Discalculia (off-topic posts split)

[fredgiblet]

Imagine if a german terrorist in germany was planning something against the US. Instead of consulting with germany, and taking him out clinically, the US would send a covert drown, blow the guy up and kill or wound a further 20-30 people in a 100 meter radius. Now imagine the reaction from a fairly economically strong subject like Germany which is technically meant to be US ally.

There's an important difference here. Germany would likely co-operate. The Taliban wasn't going to hand Bin Laden over. The Pakistan government probably would have OKed the attack, but by the time they did so someone IN the government would have likely tipped Bin Laden off and he'd be gone.

When you're dealing with people who won't work with you you have to do what you need to do to get the job done.

terrorists is a nasty business, as is all asymmetric warfare, but the answer that works is not 'drones!' nor is it 'bigger bombs!', high tech and high explosive solutions for a low tech problem seldom ends well.

Actually sometimes those ARE the answers. Bigger bombs to clear out entire cave systems? Yes please! The other option is to clear them manually, and that WILL result in massive casualties.

Drones to loiter over an area for a long time and watch for a target and then pick them off when they show up? Yes please! The other option is trying to insert a spec-ops team without being noticed and hoping they can stay in place long enough for the target to present itself. That DOES have the potential to be more surgical, with a one-shot one-kill result, but it's much more difficult to pull off and may easily result in losing the target for months.

Should bigger bombs be dropped in residential areas? Of course not, but then they aren't, so that's not an issue.
Should drones be shooting randomly? Of course not, but then they aren't, so that's not an issue.

Yes mistakes are made and civilians die, yes we should do what we can to minimize those deaths, but in the end it IS a war, and civilians die in war, if you try to make the civilian body-count 0 then you can't effectively prosecute the war.

now how do you get people to not be terrorists? pretty much the same way you keep people from becoming criminals, make sure they have lots to lose(ie. decent job, home, decent spouse, family, shiny car, whatever.) and do not give them an excuse to get really really pissed at you.
happy citizens are generally not criminals nor terrorists, THAT is a proactive solution.
the big problems here really is seriously different culture, internationalism(or rather the lack of such), ease of international travel, and history, cause i can promise you, america is NOT innocent in the reasons for the war on terror, there is a reason why america is targeted by jihadists and not lets say spain.

IIRC the main reason Bin Laden got his knickers in a twist was because the US stationed troops in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. Should we have not done that (and thus not liberated Kuwait) simply because he got pissy about it? I'll agree wholeheartedly that the US has, on more than one occasion, did things they shouldn't have, sometimes VERY big things. However we will NEVER make everyone happy, and trying to will simply run us into the ground that way. We should make sure we aren't being massive dicks, but when something does actually NEED to be done we shouldn't hold off because a handful of douchebags are going to be angry about it.

[Absalom]

charlie: do you know the names of all the people living in a 100 meter radius? well if you live in a city i can almost guarantee the answer is 'no', so how do you reckon you are to know if one or a couple of'em are terrorists?
now why do you expect more out of someone else then you do of yourself?

terrorists is a nasty business, as is all asymmetric warfare, but the answer that works is not 'drones!' nor is it 'bigger bombs!', high tech and high explosive solutions for a low tech problem seldom ends well.

Firstly, we're talking about communities that actively aid & abet terrorists, knowingly. Those people who let the terrorists live in their houses? They are not our allies, they are knowingly supporting our enemies, they themselves are our enemies. In some cases you look the other way, in others you don't, but in no case do you pretend that they deserve your protection or support. If it's easier to leave them alone, then you consider it, weighing the potential ramifications. If it's easier to not leave them alone, then they're on the chopping block. You don't play nice, pretending that they're not to be touched, you aren't talking about a vague, amorphous relation such as between a civilian and a nation, you're talking about a personal choice. And the people that could potentially get caught up as collateral damage? Ignoring the incidents of questionable timing, these are people who are consorting with those that they know full well we consider targets, in areas that they know full well we are conducting combat operations in. You can feel sad about a civilian trying to make some money by pumping out the bilge of a German ship in WW2 who died when you bombed the ship, but if you know that they're likely to be there then you still do it, because anything else is irresponsible.

Now, dropping a daisy-cutter to take out a single al-Queda member? From any perspective unacceptable. But a guided missile, with a lower chance of going off target than a cannon round, and a small explosive charge to boot? It's constrained, accurate, and therefor as reasonable as you consider the target itself to be.

