Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 6 Oct 2006 14:33 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:2o6bi2ttekkan84qullno6ils8pnnmgdf1(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 23:21:31 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>news:g9c8i29evm2kjknll6i0e1ske20ourmbk6(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:51:08 +0100, Eeyore >>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>John Fields wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think the US's actions speak otherwise in that, clearly, we have >>>>> no aspirations to Empire. >>>> >>>>" the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational >>>>organization >>>>whose goal is to promote American global leadership " >>>> >>>>http://www.newamericancentury.org/aboutpnac.htm >>>> >>>> >>>>> Had we chosen to we could have kept >>>>> Germany and Japan after we beat them, but we didn't. >>>> >>>>The *USA* didn't beat them and they weren't yours to keep. >>> >>> --- >>> We sure as hell did, and they were spoils of war, to do with as we >>> saw fit. >> >>And you did. You held on to Japan for quite some time, and ensured the >>previous government system was never going to be returned. > > --- > Yes, and it's worked out quite well for everyone concerned, I > believe. A philosophical judgement call. When you say everyone you obviously don't include the Japanese ruling classes who lost power, so everyone is a misnomer. You say well, because the country has moved closer to what _your_ country sees as the ideal social / economic structure. Also, there is no way of knowing that the previous government wouldn't have been able to progress the country to a "better place" under it's own steam. Pretty much every country (with the exception of the US) has grown through stages of monarchies and despotisms into open and fair democracies. Even the Russians managed to grow into a democracy without an invasion. Assuming the current US model is indeed the "gold standard," then at best you can say you accelerated the Japanese progress in that direction, but you have no way of knowing what (if any) lingering resentment at a lack of self determination will grow in the coming decades or centuries. History is full of examples showing countries forced into alien governmental structures break up violently eventually. (Middle East is a prime example, we [tinw] forced nationhood onto disparate, nomadic tribes, and now we [tinw] are surprised they bomb everyone). Please don't misinterpret what I am saying, I don't doubt that Japan is a "better" society now than during the imperial days - however, I also don't think that is means it is better for everyone or that I have the final say on what is a good society and what isn't.
From: T Wake on 6 Oct 2006 14:42 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4525A7DD.C6B548A1(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> > T Wake wrote: >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> >> > T Wake wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Military Police patrolling civilian towns is not normal... The fact >> >> >> the idea was even suggested is shocking and I am ex-Army. >> >> > >> >> > What was the idea behind the use of MPs ? >> >> >> >> Civilian police were too undermanned to provide a suitable presence at >> >> weekends and it was thought that most of the drinkers would be local >> >> soldiers. >> > >> > I can see the logic in that. >> >> Possibly. It is wrong though. If you were a local civilian caught up in >> it, >> how would you feel being arrested by Military Police? > > I'd have thought they would only have the right to arrest soldiers. I > imagine > they might detain civilians until the regular police could arrive. > They dont know you are a soldier until after they have arrested you and confirmed your identity. Soldiers were civilian clothes off duty (thanks to the IRA threat). Having said that, I have no idea how they were planning to resolve the practicalities so I can't really comment any more.
From: John Fields on 6 Oct 2006 14:42 On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 02:05:42 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >JoeBloe wrote: > >> Yes. The difference between little London streets and the >> metropolises contained in this country are vast. >> There would be double decker spill overs everywhere. Most places >> wouldn't support them at all due to the way our traffic light/power >> line systems are strung. > >So, if our double deckers work fine on our 'little London streets' how are they going >to have a problem on big American ones ? --- The steering wheel is on the wrong side. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: T Wake on 6 Oct 2006 14:47 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:PfhVg.11609$6S3.346(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:FbOdnVmGg9Q_E7jYnZ2dnUVZ8qudnZ2d(a)pipex.net... >> >> "Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message >> news:oNfVg.51683$E67.16735(a)clgrps13... >>> >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message >>> news:OMydnTZT299zHLjYnZ2dnUVZ8tSdnZ2d(a)pipex.net... >>> >>>>> Before Hitler - no holocaust. >>>>> >>>>> After Hitler - no holocaust. >>>> >>>> Wow. Before [Insert anyone who lived between 1930 - 1945] no holocaust. >>>> After [same person] no holocaust. >>> >>> So you see no connection between Hitler and the holocaust. >> >> I see a connection but the same connection can be said about many people. >> Your example was meant to imply that Hitler was the sole driving force >> for the Holocaust. This is not the case. > > Sure, there were other forces. Yes, there was plenty of anti-Jewish > sentiment in Germany around then. The economy was still in the toilet > from the Great Depression, but it's not clear to me that the average > German blamed the Jews--even if so, I suspect not anywhere near the way > Hitler did. It wasn't just the Jews either. Lots of minority groups got persecuted. > However, don't you think it really required a charming (in a Germanic sort > of way) misanthropic psychopath with a *serious* chip on his shoulder > about the Jews, to whip everybody into a "the Jews caused *all* of your > problems" frenzy so they could put aside their personal revulsion at > eventually killing millions of their fellow human beings? I guess there > could have been another person that combined that level of insanity, > misanthropy, megalomania, cunning, opportunity and charm, but I'd be > really surprised. Most of Hitler's inner-circle we pretty much in that mould. Hitler made use of very advanced PR techniques, I am sure others could have. Granted Hitler did have (somehow) the Charisma required by the German populace at the time, but I strongly doubt that removing him at any time _after_ he had got into power would have changed events for the better. Removing him _before_ he did anything bad may have changed things, but I very much doubt it would have resulted in no Holocaust (maybe a different ethnic group would have got the brunt of the blame), or diverted WWII from starting. WWI was never, properly, finished.
From: T Wake on 6 Oct 2006 14:50
"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:ujcci217bem3v076krjqajp1hjr5370m9n(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 23:46:14 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>Homer J Simpson wrote: >> >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message >>> >>> >> I'm saying that if someone threatens their fundamental freedoms, the >>> >> British public will defend them. >>> > >>> > Hopefully. >>> > >>> > I grow less and less sure of this as I watch public debate each day. >>> >>> A mistake Hitler made. He read reports of pacifist debates in the UK and >>> assumed they were a guide to the lack of response to be expected during >>> an >>> attack on Britain. >>> >>> The British Air Force response showed him the error of his ways. >> >>The Royal Air Force to be entirely accurate but yes, we were certainly far >>from unready. In fact Britain's armaments industry had been working hard >>in >>the years preceding WW2 to make the planes ( and other stuff ) we knew we >>were going to need. > > --- > And yet, had we not come to your rescue, you'd be dog meat today. > Assumption. Granted it is about 99.9% probable that without American involvement in WWII the end would have been different and the Map of Europe in 1945 would have looked different, but assuming that the US were the only thing which prevented Germany destroying the UK is unsupported. As an aside, the Americans never "came to our rescue." We had to sacrifice a large proportion of our population and some wonderful cities before the Germans decided it would not be possible to gain air superiority and, as a result the invasion had to be put on indefinite hold. After this happened, America got involved and mainly for reasons which suited themselves (Note: I am not saying that is a BADTHING(tm)). |