Comment Re:Main Problem (Score 1) 91
Indeed. I read a report not long ago that said doctors are dying in Africa because they don't have enough gloves.
You have no idea how deep the conditioning goes. In Palestine children's programming is (no joke) broadcasting cartoons showing that jews should be killed and you get a nice reward in heaven for killing yourself in the pursuit of killing said jews.
The kids are also building the tunnels used to eventually kill jews.
With enough brainwashing, how are they to rebel? And if one child does break free, they will simply be executed.
You are applying your own western way of thinking to the problem where children have any value at all. In the middle east for religious fanatics they are just tools of war and treated as such.
If you're launching a rocket, exactly how do you "hide behind a civilian'? Seriously, how do you do that?
Not launch missiles from (or store them in) a school or hospital? No other countries military does that.
Or, not launch missiles right next to the hotel where journalists are staying? I don't recall reporters electing Hamas.
You are obviously a propaganda stooge for Hamas. How anyone could live with themselves otherwise backing a group that kills children to build tunnels and fires random rockets at peaceful populations is beyond me. What's an 11-year old going to do with all those virgins anyway?
In other words, the IS should really be re-labeled as the Honey Badgers of Religion, or HoBeR.
I wonder if, in time, we will see a regression back to city-states once urban populations get big enough. Tokyo is basically its own country, and the same goes for SF, LA, and NYC.
I believe the limiting factor on country size is 1) communication ability, and 2) transportation (force projection) ability.
Roads were a major factor in the size of the Roman Empire, for example. City-states were common when there was no force regionally large enough to conquer the city. City states also needed to maintain farmland surrounding them, so they could remain fed.
What would happen if the executive branch (which is supposed to enforce the law) simply refused to comply with a judicial order?
Does the phrase "Trail of Tears" mean anything to you?
How about "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"?
Note that the quotation is likely apocryphal, but it pretty much conveys Jackson's attitude toward the Supremes in regards to the Trail of Tears....
There is no accountability.
That's not important. Really.
It depends on how US would represent it. If it's official like Vietnam, then no, it wouldn't be Ukrainian forces, it would be American troops.
the deficit is shrinking at a staggering rate.
Yes, it's now the sixth or seventh largest in history...
Note that the only reason the deficit is "shrinking" is that it ballooned enormously (to over twice the previous record) a few years back. It has yet to get back down to the level that was considered "normal" (which most of us considered "too damn high")....
half of these is probably about whether or not he slept with that woman... he he...
- Not that I ever cared one bit....
The only thing even remotely interesting about whether he slept with that woman was that, since she was an employee of his, it was a textbook example of workplace sexual harassment.
Even if she was willing....
Then I get back to my previous point: in "political reality", there are no Russian troops in Ukraine. You can't order to attack what's not there.
I can't tell about Vietnam and Americans, but I can assure you that e.g. fighter pilots on both the UN (Americans) and the North Korean (Soviets) side knew full well who they were aiming to. And in Vietnam, it was most certainly presented as an American puppet regime with direct involvement in the USSR, so any Soviet troop fighting there would also know full well that he was killing Americans, not just South Vietnamese (indeed, to him, South Vietnamese would be the people that he came to save from American imperialism).
It's not enough to merely show suffering if there's no path to rectify the suffering.
It's a bullshit argument, sorry. Not every piece of entertainment is supposed to be a full-fledged women studies teaching material.
But most importantly, there's a question as to the value of this 'realism', even if it were accurate. A lot of terrible things happen in the world that we see fit to ignore. Physics, for one thing. We also don't seem to care about going to the bathroom, cancer or getting oil changes. We're willing to suspend disbelief; this is probably an area where we could live without the casual gendered violence that we've really become accustomed to.
Different games draw the lines differently here. There are some where dying of old age is a possibility, say, and racing games do include oil changes sometimes. With respect to physics, many games are actually trying to make it as real as possible.
Ultimately, the value of this particular bit of realism as a whole is drawing attention to the problem. You can complain that it's not sufficient, but it's way better than nothing.
Amazon's "monopoly/market power" doesn't hurt consumers
The one day you'd sell your soul for something, souls are a glut.