Now, for an actual solution, this probably won't work unless we carry it out successfully for at least 20 years, with the "associating with terrorists == death" PR campaign that it needs, but that does have the potential for success. Ultimately, the real problem is multi-fold:
1) We never actually set out to create their economic problems, which come from somewhere inside of their actual economies. It is therefor inherently difficult for us to solve the problem. Now, if we were a bunch of imperialists this would probably actually be pretty quick to get handled, but we prefer more democratic ideas here in America, even at the expense of NOT closing the giant gaping wound, so there's a limit to how much we'll be fixing. After all, we rightly believe that locals should be in charge of fixing local problems.
2) We never tried to create the radicalization or militantization that these terrorists sprout out of. Thus, we're in no position to undo it.

There are various other influences (past & present US foreign policy, Israel, etc.), but there's little acceptable room to budge on those, particularly the ones that have already happened. Palestine? It would be swell to get a livable situation for the Palestinians, or at least to get the Israelis to start competing for hearts & minds like the PLO & such do, but any time that the Israelis have been interested the Palestinians haven't, and vice-versa. There's little that we can genuinely do without invading and taking over the place. Get us out of the current mess and give us a decade to repair the military and sure, we could probably do it, and would likely as not be in a position to actually improve something in the Middle East (possibly the first time since the Suez Canal dispute), but I doubt that you think that any more desirable than I do. Ultimately, we can either throw what few allies we have into the cold for the sake of no allies, or we can invade and please noone even after we make whatever actual improvements that we went in for, or we can work around the edges doing inconsequential minutia like we traditionally have. Of those only the first and third are half-way likely, and the first will probably only happen if we take a turn for the isolationist, in which case we'll basically be saying "screw you all, I have grass to watch".

CIA HUMIT would fine the rest of the plotters.

fine? how much? i assume you mean find, just point out you have a few spelling errors in there, seriously though, cia humint? america has never been known for good humint, america does not need humint, america got satellites! america got echelon! again with the stupid overpriced silver bullets, as usual with america, high tech solution to a low tech problem.

High-tech solution to a highly distributed problem. What, do you expect the US to have it's spies running all over the place all the time to eavesdrop on all of the guys that we need to observe in order to actually have a clue what's going on? Doesn't work. They'll either be one of the top dogs and therefor an important target, or be unable to get important info because they don't have the time to make the needed personal ties, or will get found out because they're running around spying on everyone all of the time. Signals Intelligence and related things are the only way to keep a thumb on massively decentralized operations like this, Human Intelligence only works right for centralized or highly leaky operations, and an operation that's centralized within a cell will still require knowing about the cell, which is only going to happen with SigInt. Start thinking about the "how" of the situation, and suspend your incredulity at the means.

Really, the only "HumInt" that's going to be useful in fixing the terrorism issue long-term, regardless of it's quality, is going to be observations made by ambassadors & the like, and it's rather dodgy to call that Human Intelligence, since that tends to imply spy agencies getting into places that they aren't supposed to be. Even then, it depends on analyzing a "treatment" for the "social illness" in question, and applying said "treatment" depends heavily on the local situation, which tends to result in the areas we most want to apply these social programs to being the same as the areas where something is most likely to prevent it from working.

now how do you get people to not be terrorists? pretty much the same way you keep people from becoming criminals, make sure they have lots to lose(ie. decent job, home, decent spouse, family, shiny car, whatever.) and do not give them an excuse to get really really pissed at you.
happy citizens are generally not criminals nor terrorists, THAT is a proactive solution.
the big problems here really is seriously different culture, internationalism(or rather the lack of such), ease of international travel, and history, cause i can promise you, america is NOT innocent in the reasons for the war on terror, there is a reason why america is targeted by jihadists and not lets say spain.
and sadly if the people in power do not address the underlying problems for this conflict it will spiral out of control and get worse.

What are we supposed to do? Start an honest-to-goodness !!!American Empire!!!, with the goal of making the entire world happy, productive, and free?
1) If they don't work for it themselves, it will never stick.
2) That is pretty directly un-American. We'll leave it to the Europeans... oh wait, that didn't work.
3) They don't even want that in the first place.

Seriously, all that they really know for certain is that they're upset, and that America looks like some golden nirvana, and it's unfair for them to deal with this and Americans not to, thus they strike out. Except for the leaders, who tend to have a wider variety of reasons; some for power, some for radical religious beliefs, some for the same reason as the teenagers.

Different culture? Lack of internationalism? Irrelevant, as Timothy McVeigh showed. Disenfranchisement and militant radicalism are the real causes for these things, and you can't really fix either of those without taking over. Even then, radicalism essentially equates to religion in this case, so what are we supposed to do there, kill every Muslim in the area? There may be some people that would endorse such actions, but they are the same sorts that spawn domestic terrorism.

