ASL Veteran

Okay, try this link from the 'socialist international' home page then http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=2032 They are operating in the UN. Is that official enough for you?

I want to say that I don't believe that there is an international communist conspiracy in spite of what some may have interpreted from my initial post. What I do think is that there are many ... like minded 'collectivists' of various stripes in positions of power in the west who are all independently 'nudging' the international community towards some form of global government / collective society of some type. They are not picking up the phone and calling each other for strategy sessions. No, they all simply believe in the same thing and are independently moving the global community towards this end state. Some of you accept the premise of some of what I posted but you don't accept all of what I posted or how I link it together, and that's fine. I'm sure that what I posted turns a few people's world views totally upside down and that was part of why I decided to post what I did. I'm not going to try to convince anyone to change their views - people can read what I posted and decide for themselves what to make of it. My main objective was to start a conversation and get people to re evaluate some things that maybe they took for granted before. Now if you think I'm totally out in tin foil land, then why don't you take the links that I posted and take them apart like some do in here for John Kettler rather than just hyper ventilating. Let's take a few baby steps and start with this ten minute video here. What does this video mean to you? Keep in mind that the man in that video was in the Obama administration. You can either agree or disagree with what he is saying but you can't deny that he is saying it. So how do you interpret what he is saying?

I expected responses like that. If you are in favor of wealth redistribution then just come on out and say it and be honest about what you stand for. Otherwise, just read what the links say and see what is being spoken in the videos and make up your own mind. It's right there for people to see. I am not saying anything that those in the videos aren't saying themselves. Incidentally it probably takes more than two hours to go through all the links and videos that I posted so there is no way Sergei actually absorbed any of the information that I presented. I doubt if hcrof gave anything there a serious look either.

I know, I know, come on ASL Vet. Take off the tin foil hat and let’s get serious. There is no debate in the scientific community about Global Warming and that we, as a society, must make sacrafices in order to save the planet for future generations. Certainly some governments are making you think that’s the case Is Global Warming really about saving the planet though? Could there be another agenda at work here? What else could it possibly be about because it sure seems straightforward? The planet heats up because of man made activity so we have to cool the planet down by altering our global economy to be ‘green’. Here is a little article I found and it’s kind of a curious one in the context of saving the planet. Here is a quote from the article and the entire article is linked to below the quote which is how I’ll have it the rest of the way. http://www.openmarket.org/2009/08/04/the-right-to-a-green-job/ That is a bit of an odd thing to think isn’t it? Does it really make sense? It might not make any sense to you and me but it certainly seems to make sense to them. Having a ‘right’ to a green job sure doesn’t seem to be connected to saving the planet does it? Why are the two linked in the minds of these workers? Checking out the US Communist Party website we find an article there that may shed a little light on the subject: http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/947/1/153/ Hmmm, very curious indeed. It looks like these ‘green jobs’ are being created for the oppressed in an effort to redistribute the wealth. So the link here appears to be that in order to save the planet we can tailor our governmental policies to fight poverty at the same time by giving green jobs to the oppressed. Here are a couple of videos from Obama’s old Green Jobs Czar. He explains things a lot better than I ever could because he is obviously a true believer. The two videos are about 16 minutes long. He certainly explains things in strong and easy to understand terms. ASL Vet, you may ask, but he’s just talking about green jobs and revolution? How is the creation of green jobs equivalent to the redistribution of wealth? Well, there are two halves to the green economy. There are the green jobs that are created by the green economy and there is the taking the wealth part. How is the wealth taken? http://vodpod.com/watch/1814347-last-call-on-cap-and-trade It’s taken through Cap and Trade of course. Even if you aren’t getting your power from a coal plant though wind power and solar power are naturally more expensive means of generating power on a kilowatt per hour basis. Here is an interesting study about Wind Power and what they found out about it in the state of Texas http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2008-09-RR10-WindEnergy-dt-new.pdf and here is an interesting article about a local government’s feeble attempts at propping up a solar panel company http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/20091020in_the_red_with_evergreen_govs_stock_should_also_nosedive/# That’s a lot of wasted tax payer money right there, but you know what? It doesn’t matter because the more wealth they take from you to fight global warming the more wealth gets redistributed to the oppressed workers. It all fits together quite nicely doesn’t it? From the Center for American Progress we find this tidbit http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/10/greenjobs_event.html Yeah, but come on ASL Vet, they are just talking about the US. Global Warming is a Global problem so while maybe in the US there are some Social Justice issues going on but how does that apply to the rest of the world? Here is a video which explains it. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/05/manlove_video.html Here are some of the musings of one of Obama’s current cabinet secretaries http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?D=2009-10-15&ID=281007 Okay, but certainly Evil Corp will be out to stop this communist plot to take over the world? Certainly it can’t be in Evil Corp’s interests to pursue a global policy of social justice? Aren’t evil corporations all about oppressing the workers?? http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/How-GE_s-green-lobbying-is-killing-U_S_-factory-jobs-8162035-55422792.html# Do’h!! Evil Corp is rent seeking by playing footsie with Big Government in an effort to secure a competitive advantage against other Evil Corporations!! What was it that Karl Marx said about capitalists again? Oh well, too bad for us Yanks eh? Over in the Commonwealth there is no social justice agenda driving Global Warming. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/just-96-months-to-save-world-says-prince-charles-1738049.html Do’h!!! Isn’t that Prince Charles? He sure sounds a lot like Van Jones and Cass Sunstein. Oh, but he has no influence over anything. He’s just a crack pot. Besides, why would Prince Charles be interested in redistribution of wealth anyway? Isn’t he one of the wealthy? It makes no sense! Here is one man’s opinion as to what the ‘wealthy’ get out of this http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/the_end_game_of_the_left_1.html# But the science is overwhelming! Even if some people view climate change in terms of social justice we still have to save the world so why not do this as well? I think this article will have to speak for itself http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_climate_reports_they_lie.html# The problem for the ‘social justice’ crowd is that if the science that backs ‘Global Warming’ turns out to not be true then guess what? The entire basis for the imposition of their Social Justice agenda upon the world falls apart too. The solution? Keep on telling you that Global Warming is fact even if it’s not because if you ever start to believe that it’s not true you won’t want to allow your wealth to be redistributed. Here is a one hour and thirty minute video that might be interesting to watch if you have the time. It’s an excellent summary and it might shift your perspective on a lot of things. He basically puts the cherry on top for my post. Here are the slides that he refers to during the presentation http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/monckton_2009.pdf Thank you my friendly forumites for your time. Now it’s time to go out and breathe the free air!

