Nightwing

That wasn't bad, though it was nowhere close to her shoving a turkey up her ass.

Obviously. I was simply explaining why it isn't as much so in the US.

It's not that obscure. The concept of "Gulag" is relatively well-known in the US. In particular, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's writings among others helped imprint the concept on many Americans.

That was pretty ridiculous. I'm not a big basketball fan, but I switched over, saw that, and said "I need to see how badly they end". Frankly, the Cavs are starting to irritate me a bit.

So I think we're in agreement that "Hey, let's pick random guys for the military" = Bad Idea, "Make some sort of national service requirement so that, at least, the most willing will choose the military" = Good Idea?

Oh, I completely agree. But at least you have a choice of where you'll do your service. A random draft would hurt our military far more than it would help it (if at all).

While I wouldn't mind a little more scoring, I find it foolish to say that's why we have a lack of superstars in the NHL. It's not like Bettman made a decree that "to be a superstar, you must have this, this and this". That's bullshit. The problem is that the NHL is only starting to really promote stars again. Even then, Bettman has screwed that up by pushing Sidney Crosby too hard and too early so that now the fanbase is starting to push back.

i don't have much to add to the thread because i'm so late into the conversation, but that's utter bullshit, by the way. recruiting has never been higher, and if you talk to nearly anyone out there, morale is fine. You can attribute some of this to enlisting in the armed services as a recession/depression (please don't let this get to the latter) - proof job. Yes morale is high, but that's the logical consequence of having a volunteer-only Army/Navy/whatever. Again, I want the draft to be re-institututed and I felt that way before I started the enlistment process for myself. No one wants a draft. Drafted troops are inevitably of lower morale (as you point out) and poorer quality (You don't fight as well because you don't want to be there). What logical reason would there be to reinstitute the draft when it always yields worse results than all-volunteer forces?

I think so, yeah. It would take a massive ideological realignment in the country, and a concerted effort to understand the world in a fundamentally different manner than we do now. But I think it's possible. The fact is, we really cannot keep going the way we're going. As long as we stay on this path the threats that are already manifesting themselves (terrorism, climate change, economic collapse) are only going to intensify and newer, more dangerous threats are certain to arise. The past 30 years of interventionism have produced little more than mass human rights abuses and deep-seated resentment toward us in all corners of the globe. Something has to change. The problem isn't that we're fighting al-qaeda, it's that we're fighting al-qaeda in totally stupid and unproductive ways. Messing around in Pakistan and destabilizing that already unstable country ever more is a bad, bad, bad idea. A compl power vacuum in a country with nuclear weapons would be a much worse threat to global peace than al-qaeda could ever hope to be. It's not that the US needs to pull back from interventionism. The problem is that the 1st World needs to show a more united front and more concern with the 3rd World. If the UN were to work as it was supposed to and we actually got truly international peace-keeping forces, we could actually do something. But the US running around on its own while Western Europe and others twiddle their thumbs is the wrong solution for both sides. Diplomacy without force and force without diplomacy are both losing strategies.

So what. It doesn't matter if they "meant well"--the road to hell etc etc. You missed the point; I'm not saying they didn't make the mistakes. I'm saying that the US's objective isn't to be evil. XC keeps putting this sinister objective on things, like they're deliberately attempting to fuck up these places. And the British Imperialists thought that they were bringing the light of civilization to the dark places of the globe and lifting the swart races up. You're talking about completely different things. US efforts in Iraq are much, much different than the British colonial governments, and operate under different objectives. You're reaching hard on this one. This regional/international distinction is some real bullshit. American, Mexico, and (to some extent) the Indians all constituted separate "nations" at the time. Thus any interaction between them was, by definition, "inter-national." And, really, is there really a difference between snatching land from your nearest neighbors in an act of imperialist aggression and snatching land from people on the other side of the globe in an act of imperialist aggression? The Indians are always a bit weird with me. I mean, technically their lands had been owned by the Spanish and the French previously. Napoleon certainly had ideas for North America before Haiti turned south on him. I'm hesitant to define them as "international" in the way that XC is attempting to use the term. I wouldn't define that as "international activity". On Mexico, there's a point to be made. Then again, it's as international as the German Wars of Unification; a regional dispute that concerned no one but the two powers. The problem was that the US was actively pressing what was a legitimate border dispute into a giant land-grab (Again, like the German Wars of Unification). That is the real problem. Okay, you got me. I think the main problem is that XC is framing things in a way to show that this is some sort of plan of America to abuse people, and selectively using the facts to justify it. That is rather frustrating. Smitty: There's a difference between recognizing the government and what Chavez is saying. We didn't orchestrate the coup, like Chavez suggests.

