Maybe if you tried reading instead of skimming you might have understood what I'm trying to tell you a few days ago. It was at the beginning of my second to last post, not even in the middle or at the end.

As for this....

If you accused me of that in public I would fucking slug you. Don't confuse my annoyance with flag waving hawks and reluctance to go to war for pissing on the flag.

I don't really care if you accept me as an equal, look your nose down upon me, or kiss my ring with reverence shown for religious figures. You're some idiot on the internet, nothing more, nothing less. I had thought based on your other posts (not directed at me) that we might have an interesting conversation about foreign policy. Then you started talking like it was a game to be won ("admit it or concede") and just admitted that you don't even read my posts. You're just an internet know it all skimming posts for individual lines you can pick apart. Perhaps you'll surprise me with your reply but I doubt it; if it's more of the same do not expect any further engagement from me.

I think he's saying we should have been born Finnish.

Should be: Why They're Ain't Any Such Thing as "Proper English."

Your welcome.

I gave you one. South Vietnam. Do you really think that saying "back it up or concede" proves your POV? Want two more? We have abandoned the Iraqi Government and the Sunni tribes that allied themselves with us. We're in the process of abandoning those Afganis that allied themselves with us. The people who have fought with us in those places are screwed. A lucky few will get asylum and become American citizens, the rest will be marginalized if they're lucky and lined up against a wall if they're not.

This is not pointed out at as a criticism of my country, for I am a proponent of realpolitik. At the end of the day so is the majority of the American body politic. You could recognize this fact if you stopped waving the flag long enough to read what I've written. This isn't a game, it's the real world, and America's word is only good as long as the American electorate is willing to back it up. Both our enemies and our allies are cognizant of that fact. The only one who seems to dispute it is you.

You're selling it all wrong. Better records retention for a politician? Pa-lease, that's like trying to sell a greenie an SUV because it gets great gas mileage. Let me show you how it's done, from TFS: "For instance, it can prevent data from a secure email being copied and pasted into the Facebook app running on the same device—yet allow it to be pasted into a secure collaboration environment, or any other app forming part of the same 'federation,' he said."

Sales pitch: "You see Congressman, the enhanced security framework prevents you from accidentally tweeting pictures of your junk that you were trying to send to a private audience. The iPad can't do that. Neither can your Android phone."

If Senator Wyden actually believed that these programs were undermining civil liberties he could read them into the Congressional record with no consequences whatsoever to his person or position. He'd undoubtedly lose access to classified information going forward but he could not be held accountable for the breech thereof.

The thing is, and nobody here wants to hear this, all of the people "in the know" about these programs seem to agree that they're necessary. Even those Senators and Representatives whose political leanings suggest they wouldn't support these programs (Wyden, Pelosi, et. al) haven't outright condemned them. Neither has the sitting President, who may you recall railed these practices as a candidate, then reversed himself once he had the nomination and was presumably read into (Presidential candidates the same briefings as the sitting President) these programs. Some people "in the know" have nibbled around the edges, suggesting reforms and more oversight, but none have condemned the practices in question or tried to change them.

At the end of the day, under our system of government, you delegate decisions such as these to your elected representatives. If you don't agree with their judgment vote their asses out of office. If you can't convince enough people to vote with you on these issues then that's your starting point. Remember, soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box, in that order. Step #1 isn't even complete, unless you think Slashdot is representative of the entire American body politic.

And you're wrong. I'm sorry but the US is no different than any other democratic nation in this regard. Public opinion will always limit the options available to American policymakers. We abandoned South Vietnam to an adversary that didn't have the ability to vaporize American cities, simply because of the body politic was tired of the war.

If you'd stop waving the flag for a few moments you could fully absorb what I'm telling you. I did not say that we would definitely not march for the Baltic States. I merely question that it would be as automatic as it would be if say Great Britain, Canada, or Germany were attacked by an outside force. You really think the American public would get behind a war for the Baltic States? You're talking the theory of power, I'm talking reality, the United States is a democracy, and you'd have to sell the people and legislature on the concept.

There is no "head" of NATO as such. It operates on consensus. No consensus, no response. As a practical matter, there's not very much the United States could actually do for the Baltic States without involvement by the Western European powers, so now we're talking about the body politic in other democratic countries, countries which are even more risk adverse than the United States. It's easy to man the ramparts as an American, we haven't fought a real war on our soil in over 150 years.

You're proceeding from the assumption that the body politic gives a shit about American credibility.

No offense, but you don't know as much about Russia or Vladimir Putin as you think you do. In fairness, neither do our policymakers, not in the Executive or in the Congress. Start with this article and branch out from there.

