SOCL

I just finished Exile (Aaron Allston), and I have to say, if the Legacy of the Force continues to be this good... Well, it's already shaping up to be one of my favorite, if not my number-one favorite Star Wars series!

No, the debate is over and it was defeated easily (quite the waste of time and taxpayer money, don't you think ). Now, the "cat fight" starts between the (Democrat) Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi) and the (Democrat) Senate Majority Leader ("Dingy" Harry Reid) on who is responsible for letting the vote fail; each blames the other ... typical. Similar to the way the Republican vote failed in 2000. History repeats itself, and no one tries to prevent it from doing so.

The only thing consistent in life is Death and Taxes I have to agree with you there.

I wouldn't be surprised.

Of course not, so why say the Ottoman Empire is the same as the Turkish government of today? Of course not, so why say the Turkish government of today should take responsibility for the Ottoman Empire? Thanks for proving my point SOCL It was done on purpose, Tex. My point being not so much the matter of condemning the current government of Turkey as it is to point out that this is a matter of inconsistency within the Republican Party, a party so hung-up on consistency and so quick to condemn "flip-flopping", a point I find nonsensical myself. Still, Republicans, and especially the current Bush Administration, espouse that "doing the right thing" is more important than doing the popular thing, hence he forced us into a unilateral war despite everyone else in the world saying we shouldn't. That's not hard-headed stubbornness--it's the "right thing to do". If the Republicans stayed consistent, then wouldn't they support the condemnation of the Ottoman Empire for the genocide of the Armenians. Again, they did so in 2000, and only withdrew when President Clinton threatened to veto some other piece of legislation they wanted passed. It's a matter of politics, so if you happen to believe that the Republicans have the moral high-ground and the Democrats are waning in morality...well, that's up to you to believe what you want. As for what Jahled said, simply put: I couldn't agree with him more. I do certainly believe this was not the appropriate moment to carry this out. It does annoy me that Turkey refuses to acknowledge that the Armenian genocide happened, which makes one wonder how deeply entrenched the ideal of Ottoman empire and the subsequent Turkey-for-Turks republic created by Attaturk, but this is not the right move to make. I hate to say it, but if they want to close their eyes, cover their eyes, and start singing in order to avoid the truth, then let them. The Democrats should have learned from the Republicans that we can't simply kick in the door of whoever pisses us off and force them to agree with us. I think Iraq is a perfect example of a place where that did not work, and it did not work thoroughly. If Turkey decides to invade Northern Iraq, then it would turn the least violent place in that country into something similar to the more southern regions. Further, Turkey will likely be forced to remain in occupation for many years to come and in the mean time help foster more hate against them not just from the more extreme wing of the Kurdish population, but from the entire Kurdish population and what Iraqis they may encounter--no one likes being punished for the actions of a few others. Turkey should learn from the mistake we made in invading Iraq and realize that invading the North will simply create more violence, more problems, more terrorists, and bring them into a quagmire they simply don't need and likely can't support both militarily and financially.

You mean to say the U.S. pre-Civil War government is the exact same as the current one? And there it is, the most predictable response to the condemning the Armenian, genocide: bring in the Native Americans in order to preserve the moral high ground. Well, Tex, would you be willing to accept responsibility in the modern day for the genocide of Native Americans? My family was all in Puerto Rico, so I'll leave that to you old-American fellows to ponder over. I have my own qualm with the Spanish for killing so many Tainos in Puerto Rico, but I'm not going to get far there.

So this whole Republican notion of supporting democracies abroad is nonsense, then. Thus, Republicans are flip-flopping. Here's something about this Armenia issue: The Republicans claim that staying in Iraq is the "right thing to do", and keep doing so in hopes of raising the stakes and placing themselves on the moral high ground. Well, isn't condemning the Turks for the genocide of the Armenians in a non-binding, only-word resolution the "right thing to do". Indeed, had it been the Republicans in Congress who had decided to do it, then the Democrats would probably be screaming the same way Republicans are now. WAIT! That's right, the Republican-held Congress in 2000 tried to pass the exact same resolution! Well, who's flip-flopping now? Sounds to me like Republicans aren't very consistent, and isn't that what they espouse to be? It seems to me that blaming the Democrats for this has less to do with the resolution and its effects and simply because a somewhat large number of people in this thread are Republicans/anti-Democrat.