Addressing the "underlying issues" is indeed a nice idea, but at the end of the day that requires invasions and empire and chaos and is no improvement at all. Out of the options that are possible, letting them kill each other until they realize that they are killing more of themselves than we are is the only plausible option, because the real problems are local, and we are in no position to directly address local issues, for the simple reason that genuinely fixing someone else's problem is itself a form of disenfranchising them.

I only wish for guns laws similar to the US, I don`t at all feel that they are out of place. In my country there is a severe need for a way to safely kill or wound house breaking criminals. In the statics published by the SAPS a high number of house breakings were done by people on drugs. A few months back a man and an unknown number of others jumped my wall. They tried to break in to my house, my dad shouted at one of them, the criminal turned and tried to attack with a hammer. Unbeknownst to all of us Armed Security Officers and responded to a call by the next house over. They shot the man with the hammer twice in the back. While shot he ran about 60 meters to my wall, it is 1.8 meters high, jumped it and ran into the road were he was hit by a car. He still tried to get up and run but his legs were broken, Armed Response caught up to him, beat him and took him the the police station. Without a fire-arm, how would you have propose that situation be approached. Guns are a major deterrent to crime.

Actually, gun laws here in America are probably a bit too loose, though I wouldn't expect any of the Democrats in Congress to actually understand how. It's way too easy for the mentally ill to get access to them, there's relatively little training in them (I'd personally like to see a shift away from the current heavy military, to a military-trained militia approach, and stick gun training in as part of it: our founding fathers liked democracy, but for citizenry they looked to Sparta), the system isn't regularized between gun stores and gun shows (you should have to get a background check, and then be able to use it at either so that the regulations can be unified), and you should be held to certain standards of accountability. None of these seem to be true at the national level, which is filled by a mixture of liberals who hallucinate demons every time they see a gun, and conservatives who hallucinate angels every time they see a gun owner. Reproduce America's current approach and the druggies will be using the occasional gun instead of the occasional knife. You're better off learning the important bit from Japan, where culturally they don't do this stuff. The lack of an appropriate culture is the cause of both much gun violence in America, as well as a whole slew of other social ills. To fix the social problems in South Africa, a multi-generational social-uplift project is needed, because it's the only way that you'll be able to deal with the underlying problems (unless you want to build arcology towers, in which case you might try restricted access and a police station at the front door).

[Charlie]

Absalom pretty much laid it out as I wanted to, but am not eloquent enough to do so.

A clarification on the HumInt I was specifying. I wasn`t thinking of spies at all, not any type movie or real. More like cooperative locals. The waiter at your table, the shop attendant, the bus boy at the hotel, anyone whom hears things. These people would be reporting on anything suspicious for personal profit, that is to say, they get paid each time terrorists are caught.

While I cannot comment on the situation of guns laws and their validity in the US, I do understand your "Militia", here they are the Armed Response Companies. Armed Response are responsible for more Policing here than actual Police. In terms of training, depending of the company of course, they are better trained in fire-arms use that average Police but less than say SWAT type Police.
Here, unfortunately, gun laws where changed it is now very difficult to get a licence and you may only use in in a very narrow set of circumstances I would say it is far too strict overall.

Japan`s way would never work here. There violence is an unacceptable solution to problems, here it is the first and best choice. Next Japan has something like 95% of the populations is native Japanese, here the original natives, San Bushmen, are nearly all gone. South African lacks any sort of unity among the different races, in fact there isn`t any unity in any one races. South Africa`s problems is very similar to your own, perhaps slightly different and far worse, but basically the same. Racism here is not Racism as you might understand it. It`s not about hate, more mutual dislike of everybody. I cannot fully describe how the Racism works here, but it would forever block any type of uplift project until a new government is in place, I personally do not feel there will be any changes to the general state of things for at least two decades.

Funny you should mention Arcology towers, because that is the solution we have chosen in this country. They are called Gate-Communities, they are completely walled off with all access roads having been secured and the walls plus interiors patrolled regularly. Only replace the useless, cowardly and corrupt Police with well trained Armed Response Security who can and will shoot you many times in the face with a R4. They are very nice and safe places to live, they have their own parks and pools.

[JQBogus]

the big problems here really is seriously different culture, internationalism(or rather the lack of such), ease of international travel, and history, cause i can promise you, america is NOT innocent in the reasons for the war on terror, there is a reason why america is targeted by jihadists and not lets say spain.

Or maybe Spain isn't targetted because the perception is that when they were, they promptly elected a government that did something the terrorists wanted: withdraw their troops from Iraq. No point spending resources to intimidate an enemy that has effectively already submitted when you have enemies that have not.

