force by a very long way. The USA does not dominate the world as Britain did in 1870, it dominates the world as Rome dominated Europe under Trajan. You might think I need to read up on sociology, but we are not discussing sociology here but military strategy and it's clear you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. A Russian sailor, indeed. What was his name and rank, what military district did he come from, what vessel(s) did he serve on and where?

First off, I never said that America might use the same strategy as they did in Iraq, I merely said that they doubtless have one. Let's go over some of the finer points of military strategy that you have missed here. AAA looks very imposing to the untrained eye but is never, ever a substitute for a strong interceptor force. Two hours after a war began there would be no North Korean air force. I am a friend of a USAF major, an F-16 pilot, who was awarded the Silver Star in Kosovo. He tells me that is absolutely no problem for an F-16 flight to take out 3 or 4 SAM positions in one sortie, since he has done it himself. A single American carrier can launch about eight hundred sorties a day, I hear. The 7th Fleet alone has 2 carriers. Add reinforcements and land-based aircraft. Don't forget, too, that US bombers fly far out of the range of ground missiles and guns. The only effective countermeasure, whether you can see the enemy or not, is an air force. But as I said, there wouldn't be an enemy air force after two hours. North Korean air defences would be obliterated soon after. The reason the US has not invaded is that although they would undoubtedly win, it would probably be more costly than Iraq, and it would be a better solution to have China reign NK in under pressure. Historically, China regards Korea as a buffer zone and has always responded with force to any attack on Korea, so war with North Korea also means war with China, which is definitely a nuclear power. It would be wise to first split NK and the PRC diplomatically, and I believe this is already in progress. Don't forget the factor of the NK regime itself. Once it looks like NK stands a chance of losing (which won't take more than 5 minutes), expect mass desertions. American and British forces are all-volunteer organisations made of long-serving, experienced troops who have asked to serve their country and are serving a free regime. North Korean soldiers are conscripts, drafted against their will in most cases, and are therefore inexperienced and ill-motivated. They are serving a brutal regime that has tortured and killed many of their fellow countrymen and that now expects them to give their lives to protect it. North Korea is probably going down. I think first the US will attempt to drive a wedge between China and NK, but nevertheless the game is likely up for Pyongyang.

This forum has excellent search tools. Why not use them? The only circumstance in which I'm willing to enter into any further debate on this matter is if Chater (or anyone else, for that matter) can bring up a point that has not already been addressed and is worthy of discussion. Otherwise I, for my part, consider it closed.

Didn't we already talk about this at great length? Unless there is some new point you wish to bring up I don't think there's much else to be said.

I doubt it. I would stake $1000 that great military minds at the Pentagon have spent many man-years thinking about North Korean war scenarios and have something worked out. Let me show you a parallel. In 1991, Iraq had the world's 4th largest army. The air defences of Baghdad were renowned to be impenetrable. They had 6 months to dig themselves in, and they did, with massive anti-tank berms and thoroughly prepared positions. They prepared to give the Coalition the Mother of All Battles. Once the assault got underway those defences promptly collapsed. Iraqi air defences and air forces were obliterated within hours and Coalition aircraft flew virtually unopposed. The ground war became a race to try to destroy as much Iraqi war materiel as possible before they could pull it back and retreat. Captured Iraqi soldiers believed they were under air attack, as US tanks were scoring hits on their positions at ranges of 3km and more, at which range they couldn't even see what was shooting at them. They took to rotating the turrets of their T-72s by hand because the minute they activated the motors, the heat would show up on American night-sights and several 120mm rounds or TOW missiles would promptly come flying at them. I'm confident that any North Korean invasion of South Korea would become a similar turkey shoot for US forces.

Osama bin Laden is still at large. He is being hunted, but unfortunately in a world of almost 6 billion people it's hard to find one man, especially if he doesn't want to be found and is well versed in the art of evading capture by the authorities. However, most of Al-Queda's supporters are dead, most of their training camps are rubble and no nation is going to be stupid enough to endorse them after what happened to the Taliban. Apart from hollow threats on videotapes, the world has probably heard the last of Al-Queda. In that regard, Operation Enduring Freedom was a resounding success. Not to mention that now, the Afghan people have at least a shot at prosperity and democracy and Afghan women don't have to choose between literacy and stoning. But I suppose you think that is all part of the world's rich cultural mosaic, don't you?