That’s a fair point and you are correct that I hadn’t considered it. However I’m going to say that Gates seems to think that there is no need to wait for the election results before deciding on sending additional troops as reported yesterday so he must think you can both pressure Karzai and get the decision on the number of troops done simultaneously rather than sequentially. I would also point out that it’s possible that Obama’s lack of a decision in and of itself creates havoc with point B above so it seems like a potential contradiction to me to say that A must happen before B can happen depending upon whether NATO nations know what the outcome of Obama’s decision is. If NATO nations are as in the dark as we are about what his decision will be then his present indecision would seem to be a more damaging set of circumstances to me than the election results would be. If Obama’s decision is already known in NATO capitals but the decision hasn’t been officially announced yet then I think your sequence makes sense because NATO nations know where they stand. There is no indication at this time that Obama has made a decision or even when he plans on making a decision. Whether NATO stays or goes is largely dependent upon what the US does. Sure, NATO can withdraw while the US stays but there is no way NATO stays if the US withdraws so to my mind the lack of a decision by Obama is the more catastrophic event to NATO governments than the election results are. Generals don’t request individual soldiers, they request military units. Military units have a logistics tail which, in Afghanistan, is probably very expensive. Sure, a general probably wouldn’t turn down more troops if he can get more as long as there is a use for them. However, history is full of examples where too many troops in the wrong location creates more problems than solutions. In coming up with the troop request I’m going to speculate that the plan has specific duties and uses listed for every military unit that is included in the plan so that the logistics tail can be coordinated and organized and so that each unit’s operational boundaries don’t overlap or interfere with each other. I find this troop discussion to be more of a credibility discussion though and that an argument about specific troop numbers is just missing the point. If you think McChrystal’s plan and his ability to carry out the plan is credible then the number of troops he requests is really irrelevant. If you think he lacks credibility or that he can’t achieve the desired result then you will probably be inclined to focus on that aspect of the plan as your ‘foil’ for saying that it won’t work. The problem here is that only the people who have drawn up the plan or who are privy to the plan’s intricacies can say for sure if the number of troops being requested is the appropriate number to carry it out. If the plan has the blessings of the Secretary of Defense then I think it’s also reasonable to assume that the resources that the plan requires is within the capabilities of the Pentagon to meet. All we are doing is applying personal opinions on whether Afghanistan is ‘winnable’ or not to McChrystal’s plan without considering the plan on it’s merits (since we haven’t seen the specifics of the plan or even have the local knowledge required to assess it). So in my opinion a discussion about troop levels is just going around in circles without discussing the heart of the issue. The heart of the issue is this: The Pentagon has developed a plan for Afghanistan that they feel will give us a good chance at obtaining a favorable outcome. Do you think a favorable outcome in Afghanistan is achievable? Even if a favorable outcome can be achieved is the required cost worth paying in order to achieve the favorable outcome? If anyone is discussing this issue without knowing the answer to those two questions with absolute certainty (yes or no) then they aren’t participating in an honest debate because they don’t know what they stand for. The reason I am ambivalent about Afghanistan is that I have answered Yes to both of those questions, but if Obama isn’t going to go ‘All In’ by accepting the recommendations of the pentagon then I would just as soon have our military go ‘All Out’ and get the heck out of there. In or Out. That’s where I’m at right now. In or Out.