[junk]

Firstly, we're talking about communities that actively aid & abet terrorists, knowingly. Those people who let the terrorists live in their houses? They are not our allies, they are knowingly supporting our enemies, they themselves are our enemies. In some cases you look the other way, in others you don't, but in no case do you pretend that they deserve your protection or support. If it's easier to leave them alone, then you consider it, weighing the potential ramifications. If it's easier to not leave them alone, then they're on the chopping block. You don't play nice, pretending that they're not to be touched, you aren't talking about a vague, amorphous relation such as between a civilian and a nation, you're talking about a personal choice. And the people that could potentially get caught up as collateral damage? Ignoring the incidents of questionable timing, these are people who are consorting with those that they know full well we consider targets, in areas that they know full well we are conducting combat operations in. You can feel sad about a civilian trying to make some money by pumping out the bilge of a German ship in WW2 who died when you bombed the ship, but if you know that they're likely to be there then you still do it, because anything else is irresponsible.


Now, for an actual solution, this probably won't work unless we carry it out successfully for at least 20 years, with the "associating with terrorists == death" PR campaign that it needs, but that does have the potential for success. Ultimately, the real problem is multi-fold:

First of all - the fact the fact that they might potentially be enemies of the US does still not grant the US a license to go and take them out, outside of the US. Do you know what that makes the US? A nation that attempts to terrorise members of other nations.Honestly the only reason the US is doing that these days, is because the nations where it practices such don't actually have much of an ability to detect or intercept these attacks let alone make a sizeable political fallout from it. Which is one of the reasons why a lot of people were incredibly surprised at the sheer scale of the wiretapping and why it still is having quite sizeable poltical fallout even now.

As to your second point - I'd wager in the end it's much more likely to create a second situation, a situation we see quite well in a number of russian territories, or Palestine.

It merely creates a much better organised resistance force which is much harder to weed out and probably will end up enjoying even more public support to a certain extent.

do the loroi heavy any land basic vehicles such as tanks or is it all space oriented.

Sure, they have a variety of ground forces. That's discussed in a little more detail here:
http://well-of-souls.com/outsider/forum_ground_war.html

What about human ground forces? i saw several documentaries involving war with aliens, even Steven Hawkins says Aliens if/will engage in ground warfare will have a harsh realization that Earthlings are adept at war. I mean really we go what 10 years at the most without a war. I am sure the Lori IFVs are something like Tau hammerhead tanks but that still leaves mankind the odd man out.

The problem is, you can never discount the orbit in a human vs alien war on the ground really. Just the fact the aliens have a troop transport up in the air means a huge lot. It means they can redoploy anywhere as needed, have visual coverage and become even more dangerous if they can actually use those ships for some sort of fire support.

Your only way of surviving is if they try to not kill of civilian population centers and essentially have the military fight a guerilla war from them. But considering how both the loroi and umiak act, such a situation is not likely and both would look at our urban landscape and just conclude that even if they raze a couple of cities to make it an example ot other militaries that hiding out is not an option, we will still have enough of them.

[GeoModder]

... So what if a few civilians nobodies got kiled...

Hopefully responding security officers don't think of you as a "nobody" next time you're in the line of fire.

[Absalom]

Firstly, we're talking about communities that actively aid & abet terrorists, knowingly. Those people who let the terrorists live in their houses? They are not our allies, they are knowingly supporting our enemies, they themselves are our enemies. In some cases you look the other way, in others you don't, but in no case do you pretend that they deserve your protection or support. If it's easier to leave them alone, then you consider it, weighing the potential ramifications. If it's easier to not leave them alone, then they're on the chopping block. You don't play nice, pretending that they're not to be touched, you aren't talking about a vague, amorphous relation such as between a civilian and a nation, you're talking about a personal choice. And the people that could potentially get caught up as collateral damage? Ignoring the incidents of questionable timing, these are people who are consorting with those that they know full well we consider targets, in areas that they know full well we are conducting combat operations in. You can feel sad about a civilian trying to make some money by pumping out the bilge of a German ship in WW2 who died when you bombed the ship, but if you know that they're likely to be there then you still do it, because anything else is irresponsible.


Now, for an actual solution, this probably won't work unless we carry it out successfully for at least 20 years, with the "associating with terrorists == death" PR campaign that it needs, but that does have the potential for success. Ultimately, the real problem is multi-fold:

First of all - the fact the fact that they might potentially be enemies of the US does still not grant the US a license to go and take them out, outside of the US. Do you know what that makes the US? A nation that attempts to terrorise members of other nations.Honestly the only reason the US is doing that these days, is because the nations where it practices such don't actually have much of an ability to detect or intercept these attacks let alone make a sizeable political fallout from it. Which is one of the reasons why a lot of people were incredibly surprised at the sheer scale of the wiretapping and why it still is having quite sizeable poltical fallout even now.