You're trying to hide behind "particular phrasing", but you still mean exactly that. You made the comment, and you're trying to trivialize it because you got called on it. That's poor form, sir. I don't see much difference in saying "The US has fucked over everyone" and "Well, if we made a list of every country, we could probably name one way the US has fucked them over", and I don't think anyone else does, either. The Bush Administration does not own the concepts of freedom and democracy. I don't believe that freedom and democracy are inherently incompatible with the vast majority of cultures that we see in the modern world. While it might necessitate modifications that move it away from our own system, I do believe this is the right way. Okay, I'll agree with this, because I feel it's much more accurate to the real situation. I'd say Obama comes off as more "empathetic" because he's simply willing to actually talk directly to them rather than hurling tough talk across the Atlantic. I'll also agree that the "American" version of democracy might not work in Somalia, but the military leaders in Iraq completely acknowledge that Iraq will likely have a form of "Islamic Democracy" and understand that that's just how it's going to be. You don't think they meant well? Don't you think that they thought democracies or Pro-American governments would improve the following places? I'm not arguing they did these out of purely noble motives. I don't think, however, that they get their jollies out of kicking people while they're down. I think they really believe that democracy and good relations with the US will not only bring about better living conditions, but allow for more stability in their regions (which, generally speaking, is a problem with many of these areas). True, though this is the most justified on the list. Quoting vague allegations does not make it true. Taking that at face value is the same as believing Joe McCarthy really had a list of names. I've already expressed my views on this many times before, and I just don't feel like repeating them again. I can't comment, simply because I'm not educated enough on the subject. I will say, however, that I've disagreed with all of the actions (and inaction) the Bush Administration has taken in Africa. At least the stuff I can remember offhand. My hope for the Obama administration is that we can finally form a coherent policy that can help deliver justice and stability that the region desperately needs and deserves. In particular, our indifference towards Darfur is one of the worst policy decisions in recent memory. Vanity Fair is a good source, but I can't find any corroborating article to cross-reference it with; they're the only real news source that seemed to make these specific allegations. And just because you democratically elect someone doesn't mean there are no consequences that come with it. Electing Hamas comes with baggage, considering it's listed as a terrorist organization with many countries. Fatah was inevitably going to come into conflict with them due to their difference in ideology and methodology. Our mistake was that we neutered Fatah so much that the Palestinian people were pretty much driven to Hamas as they had no other options. That is something you can blame the US for. The use of minority parties is certainly not the way to go with Iran. With the liberal movement it's developing, I'd argue we'd have to find a way to inspire and help them change their government from within. But again, I've already stated that I have disagreements with the ham-handed efforts of the Bush Administration. But I don't see them attempting to do this to Iran to create a global empire like you seem to suggest. They see it as a solution to a region plagued with problems. It's simply a poorly thought out solution. I also hope to God that you aren't considering this one of the "democracies" you talk about later on. ... Did you even look at the source for this? Not only that, but a great deal of it is author supposition, not fact. Again, consider your source. If you got your information from sights that weren't putting tinfoil on their heads, I'd have more to talk to you about. But this is just poor form. You're seriously going to bring Information Clearinghouse up with me? *Sigh* You mean the oligarchies of those countries, right? If we are going to talk about that (And tell me how Barack Obama fits into that Oligarchy), any country can have an oligarchy. It all depends on where you want to draw the line. It doesn't help that the vast majority of the sources your using for the above accusations are only accusations and suppositions. Apparently America is only concerned with dominating everything it can. Which is why we were incredibly isolationist all the way up until the Cold War, eh? Confusing 8 years of misguided policy with some sort of new "empire building" plan is again trying to put something sinister behind the foreign policy failures of the Bush Administration. If you're going to bring up such things, at least cite them with context and correctness. 1. The slave trade was historically carried out by Europeans. The institution was introduced by the Spanish and carried out by many others. By 1800, every state had banned the slave trade from Africa. The only reason it wasn't carried out in other parts of the European world was it simply wasn't economically viable like it was in the Americas. Hell, the only reason Mexico banned it was to stop the flow of Southerners immigrating to Texas. 2. I can't deny the atrocities that we committed against the Indians, the robbery we committed against Mexico, nor the injustices that we inflicted on the Hawaiians. It'd be foolish of me too. But, as smitty said, these were completely regional and hardly international. They also aren't unique to America; the Mexican-American War is comparable to a great many European wars (Off the top of my head, I'd probably compare them to Prussia's wars against Denmark and Austria), and European attitudes towards natives in Africa are comparable to the worst that we did to the Indians and the Hawaiians. And, depending on the power, perhaps worse (Belgian Congo, for example). None of these actions were considered spectacular for their time. Again, I'm not trying to excuse ourselves, but I feel as though you're singling out America unfairly in this matter. Certainly. Though I'd be more critical of MacArthur's rebuilding of Japan (especially the reactionary remaking of the government during the 1950's, which really led to the more conservative Japan we have today), as well as Eisenhower's playing of politics rather than attempting to win the war quickly. I'm not a fan of Patton the person, but he was right on a lot of things. Allowing the Russians to do what they did after the war, along with the partitioning of Germany, was a big mistake.

