carepov

I'm glad that you see the "victors hypocrisy". If not "war crime", what term do you propose for the unnecessary killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians?

I'm sure that you would agree that those convicted of war crimes are almost certainly on the loosing side, no?

I am not a court (nor a general nor a historian) just an online poster and I judge that the dropping the bomb on Nagasaki and the bombing of Dresden were not warranted by military necessity, and therefore war crimes. Some sitauations are depatable, to to me it is obvious, based on how the was was going Again, your naivite shines brightly. Even bc2004 agrees. You seriously don't think the hypothetical German or Japanese general that ordered the A-bomb would have been charged and convicted with war crimes?

I don't get it. How could one loose a war, and yet call it "not a mistake"? OK, but imagine how much more power the US would have had if they had not blundered. Your taxes would prbably be lower too. No.

Up until now, in my book, giving someone "the benefit of the doubt", meant "trusting them". I will rephrase and state that giving rulers the benefit of the doubt is naive. Abu Ghraib is a good example to give Omar. What other power is history would ever enable such self-reflection and criticism? If the Germans or Japanese had dropped atomic bombs on two Allied cites 3 days apart, would they be war crimes?

It looks like a defection to me. Your opinions that Vietnam and Iraq 2003 were not mistakes are contrary to conventional wisdom. I was hoping that you could elaborate a little more, given that it seems so obvious to me that both wars greatly diminished US power and to me are obvious mistakes that should not be repeated.

I was following the conversation until this post. Can you explain?

Mostly agree. I am not labelling all mistakes as war crimes, just a few of them. Do you think that the West has committed any war crimes in the last 70 years? First: Have you read the Prince by Machiavelli ? Your trust of rulers is naive. Second: You are making Omar's point. "Changing the rules" is exactly what the army of US-led Western sycophants do all the time. It is OK for us to invade, but not Russia. It is OK for us to torture, trust us. It is OK for us to kill extra-judiciously, we have a system.

Hypotheticaly, the CIC turns to you for advice on the eve of these wars, what advice would you give?

So if you could go back, you would do it all over again?

Perhaps. My main point is that the US has shown unprecedented restraint in exercising its power.

Agree to disagree... Was the war in Vietnam an error? Was the Iraq invasion of 2003 an error?

You are right, you could write volumes to describe the evils of any empire, including the American. However, you could also write volumes about American led positive deeds. In many cases, American actions were unprecedentedly good. -For example, how many empires would rebuild a country like Japan, hand power back so quickly, and allow them to become the #2 economic power? -As I mentioned, the very lens by which we are judging the West (International Law, UDHR, the UN itself...) would not exist without US leadership. -The openness and tolerance of the US Government to criticism (internal and external) is also IMO unprecedented.

In your opinion, has the US Government made any errors?

While I reject Omar Chomsky's notions that the US led West is the most evil empire ever, you must admit we did some evil ***, including terrorizing civilian populations. Military and political leaders - no matter what their nationality - do not rise to the top through honesty. You give these leaders the "benefit of the doubt"? Now that's what I call naive!

You do not need 20/20 vision, heck even a blind person could see that on August 8, 1945 a second A-bomb was not necessary, and especially not necessary on a populated area. This was a clear error. The West has made plenty of them. Well, nobody except for the Russians, Chinese, Spanish, Germans, Italians, Japanese, Arabs, Turks....

Some people however remind me of me when I first heard of Chomsky, Zinn, etc... while I was at university. Tim, we were all naive at one time, and many of us were idealistic in our youth. hmmm... Wouldn't the term naive hypocrite be an oxymoron? Are you sure the fact that Japan and Germany's resources were depleted was not the primary reason for the end of WWII? The Allies certainly could have won the war with less collateral damage. More importantly, what could have been done to prevent the wars? In Europe at least, I might argue that there was no actual WWI and WWII, just one Great War with a cease-fire.