That does not give these other countries a license to house people attempting to attack the US. Do you know what that makes these other countries? A nation that helps terrorists to attack the US. Honestly, the only reason they do that these days is because they either want to strike against the US but don't want to deal with the full repercussions (Libya did this a few times, under Gaddafi), or because they aren't strong enough to fix the problem themselves (e.g. Yemen, Pakistan). Which is one of the reasons for all of the drone strikes: other nations aren't handling their responsibilities, so we have to do it as unobtrusively as possible, that being one of the reasons why drone strikes aren't having more political fallout than they are. The only reason for the Pakistanis to let us ship things to Afghanistan through their borders, for example, is because they want something... which often enough seems to be those very drone strikes.

For that matter, it's not even new. We did the same exact thing (okay, we didn't have drones, and actually did invade, still) when we were chasing Pancho Villa: the difference there is that the Mexican government was merely slow, so when we saw the local opposition we didn't feel the need to keep at it. This time is the opposite: maybe the Pakistanis and Yemenis can do it themselves... but just as likely they can't, and even if they prevent things from enlarging, that won't stop attacks against the US, especially if we so much as let our automobile manufacturers sell vehicles to the local governments.

And lastly, let us not forget: the "political fallout" of any of these countries failing to stop their household terrorists from attacking America is what happened to Afghanistan, and the "political fallout" of any of these countries failing to let the US perform these strikes is likely to be precisely such an attack.

As for the wiretapping, I'd be more convinced of the significance if e.g. I hadn't heard that the French government was the US-chosen subcontractor in France for the actual collections. Is it going overboard? Maybe, but it's a lot easier to say so if you're dealing with a specific threat (e.g. a government) than when you're dealing with something amorphous, like terrorism. Add in e.g. China, where they have a massive spy network of people who don't even realize that they are spies, and you're looking at a haystack of needles, all of which you need to connect together in the correct sequence before you can actually figure out anything. And we can't just ask e.g. the French for the information we need, because they have to do the exact same thing to get said information that we do to get it. Welcome to the hell of decentralized intelligence, and that's ignoring the question of if e.g. France has decided that selling nuclear reactors to Iran is a good idea this year.

As to your second point - I'd wager in the end it's much more likely to create a second situation, a situation we see quite well in a number of russian territories, or Palestine.

It merely creates a much better organised resistance force which is much harder to weed out and probably will end up enjoying even more public support to a certain extent.

Do you actually have a better idea? Because honestly, the only better idea that I know of is one that we won't be able to pull off anyways. The only true solution is to fix the situation on the ground so that the people lift themselves out of it, and we can't do that because it requires a large civilian support force on the ground, which will just be seen as another form of invaders, and therefor will be regularly targeted by local extremists, without the moderate locals doing anything about it.

[fredgiblet]

We need a carrot and stick combined arms force. Just the stick makes us bullies, just the carrot makes us pushovers. The big problem we're facing in Afghanistan is that we're trying to build a nation in a place where they simply aren't. Without the Afghans taking the lead we'll never be truly successful.

In the long-term what we need to do is think carefully about who we support, what we do and why. As I stated before we'll never make everyone happy, but we can try not to massive douchebags when it's not really necessary. When it is necessary, well that's when the stick comes out.

[Charlie]

... So what if a few civilians nobodies got kiled...

Hopefully responding security officers don't think of you as a "nobody" next time you're in the line of fire.

Personally I have never heard of an accidental shooting death involving any Armed Response Company. Still, I cannot afford Armed Response. But If I could and was accidental killed, I think it would go something like this.
The head of the company would come and formally apologize for my death, he would offer to pay for my funeral costs and pay a restitution to my dad for my death. He might ask that the story not be giving to the newspapers, but even if it was nobody would care. A shooting death involving Armed Response is far less news worthy than a baby being tortured to death on front of the parents with a microwave. Put simply, everybody here is statics waiting to happen with crime, there has being so much crime that nobody anymore cares.

I suppose Police killings could also apply, but most times they don`t even issue an apology, let alone pay out anything. However it is a moot point as the government has being censoring things more and more lately.

We need a carrot and stick combined arms force. Just the stick makes us bullies, just the carrot makes us pushovers. The big problem we're facing in Afghanistan is that we're trying to build a nation in a place where they simply aren't. Without the Afghans taking the lead we'll never be truly successful.