This article here is directly on point to what you are discussing so it may be helpful to glance at it before reading the rest of my post http://www.tnr.com/article/world/there-middle-way# Reasonable people can disagree about strategy. I am utterly and completely in no position to judge the merits of the “McChrystal Plan” so I’m not going to do that. I am also in no way endorsing or advocating the “McChrystal Plan” as the ‘right’ plan. I am also currently ambivalent about whether we should remain in Afghanistan or not. The specific strategy though is not really even the issue as far as I’m concerned because it is currently not a strategy issue but a political issue. Why do I say that? Let’s review: Obama announces in March that he is going to adopt a ‘new’ strategy in Afghanistan. He fires the old commander in Afghanistan and installs McChrystal – his choice to lead the new ‘strategy’ that he just announced – and presumably whom Obama considers as a trusted ‘expert’ in military matters who can get the job done (or one would assume because he probably wouldn’t have replaced the old commander with McChrystal if he didn’t think that). So, McChrystal does his study and creates a strategy in order to make his recommendation to the president (who replaced the old commander with McChrystal to do exactly that). Now we will go deep into speculation land. There are ‘reports’ out there that Jones and others did not want McChrystal to request more troops yet McChrystal includes in his report a request for more troops anyway. There are also ‘reports’ that after Obama found out there was a troop request within McChrystal’s recommendations that he didn’t really want to see it. We know from McChrystal himself that Obama barely met with him. We know that his recommendation was leaked to the press – probably by McChrystal himself or someone associated with the strategy recommendation. Why would McChrystal leak his report to the press? Maybe he felt it necessary because Obama was not responsive and he felt the only way to get Obama to act would be to put public pressure on him. If the report was never leaked Obama could have just ignored his recommendations indefinitely with no consequence. This leads me to the conclusion that when Obama finally looks at McChrystal’s recommendation his response was “This is not the plan I’m looking for”. The leak of the 500,000 or 600,000 men by the White House in response to McChrystal’s release of his recommendation would be for the purpose of discrediting the McChrystal plan in the hopes that people would respond the way you just did (600,000 men? That’s not a strategy that’s just crazy talk!). By discrediting the McChrystal plan with that leak it makes it easier to discard that strategy and not approve any troop increase at all. However, I think it’s probably a safe assumption to make that McChrystal thinks that he can ‘make it happen’ if the resources are provided to him as he requested – even if you and others may have their doubts based upon a white house leak. McChrystal also doesn’t seem to be scheduled to appear before congress any time soon and until he goes in front of congress we know that Obama isn’t trying to push the McChrystal strategy because Congress has to fund it. The only way to get congress to fund the new strategy would be for McChrystal to testify about it before congress or for Obama to do a deal when nobody is looking and announce the troop increase with a memo on a Friday night so it misses the news cycle. So Obama doesn’t like the strategy – what’s the problem? The problem here is that McChrystal is Obama’s hand picked military expert who he tasked with developing the new strategy that he announced back in March. A second problem is that the military establishment including Gates and Petraeus appear to be in lock step with McChrystal. If he rejects McChrystal’s plan then Obama either looks like he is a poor judge of military talent, he is taking military advice from someone who is not part of the chain of command, or he is making a political decision and not a military one. The fact that Gates and Petraeus seem to be in lockstep with McChrystal seems to rule out the incompetence factor so Obama’s judge of military talent is probably fine unless Obama replaces McChrystal, Petraeus, and Gates sometime soon. If Obama is taking military advice from someone who is not part of the chain of command then he could be placing Gates, Petraeus, and McChrystal into a position of having to carry out a strategy developed by someone who is outside of the military establishment and a strategy which they may not believe will bring the desired result. It could also result in embarrassing resignations if someone – say McChrystal – says to Obama that he doesn’t want to put soldier’s lives on the line to pursue a strategy that he doesn’t believe in. I think the most likely possibility here is that Obama is making a political decision and not a military one. The ‘indecision’ itself is actually a political decision because delay actually helps his cause if it is his intention to withdraw from Afghanistan. The politics involved in this ‘decision’ process are the politics of Pelosi, Reid, and Obey. Rereading your post I'm not sure I was entirely on point in my response because there were some nuances in your post that I didn't pick up initially. I'm going to leave it like this for now though.