That's correct Tofu, "look how Vietnam turned out". If politicians would stop sticking their noses in where they're not wanted (i.e. politicians feel they're important, therefore it's their right to micro manage the military), then Vietnam could have turned out much differently. That was one of the main points made by Stormin' Norman during Desert Storm; politicians STAY OUT! No one knows how to better run the military, than the military. And look how that turned out That's right, Tex. Let the military do their own thing without any oversight. Look how well that worked for the government of Pakistan, installed by a military coup. Look how much money the US pumped into Germany & Japan after the WWII. There's not too much difference between then and now; Iraq needs their civilian infrastructure restored also: power plants, homes, hospitals, schools, sewage planets, roads, water supply, etc. The people of Iraq are getting the same help as the Germans and Japanese did. Their despot of a leader had about a gnat's ass worth of concern for his people, and it shows. So, support the troops by supporting the Iraqi people! You help them, and they'll help you (as is being found out, but that doesn't make the headlines; and it's especially not good news for the Democrats). I don't see what you're trying to get across here, Tex. I'm simply saying that the funding itself is different and that troops will get their funds one way or another, unless someone on Capitol Hill puts in a bill to quite literally cut the funding for the military. Cutting the funding for the war/occupation, though, is very different from cutting the war for the troops. If you want to say that by cutting the funds for the occupation you are cutting the funds to the troops...well, that simply doesn't make sense--they are two utterly different accounts and funds. Anyway, I would be willing to give more funds to the war if I thought there was any real progress happening--and by that I mean progress towards withdrawal, which I suppose is the ultimate objective. I think it has to do with the perspective you use: Republicans see the ultimate objective as achieving the idealistic goal of making Iraq secure, Democrats see the ultimate objective as achieving the goal of withdrawing our boys from Iraq.

I wouldn't say the Democrats did it because they want to piss of Turkey. I agree, there should be some sort of condemnation for the Armenian genocide, but I have to agree with Jahled: did it have to be now? It wasn't a good idea to do it now. Maybe after Iraq, but not now. Sorry, Evaders, but cutting off funding for the war is not the same as cutting funding for the troops. It's just like saying not supporting the war means you don't support the troops--utter bullshit, excuse my language. The military has its own funding 123% separate from the emergency funding which funds the actual war, and by war I mean the occupation, pays the Iraqi government's salaries, pays private security, pays mercenaries (i.e. Blackwater), etc. The Armed Forces themselves know this quite well.

No. When I said "someone sneezes the wrong way in Berlin", I was referring to the Berlin Wall during the Cold War--nothing direct. Funny because I knew the moment I posted that it would be misunderstood. Had the barrier between the "West" and the "Eastern bloc" been in Paris, I would have said Paris, or Odesa, I would have said Odesa. I was just using Berlin as an example where tensions could explode into war during the Cold War, and even though a Second Cold War would very likely not have its barrier in Berlin, I just used that as example, especially since saying "somone sneezes the wrong way on the border" wouldn't have been as interesting or as prose-nice.

With so many important things in Alaska, I can see why the Russians would attack. Let me repeat this: The Russian missile systems are, at best, ten years old--this is to say before the advent of "smart-bombs" on the world market, the U.S. excluded. Imagine 1991 Gulf War technology against 2007 Iraq War, crazy-military-industry-spending technology. I don't see a contest here. And the sort of repercussions Russia would get from the rest of the world would be enough to likely kill every last Russian, whether in war or through starvation, and the Russian people simply won't have that. They're not locked down like they were under the USSR--they realize that what the rest of the world can do is what they want Russia to do: prosper in a free market economy. Doing toe-to-toe with the rest of the world would be something of a damper on those hopes. Cold War. No, it would not be good to go through that again. Have a hot war and be done with it. Or better yet... NO BLOODY WAR. But if you guys insist on war, then go fight it yourselves! I'm sure you hadn't thought of that, eh? Or what about conscription? Would you like that? You people who call for war but won't serve have no bloody concept of what war is really like! Go off and join the Army, kick in doors in Iraq, and have IEDs go off so close to you that you think you just got your face blown off, then come tell me you want to go to war. Honestly, I'm quite content not having to worry about a nuke being dropped in my backyard where my dog plays just because some overly zealous fool sneezed the wrong way in Berlin.