The Afghans lack the skills, competence, and capital to do it them selves. I think the old proverb of;
"Feed a man a fish, and you have fed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you have fed him for a lifetime."
If the US just leaves things the way they are the Afghans would remain goat herders. If the Us built everything for them it would just go unused or be targeted by extremists and symbols of American oppression. I feel the best would be to train them over time to do it themselves. As they are currently doing with the Army and the Afghan National Police.

[fredgiblet]

I suppose Police killings could also apply, but most times they don`t even issue an apology, let alone pay out anything. However it is a moot point as the government has being censoring things more and more lately.

If the cops killed you there must have been a good reason, right? RIGHT?

The Afghans lack the skills, competence, and capital to do it them selves. I think the old proverb of;
"Feed a man a fish, and you have fed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you have fed him for a lifetime."
If the US just leaves things the way they are the Afghans would remain goat herders. If the Us built everything for them it would just go unused or be targeted by extremists and symbols of American oppression. I feel the best would be to train them over time to do it themselves. As they are currently doing with the Army and the Afghan National Police.

The problem being that it takes a REALLY long time to do that, you have to train it into a full generation, deep enough that it takes root even in the face of tradition and resistance. Tito ultimately couldn't do it in Yugoslavia even with totalitarian control, I'm not certain we can do it while maintaining hearts and minds.

[Absalom]

We need a carrot and stick combined arms force. Just the stick makes us bullies, just the carrot makes us pushovers.

It can supposedly help with PTSD too, along with those indian social societies where you have to be a blooded warrior to join. It might help to prevent nutcase soldiers from going homicidal on the locals, too, since it would make the whole "they're people too" bit more visceral, purely-warrior soldiers might seem like what soldiers should be to some people, but there's no way that you can avoid a psychological impact from it.

In the long-term what we need to do is think carefully about who we support, what we do and why. As I stated before we'll never make everyone happy, but we can try not to massive douchebags when it's not really necessary. When it is necessary, well that's when the stick comes out.

Not sure that we have the long-view mentality as a nation that's needed for that.

We need a carrot and stick combined arms force. Just the stick makes us bullies, just the carrot makes us pushovers. The big problem we're facing in Afghanistan is that we're trying to build a nation in a place where they simply aren't. Without the Afghans taking the lead we'll never be truly successful.

The Afghans lack the skills, competence, and capital to do it them selves.

In their defense, we were the ones who gave the Taliban the first two anyways. And I've heard that the Afghan military is rather... dedicated in their distaste for the Taliban.

I suppose Police killings could also apply, but most times they don`t even issue an apology, let alone pay out anything. However it is a moot point as the government has being censoring things more and more lately.

If the cops killed you there must have been a good reason, right? RIGHT?

No, the World Police ©®™ have all rights to that claim .

The Afghans lack the skills, competence, and capital to do it them selves. I think the old proverb of;
"Feed a man a fish, and you have fed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you have fed him for a lifetime."
If the US just leaves things the way they are the Afghans would remain goat herders. If the Us built everything for them it would just go unused or be targeted by extremists and symbols of American oppression. I feel the best would be to train them over time to do it themselves. As they are currently doing with the Army and the Afghan National Police.

The problem being that it takes a REALLY long time to do that, you have to train it into a full generation, deep enough that it takes root even in the face of tradition and resistance. Tito ultimately couldn't do it in Yugoslavia even with totalitarian control, I'm not certain we can do it while maintaining hearts and minds.

You also have to work it out on the basis of what's there, not certain if Tito did that or not. The fact that we're basically allied with the local opposition to the Taliban helps a good bit, and the fact that there's already a tradition of local warlords means that if all else collapses, we can just draw them in as well (which I believe was actually a decent portion of how the current government was actually formed). Fortunately, the Afghan military seems somewhat capable, and as long as they're able to keep the country mostly stable we should be able to eventually get them bootstrapped. The big question is Pakistan, if they go down then there's a pretty good possibility that the Afghanis might get overwhelmed by the multitude of consequences, and I don't think it would be as easy to bootstrap Pakistan as Afghanistan.

[fredgiblet]

Not sure that we have the long-view mentality as a nation that's needed for that.

We don't. The long-view has had no place in America for a couple decades at least. One of the advantages of a totalitarian system is that the people in power have a long-term investment, whereas in a system like ours the only thing that matters is the next election. Of course it's not just the politicians, it's the people too, it's a failure of the entire stack top to bottom.

[Charlie]

I suppose Police killings could also apply, but most times they don`t even issue an apology, let alone pay out anything. However it is a moot point as the government has being censoring things more and more lately.

If the cops killed you there must have been a good reason, right? RIGHT?