I agree that it's unlikely but never say never. If nothing else there is plenty of room for miscalculation. People in the know, who watch both Moscow and Western Europe seem to think it's possible: "Carl Bildt, the former Swedish foreign minister, said a war between Russia and the west was now quite conceivable."

In any case, this whole conversation started because I question your assumption that American policy treats all members of NATO equally. It might appear that way on paper but you've yet to convince me that the American body politic would march for the Baltic States (or the new members in the Balkens, for that matter) as readily as it would march for Western Europe. I'm a student of geopolitics, recognize the dangers in not upholding our treaty commitments, and even I'm not certain that I would be willing to march for them. I'm not sure how old you are but I'm old enough to remember when nuclear weapons were aimed at me; that's a sobering thought that tempers my blind enthusiasm with a healthy dose of reality.

Preaching to the choir my friend, I've dated two teachers and know all about it. More than that, the teachers I remember the most from my own childhood, the ones that made the biggest impression on me, they're the ones that deviated from the lesson plan and made their classes fun and engaging.

American public education is doomed.

This. Ten million times this.

I posted publicly on Facebook that I was going to kill President Obama and the next thing I knew I had two very rude USSS agents knocking on my front door. Fucking surveillance state, they didn't even bother to get a warrant....

Dude, really? I thought you were smarter than that. France was "contractually and honor bound" to start a full scale assault on Germany 15 days after Germany attacked Poland. Instead they made a halfhearted attempt, didn't even finish that, watched Poland get crushed, then did nothing for seven months while waiting for the Germans to attack. And Germany didn't have the ability to destroy every major French city inside of an hour.

If you think the American body politic would rush headlong into war against a country with 8,000 nuclear weapons over the Baltic States I've got a bridge to sell you. We might honor our treaty obligations, but there would be much dithering involved, consultations with the other NATO countries, resolutions at the Security Council, and so on. It's an open question as to whether or not the nations of Western Europe would honor their commitments and without them what does the US do? Glass Moscow? Because that's about the only recourse we'd have; we can't stage the US Army into the theater without cooperation from local allies.

NATO expansion has so diluted the organization that it's hard to take seriously. The lion's share of members can't take care of themselves, never mind contribute to collective defense. There are only FOUR members (out of 28!) that meet their obligation to spend >=2% of GDP on defense. Most every country in Europe continues to cut defense spending even as Russia dismembers one of their neighbors. Would you take NATO seriously if you sat in the Kremlin? I sure as hell wouldn't.

NATO's mission was once summarized as "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down." Guess what? The Russians are in, the Americans are disinterested, and the Germans have taken over the continent without firing a shot.

I truly don't understand this argument against capital punishment. People who receive hefty non-capital sentences don't get the luxury of automatic appeals or access to legions of highly qualified lawyers that come out of the woodwork to take capital cases at the appellate level. Frankly, if I was to be convicted of a crime I didn't commit, I'd prefer my chances of eventually being vindicated if I was sentenced to death. Anything less than that and both society and the system forget about you.

I also find this argument a tad bit hypocritical, because most of the people making it don't lift two fingers to reexamine the guilt or innocence of people who receive non-capital sentences. It's a bit like pro-life politicians that loudly condemn abortion while simultaneously cutting the social safety net. "Protect the children! Until they're born, then fuck 'em, it's a dog eat dog world...."

I'm not sure the United States would really march for NATO. An attack on Germany, Italy, the UK, or France? To the ramparts! The Baltic States? Would we really go to war with a nuclear armed state over them? That's the ten million dollar question, isn't it? We're talking about three countries no one has heard of, that have no significant cultural, historical, or economic ties to the US, with combined population roughly that of Maryland. I'm not certain you could sell it to the current United States Congress, never mind the general public, most of whom can't even find Latvia on the map.

The only countries/regions I can say we'd definitely march for are Western Europe, Canada, Australia, South Korea, and Japan. After that it gets kind of hazy. Israel is most probably on the list but to put it mildly that's a complicated geopolitical relationship.

You'd do well not to underestimate island nations or to assume that you can defeat them by cutting off their trade. See "United Kingdom" and "Battle of the Atlantic" for further study.

Couldn't have won? The United States could have destroyed the entire fucking country a few hours after the President picked up the phone. Don't want to play the nuclear card? Fine, we could have simply engaged in a conventional war of attrition until they ran out of military age males. Even at a 1 to 1 exchange rate (hint: it was many times that) we eventually win. Don't confuse political realities with technical ones. The United States is a democracy, where public opinion shapes public policy. The policy may lag behind opinion but it is still shaped by it.