I still don't understand: what defines clockwise in this particular situation? We are looking at the object head-on and not from above, as we would a clock, but do we measure it as such?

I started seeing it going left...and then, I looked away, and when I looked back it was going to the right. That is, the right of the dancer. Actually, how can you determine which direction is "clockwise" and which is "anticlockwise"? It's relative, and confusing me.

I still can't see the less-than-democratic nations of Central Asia and East Asia ever siding with Russia in any conflict, cold or otherwise, against the greater part of the Western powers. Simply put: there is no benefit to helping or joining in a losing battle. If anything, as you mentioned, most of these dictatorship will not want to join in any hostilities for the same reason you cited: to hold on to power. Holding on to power by plunging their country into a war they can't possibly win will only destabilize their nation, driving their people to extreme measures in order to combat the government. By siding with the Western powers, on the other hand, said "dictatorships" will be able to hold on to power in the form of Western-backing, such as is the case with the military government of Pakistan so constantly supported by a nation that purports to support democracy. Yes, I mean the USA.

What, in photo 10? Well, truth be told, I did. Lot's of scotch and wine.

No offense, Defender, but what your spouting depends on a great many ifs and coincidences. All of these things happening are once are no necessarily going to happen in a domino effect and likely won't. Worst case scenarios, like the one you described, are historically unlikely--in truth, I cannot think of a single time in history where someone has come up with a worst-case scenario (as a contemporary of the events, not in hindsight) and it has actually happened. What you are describing verges on conspiracy-theory. Where you got your info about Eastern Europe, D16, is also rather confusing. Most Eastern European countries not only dislike Russia, but utterly hate them. Just speaking to many of these people, such as from Romania, Bulgaria, and Ukraine, they seem to want nothing to do with Russia and in general like the Western democracies and especially the USA, foreign policies and politics aside. LaForge may be able to speak more to the point on this, himself living in Eastern Europe (i.e. Hungary). Why the old Eastern bloc would want to ally with Russia is beyond me. In the Cold War they weren't so much allied as forced to ally with the USSR under the terms of the Warsaw Pact. What choice do you actually have when the entire Soviet military is sitting near, on, or just inside your borders asking you "nicely" to be their ally. It's hard to say no at gun-point. Further, it seems likely that the old Eastern block countries would more likely ally with a Western-friendly nation being harassed by Russia, such as in the example of Georgia, who have NATO military advisers helping train their armed forces. And what's this about Eastern bloc dictatorships? Perhaps at the end of the Cold War, but lets remember it's been almost twenty years since then and most of those nations have reformed in many ways towards democracy. The examples of Miloschevik in Serbia (remember Kosovo?) and the Romanian revolution are exceptions, not typical, and even in those cases the dictatorships did not last particularly long, whether it be because of external pressures or internal strife. As for NATO and nuclear weapons, I remember past Presidents say they refuse to use nukes first, but the current Administration has made it quite clear that their policies are different and that nuclear weapons have always been an option. Granted, popular opinion would drop like a ton of bricks held up by a paper tower (it made sense in my mind...), but it's still clear that it is an option. And in any event, if Russia did use nukes first, it is highly unlikely they'd even come close to the core of the USA and the EU, Alaska and some of the more extreme Eastern European nations aside. The weapons technology of Russia on average is still Soviet-based, and recall that the newest Soviet weapons come from the late 1980s, an era before smart bombs and extensive use of electronic warfare. The weapon systems employed by the Western nations, but comparison, are much more powerful and readily capable of deterring any Russian incursions, despite the stuff the more hawkish politicians might tell you about out-dated technology. Yes, the technology is not particular new, but it's still head and shoulders above the rest. In truth, any nuclear warhead used in a conventional manner would be destroyed within moments, either shot down by a anti-missile missile or otherwise deterred (there are some cool things my intel analyst buddy tells me about over drinks that I won't share). As for China... The Chinese government is far to smart to get involved in anything that will piss off the Western nations to the point of open hostilities. Sure, they might push the bar and test the limits every so often, but they would never do anything to open themselves up to an attack. People spout stuff about the PRC supporting North Korea, but the fact is, as long as North Korea does things that only affect the people and matters within their borders, China won't flinch, but the moment North Korea, say, bombs Japan or South Korea, the Chinese will condemn them and though likely not go so far as to support armed conflict with North Korea will be smart enough not to assist as they did in the 1950's. North Korea will either collapse on its own or make one final drive, and then collapse. What we have to fear from North Korea is what will happen to the three Army brigades we have stationed there, the inevitable loss of life of our allies (namely South Korean) and our won intervention. But the ROK (South Korean army) is more than prepared to stop and bloody the nose of any North Korean invasion force. Yes, it will be horrible and bloody, but the combined forces of multi-national forces along the DMZ, South Korean forces, American forces ready to respond in Japan, Hawaii, and Alaska, not to mention Japanese forces, Taiwanese forces, and the rest of the world will more than annihilate the North Korean government. It's truly only a matter of when. Gentlemen, we have nothing to fear but fear itself. I am not worried.