It seems unlikely to me that McChrystal’s process of selecting the 40,000 figure was to simply figure out how many troops he could get from Obama and then to just ask for that many since that’s what he thinks he could get. He has to actually do something with the troops he gets or there is no reason to ask for them. In other words his strategy recommendation has to actually use them in some way so his method had to be more complicated than picking a number out of a hat. He has to fit the troop requirement to match the strategy. You are also making an assumption that getting any specific number of troops from Obama and the democratic controlled congress is something that’s not only assured, but that the number of troops that Obama and congress would approve is known in advance by McChrystal so that he can match his request to what he knows he can get. I think it’s safe to assume that when McChrystal was creating his strategy that those variables were unknown to him since they aren’t known to anyone right now. He therefore must be matching the troop requirement to the strategy he is advocating. Nothing else makes any sense. David Obey is an important congressman with regards to funding and you may want to read this article here before making any assumptions about the inevitability of a troop increase in Afghanistan. http://thehill.com/homenews/house/62271-obey-questions-wisdom-of-sending-more-troops-to-afghanista# To follow up on your second point – sure it’s got Karzai’s attention but do you honestly believe that after the election Afghanistan is going to be corruption free regardless as to who is in charge? In what way does the election actually alter the situation on the ground for NATO in such a way that the strategy is dependent upon it? There is also the issue of who is doing the ‘arm twisting’ Does anyone doubt that a president like Harry (duke nukem) Truman, Lyndon (Tonkin) Johnson, or John (Baywatch) Kennedy would hesitate to send more troops into a combat zone after twisting some arms? You are right, there would be no doubt that it was hardball negotiating prior to a troop increase if any of those three were coming down on Karzai. In the case of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and Obey it may very well be hardball negotiating but who knows if a troop increase will follow. If the troop increase follows then I’ll call it hardball negotiating. If no troops follow then I’m calling it dithering and finger pointing on the way out the door. Feel free to drag this thread back up when we know the answer and I’ll give credit if it’s due.

Yes Elmar, those are both possible explanations for the vid and the lack of a decision on a troop increase in Afghanistan. However, I would say that they are both improbable explanations. As far as the vid goes – and that’s really just a side issue – I would just say that attributing his remarks to a desire to have a strong intelligence service is totally inconsistent with the democratic party’s position of public record regarding the national intelligence services both recent and historical. Two seconds worth of internet searching should help dispel your theory on that front. Please also note from the podium seal that the speech was given before he became president and actually had nothing to do with Afghanistan. Talking about a stronger CIA probably wouldn’t be something he would be doing to fire up the democratic base in order to get elected because, for example, many in the African American community believe that US intelligence agencies are deliberately selling drugs to keep the members of those communities “down”. With regards to the troop increase there is a problem with the ‘election’ explanation too. I agree in large part with BigDuke – something that seems to happen more frequently these days but rarely happened when first crossing verbal swords on the old General Forum. Whether he's moved my direction or I've moved his direction I can't say . First of all, I will say that it is probably sensible to see what happens in the elections and to make an effort to reduce corruption in the Afghan government. However, there are really only three possible outcomes here. He can increase the troop levels, decrease the troop levels, or leave them unchanged. There are no other ‘options’ on the table regarding troop levels. Sure, there are different things that you could potentially be doing with the troops, but as far as the numbers go those are the only three options. Obama announced that he had a ‘new’ strategy for Afghanistan back in March. He replaced the then current commander in Afghanistan with General McChrystal so McChrystal is ‘Obama’s’ hand picked commander for Afghanistan. McChrystal then conducted a strategy review which was completed sometime in August. Now then, we can make a few assumptions about McChrystal’s report. One thing we know that he recommended was an increase in troop levels for Afghanistan. He also stated publicly that the option Joe Biden favors would result in ‘Chaosistan’ – that option being a decrease in troop levels with a reliance on drones to kill ‘terrorists’. We also know that McChrystal recommends this increase irrespective of the election results (and in fact Gates says as much here http://www.reuters.com/article/newsMaps/idUSTRE59J08M20091020), so by Obama and his advisors using the election results as a pretext to a decision they are simply reconsidering something McChrystal has already taken into consideration when making his recommendation. Remember that there are only three outcomes here – increase, decrease, or unchanged. If we assume that McChrystal did not consider the political circumstances present in Afghanistan or the well known presence of massive corruption then Obama waiting for the election results might make some sense. However, I find it improbable that McChrystal did not take the Afghan political situation into consideration when making his assessment because the presence of massive corruption was well known and the apparent fraud in the election shouldn’t have come as a big shocker to anyone on the ground in Afghanistan. If the fraud did come as a big shocker then NATO is being ill served by all the diplomatic, military, and humanitarian organizations that are present in great numbers there. It should also be obvious that McChrystal has a certain troop target in mind when he came up with his ‘new’ strategy and he feels that the troop levels he is requesting are necessary to get the job done within the confines of his recommendation. Therefore, I think it’s probably good to assume that a rejection by Obama of McChrystal’s troop request is either the equivalent to a rejection of his strategy, or possibly the conscious decision to go forward with that strategy with a lack of resources to properly carry it out. So what could Obama be deciding here? The only thing Obama can be deciding is whether he wants to stay in Afghanistan at all. In my opinion the only ‘real’ option that he has is to remain undecided forever, thus leaving the current forces and strategy in Afghanistan unchanged by default. So why do I think this? His political base will not allow him to increase the troop levels in Afghanistan. It’s simply not going to happen. Obama hasn’t bucked his political base on anything yet and I don’t expect that he will do so on this decision either. Time will tell on this of course, but I would say that the probability of Obama increasing troop levels in Afghanistan is very very low. Equally, he also can’t announce a withdrawal from Afghanistan. Even though the US public is more against the war now than in favor, I think it’s fair to say that a withdrawal at this time would be a political and diplomatic disaster. If, on the other hand, the military feels that the situation will become irretrievable if the troop levels remain unchanged then that does give the president an option to withdraw later on when the political and diplomatic climate has changed a bit – say sometime in 2011. So the Afghan election is not a ‘tipping point’ because there are only three outcomes – troop increase, troop decrease, or unchanged and the election results really won't change a thing in that regard. Troop levels can’t decrease because that would be political and diplomatic suicide at the current time. Troop levels can't increase because he won't buck his political base. The only option left on the table is to ‘dither’ and hope the conditions for a withdrawal later on become more favorable. Doing nothing and then blaming the Afghan elections and rampant fraud is a good place to start paving the way out if that is your intention, so I guess as far as tipping points the elections can serve his purpose in that way. Probably not immediately though.