Just to be 100 % clear, the US government, and its western allies, have committed inexcusable war crimes and I do not want you to have the impression that I am justifying or appeasing. Most notable to me (1939-2015) are: -Fire-bombing of Tokyo. Arguably, dropping the first A-bomb on a city but definitely, dropping a second A-bomb -Dresden -Vietnam -Latin America in the 70's and 80's -2003 Iraq War Some of the recent historical context includes: -~100 million casualties in the "Great Wars" -The Korean War -Soviet Gulags and other war crimes -The Cultural Revolution -The War Crimes of Saddam Hussein (yes I know he was at one time supported by the US) It is fine to be a little idealistic. Yes it would be great is the West fully respected international laws, human rights and stopped their blatant hypocrisy. On the other hand, one needs to be realistic. Real progress is being made! I would argue that without the West there would be no international laws nor UDHR.

There are plenty of people that talk about it, like Chomsky. Most people don't care; life is generally good and busy. Sports, entertainment and gossip are more interesting. Some people accept the criticism, however they put historical events in context. Has there ever been an empire with less blood on their hands than the US? Also, it is important to recognize progress, many argue that today (1945-2015) it the most peaceful non-violent time ever.

I feel the same as you but can imagine situations where it would be advantageous to be gay. For example, if I had a passion for sailing and wanted to be in the navy...

Sure, parents are the most important factor, but there's more. How do kids succeed despite incompetent/apathetic parents? Why do some kids with great parents fail? The Finish school system is a great model for the rest of the world. It shares many of the philosophies of most homeschoolers: -Kids don't start school until they are 7. 0-6 is 100 % play time -Less testing -Less schoolwork/classtime and more play time, especially outside -Less homework -Teachers are given more freedom -PBL is very common in homeschooling (unit studies)

Bill Gates, like Patrick Moore, is also a big supporter of Golden Rice: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/what-we-do/global-development/agricultural-development/golden-rice

Yes Patrick Moore made a boo boo. Who hasn't? I have great respect for David Suzuki and he has made quite a few whoppers over the years... This is a bit long, 16 minutes, but it is really hilarious. It is all good and relevant but if you are in a hurry go to 12 minutes when he talks about Monsanto. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulq0NW1sTcI

Except in the controlled study where both groups had the luxury: "And if the recruitment process selected for homeschoolers with high skill levels, we can say the same about public school students. Both groups--structured homeschoolers and public schoolers--consisted of volunteers. Both tested well above grade level." I share your views regarding tests that are not apples-to-apples and I agree that homeschooling, like anything else, has to be done right to work. Had you started with the above instead of the below we probably would have avoided this exchange. "Pretty much every other impartial test suggests that most homeschoolers are not getting the best education , and plenty of the parents refuse to have their kids tested."

Do you have any data that suggest that, on average, homeschoolers are getting an inferior education to non-homeschoolers? The study provided by Guyser did attempt to controland adjust for those factors, expanding on my preious quote: Overall, the structured homeschooling group performed much better than the public school group. And the margin was pretty dramatic. In 5 of 7 test areas, (word identification, phonic decoding, science, social science, humanities) structured homeschoolers were at least one grade level ahead of public schoolers. They were almost half a year ahead in math, and slightly, but not significantly, advanced in reading comprehension. But this is a relatively small study. Was the homeschool advantage due to random factors? It's unlikely. Researchers calculated the probabilities of getting these results due to random chance alone. For science and calculation, these probabilities were 1.9% and 2.6%. For word identification, decoding, and social science, the probabilities were all below 0.07%. Was the homeschool advantage merely the result of socioeconomic privilege? That seems rather unlikely too. Homeschoolers retained their edge even after researchers made statistical adjustments for differences in family income and mother’s education level. And if the recruitment process selected for homeschoolers with high skill levels, we can say the same about public school students. Both groups--structured homeschoolers and public schoolers--consisted of volunteers. Both tested well above grade level. So the implications seem clear: Canadian kids receiving structured home schooling are testing very well, and it's not merely a reflection of their parents' affluence or educational levels. http://www.parentingscience.com/homeschooling-outcomes.html