It was my understanding that, even after two bombs had been dropped, the deadlock on the argument for and against surrender hadn't broken (Due to unconditional surrender possibly leading to the removal of the Emperor). This sparked Hirohito himself to finally come in and tell them to put out unconditional surrender. Generally speaking, people talk about "the Japanese wanted to surrender", and don't mention what type of surrender they wanted. The idea that we'd let up on the gas outside of Japan until November (and just let Manchuria sit) seems beyond foolish from a military perspective. Hell, they might have actually gone through with Operation: Cherry Blossoms at Night if given that much time. In my opinion, I think it was necessary. Again, from what I've been taught in college, the military was absolutely deadlocked on the issue. Perhaps it wouldn't have been nearly as costly to the Americans as Operation Coronet's initial output (They pegged it at over one million casualties for the Americans), but I still think that an invasion would have gone down even with the Red Army invading Manchuria. Of course, I've heard a variety of different ways to how it could have gone, though the most convincing to me actually has to deal with something already covered in the thread; from what I've been told, it was to take the Southern island and simply firebomb them continually and on a scale which hadn't yet been seen. By the by, the firebombing of Japan is easily one of the most overlooked war crimes in history, often ignored due to the better-known atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We firebomb Germany once, and then pull off because of how horrific it is, but we continue to use it against Japan? God, I hate LeMay almost as much as I hate MacArthur.

I tried to temper it with "many people", but I do believe that the US's actions are trying to be "win-win" and not "we win, you lose". And I do think that a good portion of the US believes that we need to help other peoples out of duty to them (Hegemon's Burden?). Of course, this isn't always the case, but I think at the heart of things we are trying to be a force of good in the world.

Having less blood on your hands than, say, King Leopold or Stalin is hardly something to be commended for. Listen, I don't disagree that America has done some good in the world. That's undeniable. But to simply brush all the shady shit we've done in Latin America/SE Asia/The Middle East/Africa aside and say, "Well we've done some questionable things in the past, but on the whole we're pretty great!" (which is what it seems like you and smitty are doing) is, I think, a little problematic. I don't think they ever said anything like "questionable"; to me, I think they basically admitted the wrong-doing. Our choosing of strongmen solely based on their allegiance to the US is one of our most consistently mistakes (Even the ones that turned out well enough in the end, like South Korea), and none of us are denying that. As much as we've done, I think we've done more good than bad. I'm not brushing past the bad, but I honestly think the US (or at least, many of the people) go out and truly attempt to make other peoples' lives better.

This is the greatest episode of all time. The chicken just sealed it.