I think maybe Obama has decided not to increase our regular troop presence in Afghanistan and instead will be relying upon a new para military force to get the job done It would then truly be Obama's war. No - I have no idea what he's talking about there, but it sure does make you scratch your head and go hmmmmmmmmm.

The definitive answer to the question that has been posed can be found here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYZEGot-xU4

Actually I think the neo cons (who are really old school democrats in the Truman mold), racists (like Jeremiah Wright), and fascists (who are really socialists - National socialist party) are probably proud of this award. Normal folk like me are just laughing at the absurdity of the situation because when you follow up the olympic sized egg on his face with a farce like this I find it rather amusing . I do want to thank you for your insightful commentary though.

http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/process.html There is the official nomination process. The initial nomination was probably done in September of 2008. However, let's not sell Obama short. He did manage to accomplish a few things while in office: 1. He refused to meet with the Dalai Lama 2. He gave Prime Minister Gordon Brown a DVD set of American movies for Region 1 DVD players as a state gift 3. He refused five attempts by Gordon Brown to meet with him at the UN until finally agreeing to meet with him for a brief time in the UN kitchen 4. He managed to look like such a weak appeaser on Iran that he was called out publicly by the President of France 5. He imposed sanctions on Honduras for removing their president through an order by their supreme court that was consistent with the constitution of Honduras 6. He took the same amount of time to decide on what kind of a dog he was going to get that he is taking to decide what strategy to pursue in Afghanistan (after announcing he had a new strategy in March) 7. He gave several great speeches apologizing for everything America has done BO (before Obama) 8. He named his dog after his own initials (BO) 9. He unilaterally scrapped deployment of the missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic and in Response the Russians decided that they were going to deploy offensive missiles on Poland's border anyway. 10. He managed to unite the Republican Party like no one else before him.

I think that depends upon whether you are older than Steve and Charles or not - and I suppose if they have any children who want to take up the CM mantle after they have decided to retire.