There are a number of reasons behind shootings.
Police, the corrupt ones, are used as hit men.
General lack of fires-arms training as frequently lead police shooting a suspect hitting bystanders.
Missidentification, at times police officers have panicked and shot the wrong person.
Abuse of power, sometimes police will extort money out of you, if you daon`t pay the say you were fleeing the law and shoot you.

If the cops killed you there must have been a good reason, right? RIGHT?

No, the World Police ©®™ have all rights to that claim .

[Chants emphatically while striking poses that remind you of freedom]USA! USA! USA! USA![/Chants emphatically while striking poses that remind you of freedom]

The Afghans lack the skills, competence, and capital to do it them selves. I think the old proverb of;
"Feed a man a fish, and you have fed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you have fed him for a lifetime."
If the US just leaves things the way they are the Afghans would remain goat herders. If the Us built everything for them it would just go unused or be targeted by extremists and symbols of American oppression. I feel the best would be to train them over time to do it themselves. As they are currently doing with the Army and the Afghan National Police.

The problem being that it takes a REALLY long time to do that, you have to train it into a full generation, deep enough that it takes root even in the face of tradition and resistance. Tito ultimately couldn't do it in Yugoslavia even with totalitarian control, I'm not certain we can do it while maintaining hearts and minds.[/quote]
I don`t see the US leaving anytime soon, they have the time. The Taliban try to keep the farmers unlearned and illiterate, much of the time the women, tradition can be over come slowly.

The Afghans lack the skills, competence, and capital to do it them selves.

In their defense, we were the ones who gave the Taliban the first two anyways. And I've heard that the Afghan military is rather... dedicated in their distaste for the Taliban.

They were fighting Communism, it was a different era, for the time they made worth while allies. The ANP and the Army torture to death any body the find. Critcs of American Forigh Policy often point to the fact that American somehow it always ends up supporting Dictatorships, Military Juntas and alike. But can yo really blame them? The ANP and Army do a dangerous job, and when they get home they need to worry about reprisals against them and their families. I've seen American to always support the lesser of two evils. South Vietnam versus Communist North, a moderate if hard Afghan Government versus insane radical elements.

Not sure that we have the long-view mentality as a nation that's needed for that.

We don't. The long-view has had no place in America for a couple decades at least. One of the advantages of a totalitarian system is that the people in power have a long-term investment, whereas in a system like ours the only thing that matters is the next election. Of course it's not just the politicians, it's the people too, it's a failure of the entire stack top to bottom.

It`s fairly typical of of a consumerist country, mass media and public opinion are very important to the American people and thusly the men and women in charge.

I would really hate to see the US just pack up and leave Afghans the way they are now, I don`t think the US will be leaving anytime soon but if they did I would see it as a failure. I still don`t really understand what it so unpopular.

[fredgiblet]

General lack of fires-arms training as frequently lead police shooting a suspect hitting bystanders.

One of the amusing things about the gun "debate" here in the US is that there's a ton of people who think only cops should have guns, part of the rationale is that they are the "trained" to use them. There's a large number of cops who only train just well enough to pass the certification, there's a ton of civilians who train constantly.

One of these groups is significantly safer than the other with a gun.

I don`t see the US leaving anytime soon, they have the time. The Taliban try to keep the farmers unlearned and illiterate, much of the time the women, tradition can be over come slowly.

Yes, but it costs, a lot.

I would really hate to see the US just pack up and leave Afghans the way they are now, I don`t think the US will be leaving anytime soon but if they did I would see it as a failure. I still don`t really understand what it so unpopular.

Well there's a few reasons. There's the Neo-Hippies who think that war is never the answer. There's the bleeding hearts who look at an airstrike that killed 20 bad guys and one civilian and start chanting "Baby-killer! Murderer!". Then there's the people who look at it and go "When will this end? Are we going to be dumping money and people into a meat grinder forever?" and "CAN this end well?". At this point I think the majority of the resistance comes from the last group, partially that's a media issue since you rarely hear success stories (I'm assuming there are some to be heard of course).

[Absalom]

General lack of fires-arms training as frequently lead police shooting a suspect hitting bystanders.
Missidentification, at times police officers have panicked and shot the wrong person.

You'd best get used to these two. Delta Force members don't use the sights on their pistols, because if you learn to use it properly then you can aim by feel over at least the majority of it's accurate range. Most American cops use the sights on their pistols any time that they need to shoot. Let that nightmare simmer for a while.

If the cops killed you there must have been a good reason, right? RIGHT?

No, the World Police ©®™ have all rights to that claim .

[Chants emphatically while striking poses that remind you of freedom]USA! USA! USA! USA![/Chants emphatically while striking poses that remind you of freedom]

Reminds me of an embarrassing Toby Keith song that I couldn't resist smiling at.