Second Cold War? Russia planting flags in strange, useless places? Dear God, how could I possibly have missed the impending doom?! Oh, that's right, because it's rubbish. Jahled summarized it quite well, and simply put the Russians cannot and would not have the ability to sustain any sort of conventional war against the combined strength of the EU and USA, not to mention that NATO would likely pledge three dollars and the UN send them nasty memo. I don't like Putin--not in the least; the man seems to actually be disillusioned and possibly utterly insane, much more so than Saddam Hussein in my personal opinion. Even so, to the international community I believe he is mostly harmless, a tiny dog barking to be let out of the yard or off his leash, but the moment he's let out, what then? He'll have no idea what to do since he's never planned past barking and thinking about attacking. At that point, he'll probably run back to his yard and close the gate behind him; that, or he'll attack and get his nose kick, and then go running, whimpering home with a bloody muzzle. That's not to say I believe in a martial response--on the contrary--but I do believe that if Putin is stupid enough to start something militarily, he'll quickly regret it. Besides, let Russia have its fun. Every nation deserves to have its day to stretch and flex without the USA and EU pouncing on them. Flying fighters over Alaska--Alaska, people!--is hardly a threat. I'm sure the whole way in the fighters are being monitored by our missile defense system, which, thanks to our paranoid war-president and his party, are safely functional and secure--aside from that B-52 that flew nukes from the northern part of the nation to the south without anyone knowing... All things considered, any attempt at hostilities will likely be met with a barrage of surface-to-air missiles.

For this interested, there are more recent Roman photos here, including at least one good one of me.

Something funny? Jahled, those are beautiful! All the animals brighten my day whenever I see them!

Home page, on the left. If you go to the "Members Page" link on the left, I'm the first fellow--the angry-looking one (the sun was in my eyes).

Well, nothing that impressive, but I've updated my Roman website. It includes some new photos and up to date info.

Actually Tofu.. more accurately... 300 is based on Frank Miller's graphic novel 300 which was inspired by The 300 Spartans, a movie he watched as a young boy.. The movie 300 is almost (just like Sin City) scene for scene straight from the graphic novel. That's right, Tofu. Get your facts straight!

Vader: "Come to the Dark Side... We have ice cream. Search your feelings, you know it to be true!"

Porkins: "I've got a problem here."