No, not paranoid. I'm realistic. There is no such thing as unbiased media. The simple fact for that is because articles aren't written by robots and if they were they probably wouldn't be fun to read anyway . A media outlet has a structure to it and the content is going to be controlled by somebody - typically a set of editors. With media like the New York Times, the New York Post, or the Wall Street Journal what you read is going to be what the editors of those media outlets want you to read. Even straightforward news articles can have a slant to it although there the bias is harder to detect. The main problem with detecting media bias is whether you are predisposed to agree with what the media outlet is saying or not. If the media outlet is reinforcing something you believe to be true then you won't detect the bias. If the media outlet is telling you something that you disagree with then you will be able to detect the bias more easily. The tricky part is why you believe in something. Do you believe in what you are being presented simply because that media outlet is telling you it's true or do you believe in what you are being presented because you have thought through what you are being shown and decided that it makes sense? What I do is I have a set of beliefs, values, and knowledge of how things work that I have acquired simply through living life and experiencing things. My main objection to larger government is rooted in the fact that I don't want to pay any more taxes than I have to. I want to keep my money and do with it what I want to do with it. For me if someone - say Obama - is proposing some massive new federal spending program then I'm going to resist it unless I can be convinced that what is being offered is better than what I have now and won't force me to give up more of my income through taxation. I also know through my own education that there are other ways of tackling the health care issue than what is being proposed - ways that could have a huge impact and cost the taxpayer nothing. I studied ERISA in college - here is a good article on ERISA's role in US healthcare http://spectator.org/archives/2009/09/09/solving-healthcare-through-ver I don't post that link to start a discussion about healthcare but to show that my resistance to Obama's proposal is based on things that I believe in and things I have experienced or learned through the simple act of being alive and aware. Really - does anyone think he can wave a magic wand and eliminate 500 billion in "waste fraud and abuse" out of Medicare? That doesn't even pass the laugh test. Besides, if he could why doesn't he just do it - there would be no need to pass a huge health care bill to get that done. Probably one of the best places to align your biases is this site here http://www.realclearpolitics.com/?state=noad You will get a full spectrum of viewpoints on any issue on this site and you should be able to quickly detect which way different media outlets lean. Just for fun though let's do a more focused exercise - say on Global Warming. It's pretty well known that Prince Charles is a huge advocate of Global Warming. If we assume that the Royal Family is involved in appointing or perhaps approving through influence (I don't know how it works) those who decide what content will appear on the BBC then you would expect the BBC to be pro global warming in it's outlook. Do a search on BBC for Global Warming and you get this http://search.bbc.co.uk/search?uri=%2F&scope=all&go=toolbar&q=global+warming Now if you are predisposed to believe that Global Warming is a fact then the BBC is going to reinforce your views. I think it's probably safe to assume that few, if any, people on this forum actually know the science behind 'climate change' or are a climate scientist themselves. We all rely upon experts to give us their views on the matter which we can either believe or not. If all you are getting is one side of the story though - well then that media outlet is attempting to influence you into thinking a certain way. How many articles on the BBC can you find that disputes Global Warming? I didn't see any but I only checked the first five pages of the search results. Now compare the BBC search results to search results from the American Thinker http://www.americanthinker.com/search/?cx=016417505616455789357%3Amttpazkfree&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=global+warming&sa=Search#915 You are obviously getting a different slant on things at American Thinker than you would by reading the BBC. So to get to my previous point which was quoted by Stalinist Organist - the BBC is covering Global Warming in a manner that the Prince of Wales would be proud of and probably approves of. If the BBC is the only outlet that you get your news from then the fact that there are plenty of climate scientists who disagree with Prince Charle's version of Global Warming has been "Omitted" from their reporting. I also want to reinforce that I'm not really interested in discussing health care or global warming. I'm just using those as examples in my discussion of media bias.

Yeah, if I didn't specify I was referring to US government employees, and really the problem is probably worse at the local level than at the federal level. Most of the ridiculous retirement benefits are doled out to State and City government employees. I would have to guess that this type of situation probably does exist in other countries as well, but it really does seem like unions in the US are much more politically active / powerful than they may be in other places. However, if your media is state run (BBC) or favors big government - well you wouldn't know about crap like that because it wouldn't get reported. Like most things there has to be a balance and here in the US the unions are punching way over their weight politically considering something like only 12% of all employees in the US are union members. When Arnold Schwarzenegger became governor in California he really did want to reduce the size of the government and get control of the budget, but he was completely crushed politically by the California teacher's union. They bent Arnold over a chair and spanked him until he cried uncle. After that he lost all his mojo and basically became ineffective. There are also lots of 'commissions' for various things - I think California has more than a hundred of them - where the commission meets about one or two times a year and the commissioners get six digit salaries. Guess who gets on those commissions? Politically favored government employees usually so they can get their commissioner's salaries along with their retirement benefits.

Palo Alto is a nice town. It's mostly suburbian and it's very close to San Francisco if I remember correctly. It's been a while since I've been down in the bay area and I live on the east coast now. As normal for California heavy traffic is probably a good possibility for somewhere like that.