The Afghans lack the skills, competence, and capital to do it them selves.

In their defense, we were the ones who gave the Taliban the first two anyways. And I've heard that the Afghan military is rather... dedicated in their distaste for the Taliban.

They were fighting Communism, it was a different era, for the time they made worth while allies. The ANP and the Army torture to death any body the find. Critcs of American Forigh Policy often point to the fact that American somehow it always ends up supporting Dictatorships, Military Juntas and alike. But can yo really blame them? The ANP and Army do a dangerous job, and when they get home they need to worry about reprisals against them and their families. I've seen American to always support the lesser of two evils. South Vietnam versus Communist North, a moderate if hard Afghan Government versus insane radical elements.

Except for that one South Vietnamese President, but we "fixed" that matter.

I would really hate to see the US just pack up and leave Afghans the way they are now, I don`t think the US will be leaving anytime soon but if they did I would see it as a failure. I still don`t really understand what it so unpopular.

Well, at the heart of the matter, I at least think that Americans from across the spectrum have a tendency towards isolationism. We sometimes travel around, yeah, but ultimately we seem to have a recurring tendency to turn inwards towards hearth and home. Maybe it's the average population density or something?

General lack of fires-arms training as frequently lead police shooting a suspect hitting bystanders.

One of the amusing things about the gun "debate" here in the US is that there's a ton of people who think only cops should have guns, part of the rationale is that they are the "trained" to use them. There's a large number of cops who only train just well enough to pass the certification, there's a ton of civilians who train constantly.

One of these groups is significantly safer than the other with a gun.

Fred, you know that talking about this will only confuse the gun-control advocates ! Shame on you !

For that matter, let them have their way for a generation and they'll start thinking that any cop carrying a gun is oppressing them...

[discord]

on gun control, there is a few interesting differences between european vs US(and canadian) gun laws, but basically it boils down to what questions are being asked, europe asks why should you have this?(and forcing any gun owner to prove that they have a need for a gun that coincides with allowed practices), whereas american laws ask why should this person not be allowed a gun?

translation, not allowed unless specifically excepted, or allowed unless specifically excepted. whereas canada seems to have a reasonable balance.

been watching a youtube guy on the subject and it was quite interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw7EQtkHtxY

personally i'd go for certification for competence, background check(criminal activity, mental disorder, drug problems) for getting a license.
rules for safe storage, and transfers of ownership, all legal guns to be registered(if someone with a unregistered firearm is encountered by police, it's probably intended for criminal use.)

that would give the cops the legal clout needed for checking suspicious guns, the database of owned weapons useful for investigations, and a minimum of bureaucracy that eats up police work hours that could be used for better things, and finally keeps the guns away from both criminals(safe storage, background checks) and incompetents(certification of safe use) and finally nutcases(background check for mental disorders and violence) which comprises most of the danger groups, the final one emotional trauma and suicide is lessened with safe storage due to the time to get the weapon, but this is probably the biggest remaining issue of legally owned weapons.

bottom line, we live in a ridiculously safe world at the moment, zero tolerance vision nice but at what cost?

[Hālian]

How did we go from the Loroi to dyscalculia to gun control

[Charlie]

Considering the posts weren`t just ban hammered away but split, I guess it`s a fairly good outcome. But as it what kicked it off, I guess you might start at the beginning and compare to find out.

[Absalom]

personally i'd go for certification for competence, background check(criminal activity, mental disorder, drug problems) for getting a license.
rules for safe storage, and transfers of ownership, all legal guns to be registered(if someone with a unregistered firearm is encountered by police, it's probably intended for criminal use.)

that would give the cops the legal clout needed for checking suspicious guns, the database of owned weapons useful for investigations, and a minimum of bureaucracy that eats up police work hours that could be used for better things, and finally keeps the guns away from both criminals(safe storage, background checks) and incompetents(certification of safe use) and finally nutcases(background check for mental disorders and violence) which comprises most of the danger groups, the final one emotional trauma and suicide is lessened with safe storage due to the time to get the weapon, but this is probably the biggest remaining issue of legally owned weapons.

I'd probably add a requirement to join your State Guard (or make yourself available to the state police for emergency aid and disaster relief in the absence of such), though there's a decent chance that's only my opinion.

How did we go from the Loroi to dyscalculia to gun control

It's a fine, upstanding tradition of the Outsider forums B) .

[discord]

absalom: hmm, duty to balance rights, sounds about right in my ears, the biggest issue i have is really with the uneducated nincompoops(although more likely OVER educated) that think no guns=safe place.....it's just sad, since it does not even make a place safer, the real world data says quite the opposite.