Christ, you are a one trick pony. I disagree that the cliche that we've fucked over everyone, mostly because we were fucked over by the game board long before we became the hegemonic power in the world. The blowback is less because of us, and more because the colonial partitioning which was never meant to survive past their "parent" states leaving. The Middle East, the prime threat, is the prime example of a place which was (literally) planned out in a few hours on a piece of paper not much larger than an unfolded napkin. We've made many mistakes, but many of these things situations were inevitable by the design of these boundaries. Secondly, I disagree with the idea that Bush was seeking to somehow destroy tradition and heritage. While his invasion of Iraq was miserably executed and falsely justified, and his foreign policy was far too stand-offish, I'm not sure how Bush was destroying tradition and heritage. It's not like we've been sending masses of Christian missionaries to Iraq, and I don't believe that democracy has destroyed any of the traditions of a state that has only existed since the end of World War I. I mean, what do we do, return them to Turkey? You're overblowing a poorly executed foreign policy into something more sinister. As for my own opinion, I think neoconservative militarism has failed, but international republicanism as the ideal government is something that should be pushed, encouraged, and defended when appropriate. Obama's administration gives me hope to renew relations that had cooled during the Bush Administration, like with... well, who didn't relations cool with? Poland? Obama's early overtures to Russia (A state that is not a threat, but has the potential to turn into one in the future) are an excellent start, and his early overtures to Iran are a good idea. That's a country which has a stronger liberal base than people know about, and it needs to be given encouragement from us. I disagree with the concept of an American "Empire". Hegemony is different than Imperialism, and simply having foreign military bases does not make us an Empire. Nowadays it's closer to a form of 1st World Foreign Aid, and I wouldn't mind closing down many of the bases we have in Western Europe and other places to save cash and remove such an argument from our critic's playbooks. Edit: Missed a few highlights I meant to include. Didn't mean it to come off so snarky.

It's also the "Park County" police station. So it might be closer to a large Sheriff's office or something. ... Why am I even writing this?

That's a misnomer. The Iranian liberal movement protested the election because they thought it was essentially rigged and unfair. I wouldn't exactly say it was a real election by any stretch.

Goalies are an eccentric bunch. All the good ones (Outside of perhaps Dryden?) are generally pretty weird. Marty didn't dominate for 15 years. He only dominated after Hasek and Roy left. During the time they were around, they were the undisputed top two, and the amount of hardware the two picked up really proves that (Roy in the playoffs, Hasek in the regular season). Hasek's dominance in the Vezina race is also even more amazing, because it was no longer the "best GAA" trophy that it used to be.

Wait, embryonic stem cell harvest is the same as chattel slavery!? When did this happen?

This is fair, but that still doesn't make up against the 3 Roy has. He also got one facing off against Brodeur directly, back in 2001. He had a damned 1.70 GAA and a .934 average. You make great points about Roy, I freely admit that. I'll be honest, part of is that I just don't like the guy. The Devils have lost Stevens, Neidermayer and Rafalski, and he's still playing great in net. So it's not just his D and the Devils style. It's to be expected. All three of the great modern goalies (Brodeur, Hasek, and Roy) have ranged from quirky to divaesque at any given time. I feel the same way about Brodeur, and I had problems with Hasek at times as well.

This is fair, but that still doesn't make up against the 3 Roy has. He also got one facing off against Brodeur directly, back in 2001. He had a damned 1.70 GAA and a .934 average.

Don't see the argument in this at all... Both had great teams, I doubt their would be much difference at all. media attention. roy gets blown HARD because he played in hockey mecca. brodeur gets a tad underated because he was forgotten in jersey. if brodeur put up those numbers in montreal, he'd be considered hands down the best. No, Roy gets "blown HARD" because he is one of the most clutch playoff goalies of all time. He's won three Conn Smythes. Brodeur is hardly forgotten, but most people don't give him as much credit as they do Roy because Roy was putting up fantastic numbers in an era that was not at all conducive to good goaltending stats. Meanwhile, Brodeur has done great in an era which has allowed for goalies to become incredibly dominant. And even throughout that, he has not managed to win a single Conn Smythe. Roy is the superior goalie in this debate. Brodeur is easily one of the best, but Roy is well-above him in terms of achievements, especially where it matters (In the playoffs).

Well, Mysterion can only be 4 people, because Cartman said he had said it once. So it could only be Clyde, Craig, Kenny, or Stan. I thought it was Clyde, personally. And I loved the episode. Not only was it an excellent riff on "dark" Superhero movies (Loved someone noticing Cartman's gravelly voice), but Professor Chaos sealed it for me. I loved that people in the town actually knew who he was.

Adapt the football playoff system: Top two division winners get byes in each conference. That way you only get 12 teams and eliminate the old "1 stomps 8" seed that is common in the NBA. Plus, it gives a good reward for the top two seeds. This is a good idea. The only problem is that the top team then loses (at least) two extremely profitable home games. True. I suppose you could add a "Winner's Pot" for the top 4 teams, giving them each a "Winner's Bonus" or something. Of course, you'd also be losing a lot of T.V. revenue, too, because you are playing fewer games. But this is more what we as fans would like to see, so I'm ignoring the financial implications on the NBA here.