In the relationship between government and corporations the one who holds the power is the government. The reason for this is the simple fact that governments make laws and set the rules of the game by which the corporation does business. There may possibly be examples through history where a corporation was powerful enough to become a government - maybe the East India company, but for the most part the government has the power. I'm pretty sure that Exxon had oil interests in Venezuela, but Chavez didn't even bat an eyelash before basically nationalizing them (ie, stealing it). So the only thing corporations can do is to influence governments. Corporations generally don't have the legal right to make law and pass regulations. The government creates the playing field and the corporations play on the field. Corporations also generally need credit in order to operate and that is the danger of fleecing bondholders. Sure a labor union can stop a factory from functioning but a corporation that can't get credit can be shut down just as totally. In fact, if a corporation can't get credit to operate they might even go bankrupt and disappear so the balance of power over a corporation between a labor union and a bond holder is going to depend upon the situation. It seems like a lot of general forum readers are union members, but I have to say that here in the US anyway, the greatest danger to freedom from big government is the government employee union. In my humble opinion I don't think that government employees should be able to unionize. With a corporation at least, the group opposite the negotiating table of the union has a profit and loss motive when agreeing to a deal. What is the motivation for a government that is negotiating with a government employee labor union? The government has no profit and loss, the government just raises your taxes to cover whatever labor agreement is made so both parties aren't negotiating in faith or with any skin in the game. The end result is this http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/08/24/federal-pay-continues-rapid-ascent/ The pay and mostly ridiculous retirement and benefits packages enjoyed by government employees are just part of the problem. The other part of the problem is that government employee unions create their own impetus to making government bigger. The bigger the government is the more union members the union gets and the more compensation and perks the union bosses get. Government employee unions are the biggest impediment in the US to making government smaller because they become the most powerful of interest groups or 'stakeholders' since they are operating on the inside of the corridors of power. For example, it is teacher's unions who make it impossible to reform US public schools. If the teacher's union doesn't like something then it doesn't have any chance at all of becoming law. I wish I could find it, but there was an article recently about a chicago steamroller driver who gets a retirement benefit of something like 250k per year and can even remain in his job as union boss or something (in other words he gets his salary and his retirement salary at the same time). Union bosses can be just as corrupt and greedy as any corporation, the difference being that union bosses get their perks from union dues and in many cases government deals. I found this article - it's not the same as the one I mention above but it's basically the same thing http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0216/078.html and another article full of links http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/public_workers_versus_the_publ.html

Rent seeking - that's what it's called. Corporations pump money into government in order to gain a competetive advantage vs other corporations by getting regulations and laws enacted that favor said corporations. The simple and uncomplicated solution is smaller government. The smaller the government's footprint is the less of an effect the government can have on the corporate environment. Just to clarify what I'm saying because I know this audience in here - I am not saying that there should be no government regulation on corporations. Consumer protections have to be in the mix in order to ensure the consumer gets what they thought they were getting etc. However, short of the government actually outlawing corporations and using communist economic theory to have the government make all the things the citizens want and need, the best way to reduce corporate influence in government is to reduce the size of the government. The smaller the government's footprint in the economy the less influence peddling evil corp will think it is necessary to wield in order to bend legislation and regulations to favor them. Cap and Trade is a good example of how companies lobby and rent seek. If you are in the coal industry you want to lobby to make sure you don't get hurt too bad so you try to influence the legislation to favor you by having congress give away most of the carbon credits for free. If you are GE and you make windmills then you want to make sure that everyone is buying windmills because you are a manufacturer of windmills etc. There is a lot of material on corporate rent seeking so if anyone wants to know what's going on with the 'special interests' it's there for you to find. You just have to know what you are looking for. The extreme example of corporate rent seeking gone wild is probably Fascism. I've added this link from a website that leans right. There is an annoying popup asking for donations that you can't avoid but the article is a good one if you are interested in special interests. http://spectator.org/archives/2009/09/08/from-citizens-to-stakeholders

It wouldn't be much of a forum if that were to happen .... just the two of you yapping away. You start a thread and the official customer spokesperson replies. I guess the Beta testers could still post though so it would be a lot like what I presume your beta tester forums are like now except with one extra person representing all customers. Nope, that wouldn't be much fun

My take on it is that an LMG requires a two man crew and is belt fed as in the old M60 machine gun (which was actually called an LMG by US forces at the time and not referred to as a SAW - I can remember when the SAW was introduced and the name SAW sounded odd at the time). The old M60 roles have apparently been divided up between the M240 and M249. The SAW is probably more along the lines of the BAR which is a non crew served weapon that one man can use without a second crew member. The M249 replaces the M60 in it's tripod role as an MMG. So, I'm figuring that the SAW is called a SAW because it is more in keeping with the BAR squad role (single man crew and magazine fed) as opposed to the M60 which was called an LMG (two man crew and belt fed) because it fulfilled more of the traditional MG42 role within the squad as well as the multi purpose role.

I think another consideration with what you put into each title and module would have to be how the modules fit together. If you have the title then any module you buy will be able to interact with the forces in the title. Forces in the modules won't necessarily interact with each other. So that makes putting the Standard German formations into the title very important. No matter what module the German paratroopers are put into, as long as you have the title you will be able to have German paras fighting US troops. If German Paras didn't fight against the British forces then they wouldn't even be necessary to put into the commonwealth module. German Paras could wait for module two and whatever comes with that module.

