The British get good marks for determination and cheerful persistence, but the truth is that without help we would have been lucky to retain our own independence. We could never have staged an invasion of the Continent.

Like them or not - and personally, I have a lot of regard for their good qualities - the Soviets were the people who shouldered at least three-quarters of the load and broke the back of the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS. Operation Bagration alone - launched to coincide with the Normandy landings - was on a far bigger scale, destroying an entire German Army Group and inflicting half a million casualties. They deserve all the more credit in that at least ten Soviets died for every German killed on the Eastern Front; yet they never gave up.

"Which means every country in the world will (and ought, if they intend to remain safe) seek nuclear weapons to prevent this kind of aggression in the future".

Yes, that certainly is the lesson of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Iran, and Syria... in contrast to Pakistan and North Korea. The strong do as they will, the weak as they must. Iraq was invaded, and Iran has been threatened and harassed, precisely because they were known NOT to have "WMD". Don't be distracted or confused by the things politicians say: instead, watch what they do.

"That's almost exactly the same thought as expressed by most Britons when Germany invaded Poland".

You have got this exactly the wrong way around. The UK and France declared war on Germany the moment Germany invaded Poland. They did so simply because they had signed a treaty promising to do so. It was much to their disadvantage, and didn't help Poland in the slightest - especially since the USSR joined Germany in conquering Poland.

Had the UK and France not declared war on Germany, it is unlikely that Germany would have attacked and conquered Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France. Instead, the Germans might have focused on the perceived threat from the USSR; or, as Hitler expected, they might just have settled down to enjoy a period of peace. (While, admittedly, arming themselves for later).

If you say so. But is it entirely unreasonable for nations that are to be invaded, and perhaps partially or wholly destroyed, to be allowed some say in the matter?

Perhaps because we felt the USSR was arming and defending its allies - just as the USA has always done and does today. Israel, anyone? UK, Saudi Arabia, any Gulf state of your choice... Ukraine? As for the US missiles in the UK and elsewhere, maybe we didn't want to become targets. Especially since many of us rather doubted whether the Soviets really had plans to conquer the universe. Anyone with a smattering of history could see that, having always been surrounded by enemies, and recently having lost one in seven of its people - all its people, not just its soldiers - to a foreign attack, Russia would be apt to err on the side of security.

Evidence? Thank goodness the US government, at least, has never paid troublemakers to foment agitation in any foreign country. You may be astonished to learn that there are people who prefer peace to war, just on general grounds, without having to be paid.

That is questionable. Both sides produced a lot of propaganda to show that they were the innocent victims of planned aggression. But the Russians had a far more convincing case that they felt threatened. When was the USA last invaded and one in seven of its population killed?

Perhaps because it was a long way off, and Kuwait had historically been a province of Iraq anyway. (Not that I'd expect you to know that: as Ambrose Bierce remarked, "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography"). Funny how nations like Iraq and Russia are expected to accept the loss of parts of their territory and population, while the USA fought a war that killed well over half a million people to prevent the Confederacy from seceding. (Not to mention the vast territory, including Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Caifornia - did I leave any out?) stolen from Mexico.

So when are the American people going to do the same to Obama?

- attempting to amend the constitution: check (actually, just ignoring it altogether which is a great deal simpler and easier).
- sacking and stacking judicial branch: check (actually, just stacking but that is all that's needed)
- pillaging treasury to build his palaces: check (actually, to conduct warfare pretty well everywhere in the world; building a few palaces would be infinitely cheaper and less harmful).

In the USA, I suppose the answer would be "Never, because you can't just remove a democratically elected president because you don't like his policies (even if they are entirely different from the policies he promised in order to get elected)".

Why should the Ukraine be run on different lines?

I'll see you, and raise you:

"Of all enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germs of every other. War is the parent of armies: from these proceed debt and taxes. And armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended. Its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds are added to those of subduing the force of the people No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare". - James Madison

"The most extravagant idea that can be born in the head of a political thinker is to believe that it suffices for people to enter, weapons in hand, among a foreign people and expect to have one's laws and constitution embraced. It is in the nature of things that the progress of Reason is slow and no one loves armed missionaries; the first lesson of nature and prudence is to repulse them as enemies.
"One can encourage freedom, never create it by an invading force". - Maximilien Robespierre

"War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses". - Thomas Jefferson

"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop". - George Washington

"No one nation has a right to sit in judgment over another". - Thomas Jefferson

"We wish not to meddle with the internal affairs of any country, nor with the general affairs of Europe". - Thomas Jefferson

For the hundredth time, please recall that the USA did not enter WW2 until the Axis powers declared war on it (or attacked it in the case of Japan). Hitler personally declared war on the USA while the latter was STILL mulling its options several days after Pearl Harbor.

The obvious moral of that particular period of history is that the USA is always willing to beat up weaker nations, but maintains a prudent neutrality in the face of anyone of its own size.

Anyone happen to hear of any Aegis ships in the vicinity at the time?

Just asking.

Unfortunately, the universe is "pretty totalitarian". In fact, it doesn't give a rat's ass for human rights. Fighting reality is not a promising occupation.

"Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity isn't a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity".
- Lazarus Long, in “Time Enough for Love” (Robert A Heinlein)

... but I had the impression that nowadays the only legal justification anything needs is that the Fuehrer (sorry, President) wants it to happen.

The analogy is not "flawed" except in that it is an analogy.

analogy
n noun (plural analogies) a comparison between one thing and another made for the purpose of explanation or clarification. Øthe process of making such a comparison. Øa thing regarded as analogous to another; an analogue.

In an analogy, you suggest that one thing is LIKE another - not identical. If they were identical, they would be THE SAME THING.

The marble/rubber sheet analogy is helpful in some ways; I have always found it so, at any rate. It never occurred to me for a moment to test its exact physical behaviour, because I wouldn't expect it to be identical. The purpose of the analogy is to guide one's imagination and help it to grasp the kind of phenomenon being described. One might as well condemn Bohr's model of the atom because electrons don't behave exactly like planets.

More to the point, WHY would he write a letter? What would it accomplish? He is not going to get his instruments back, and the only likely result of writing to the bureaucrats is a reply explaining in tedious condescending terms why they were right to do what they did.

Bottom line: any government can do whatever it pleases to anyone within its borders. (Some aren't limited to their own borders, of course). Read Hobbes' "Leviathan", a very realistic description of state power, whatever you think of its theoretical value.

The Web is a great example. An even more dramatic one is the number system: the digits, the algorithms of arithmetic, etc. If those had just recently been invented, you can bet they would be legally wrapped up as tight as a Monsanto GM seed. And the whole field of science - up until the point where it, too, became a "corporate asset" not to be shared (except in return for a "revenue stream", of course).

If those dodos even knew what it takes to make an adult "well nourished", I might be more disposed to believe them. But they don't. The official party line from most scientists, doctors, and governments is still that fat is bad for you and so you need to fill up with carbohydrates. However, all the evidence points to the opposite conclusion: it's carbohydrates (most of all sugar and wheat) that cause many "Western" diseases such as atherosclerosis, heart disease, diabetes, and even cancer.

Since they persist in saying that unhealthy foods are healthy, and healthy foods are unhealthy, only a simpleton would pay attention to their conclusions about vitamins and minerals. Once NuSI reports in, we'll have a better idea about what's healthy and what isn't.

http://nusi.org/
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/banting.html

1. As far as I know, the DoJ hasn't brought legal proceedings against any of the people detained at Guantanamo.

2. The President has publicly claimed (and regularly exercises) the right to order anyone, anywhere, to be killed any time he chooses. Just because he deems it fit.

So I wouldn't put too much store in anything the DoJ says. Because, you know, they don't have the final say.