Sigh. The OP (stands for Original Post) stated that there was a very confused Marine in Afghanistan. Here is a refresher for you in case you didn't read it. So no, the article I posted did not talk about a Marine. However, if you can stretch your mind a little you might possibly see that Hanson's article can be used as an explanation as to why that Marine would have thought that way. That's it. There is no more to it than that. I'm not going to argue 'won' or 'lost' and I'm not going to argue about whether it was right or wrong because quite honestly I don't really care. It is not my purpose to argue the finer points because no amount of arguing is going to change your mind about the situation. My purpose was only to explain how an individual could hold the point of view that the Marine has. It's not because he is stupid and it's not because he can't remember 9/11. It's because the new President of the US has for all itents and purposes declared the war on terror to be over. He hasn't made this declaration because he wants to claim victory - no where will you see Obama ever say the US 'won' the war. He is declaring it over by making it not exist. You can agree or disagree, but if a Marine is putting his life on the line in Afghanistan and the President isn't supporting him then what is that Marine supposed to think? I'm out of this thread now so you can all go back to talking amongst yourselves.

The author stated "largely" won - the usage of "largely" in that context is normally used as a qualifier. I think it's a safe assumption to make though given the US body count has decreased significantly. If your soldiers aren't being killed then it's not much of a leap to say that a war has "largely" been won. Besides, the OP was referring to the confusion of a certain Marine if Afghanistan so whether you agree or not with that opinion that the war in Iraq is largely won is really beside the point. If this is how that Marine sees things then his confusion is understandable. The case for saying Iraq is "largely" won is much better than the case for saying that it's "largely" lost - surely you can agree with that? "Fairly" is once again being used as a qualifier in his article so no, he didn't suggest that it's a "rock solid stable democracy." However, after several successful elections it's probably a fair statement to make. Once again though your agreement or disagreement with that is really irrelevant since it is an explanation of how the Marine might see things. I didn't introduce the article to this discussion to refight the arguments about the Iraq war. I introduced it to show that the current political situation and public attitude is such that your average soldier in Afghanistan could be forgiven for wondering why he was there. Especially since I doubt the President wants to be there anyway and will pull up stakes and leave as soon as the opportunity arises. There isn't much pressure from the democratic base at the moment but give it a few more months and we'll see.

Nope. I didn't say what if Hitler changed his mind and decided not to invade at all. The only thing I was pondering was what if Hitler, rather than deciding to invade in 1941 like he did (in spite of an unanticipated spring Balkan campaign) decided to delay the invasion to 1942 so the German army would have been better prepared. So I don't need to focus on Hitler deciding not to invade the Soviet Union, it's simply a question around the circumstances of that invasion. In 1941 Hitler was only at war with Britain while in 1942 Hitler would probably have been at war with both Britain and the United States. Would he still invade the Soviet Union if he was already at war with the United States and how would the course of WW2 been altered. It's a very simple question. Judging from the circumstances around the signing of the Nazi Soviet Pact I would speculate that he wouldn't have invaded the Soviet Union because the whole point of the pact in the first place was to be able to concentrate on France and Britain and avoid a two front war. His experience with the US in WW1 and his desire to avoid a two front war probably would have him see the US as such a formidable enemy that he would have concentrated all his efforts on the defeat of the US and the UK and indefinitely postponed his Soviet invasion. Would Stalin then have invaded Germany at some point? Would that invasion have been successful or would the Germans have defeated a Soviet invasion of Germany? Six months of time and an altered strategic reality is all I am talking about.

Nice. First Hitler declaring war on Japan wasn't my idea - I was just trying to humor someone else's post so just eliminate that from your calculus. The only thing I was asking was that if Hitler would have waited one year to attack the Soviet Union, then the strategic calculation may have changed so much due to the attack at Pearl Harbor that he wouldn't have invaded the Soviet Union at all. How would WW2 have changed as a result if he did invade anyway or if he decided not to. After all, prior to the invasion of the Soviet Union he was already at war with Britain, his panzer divisions just had a spring campaign in the Balkans, and his invasion was delayed until the end of June leaving him with a shortened campaigning season. You really think Hitler waiting one more year to invade the Soviet Union is the equivalent of a fleet of flying saucers landing and declaring a world government? Wow. I can think of many reasons why he would have waited one year. In fact, I would say that the possibility of Hitler waiting one year to invade the Soviet Union is more reasonable than Germany invading the UK yet you have no problem discussing that. All Hitler would have had to do was say "Let's invade in 1942" and it's history changed just like that. No such luck with an invasion of Britain I'm sorry to say, so I think your remark about flying saucers is probably more appropriate to that discussion than to my question.