Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:There isn't enough rubles in Moscow (Score 1) 312

by Chickenlips (#46746771) Attached to: Russia Wants To Establish a Permanent Moon Base
I was going to say that I'd rather see my government spend an awful lot of money on a project that would create high tech jobs and further scientific understanding (and expand our human potential) .. rather than funnel that same awful lot of money to Wall Street in the multitude of ways it does now. However, considering today's "global economy", the high tech jobs wouldn't be in the U.S., and a great deal of the money would still end up in Wall Street's pocket. Maybe I should say I'd like to see an international effort with the same goals. That, however, is truly a pipe dream in the world we live in today. Maybe if we ever get past our tribalism and propensity to hoard...

Comment: Re:italians (Score 1) 175

by Chickenlips (#45422019) Attached to: Italy Investigates Apple For Alleged Tax Fraud
Except that, as shown by the recent past, there is no risk! Stupid, ill advised gamble gone bad? No worries! The tax payer's money to the rescue. Heaven forbid the risk takers should shoulder their own risk, as well as pay their fair share of the infrastructure that allows them to flourish in the first place.

Comment: Re:What about the Japanese casualties? (Score 0) 211

"The US was happy sitting out of WW2 selling at high prices materiel to Germany and English alike. Making enormous profits by the way. Had the Japanese not attacked Pearl Harbor it is conceivable that the US wouldn't have given a rat's ass about the destiny of europe, the jews or far east asia. This is the reality."

You're of course referring to George W. Bush's grandfather, when you speak of profiting off of the war (by giving material support to the Nazis):

Not that the U.S. wouldn't have been happy sitting out the war if it could have, profiting from both sides, but Roosevelt knew that eventually the war would engulf the United States like it or not. He had begun, in 1940, the process of putting the U.S. on a war footing, as well as siding the the Allies. Prescott, on the other hand, never met a Nazi he didn't like. Pretty sickening.

Comment: Re:What about the Japanese casualties? (Score 2) 211

Sorry, but I have to say that the United States has never been a "peace loving" nation. I learned that in public school too, but a closer examination of history, especially the last decade, clearly lays that premise to rest. The U.S. was born in by way of war. The U.S. has never hesitated to use it's military for economic gain (Mexico, Central and South America from centuries past). I don't believe we had a valid reason for entering WWI. President Wilson had to so some fancy maneuvering to get the U.S. into it (General Smedley Butler can shed some light, circa 1930's). WWII was necessary, and Roosevelt saw the writing on the wall long before 1941. He had actually reinstated the draft, and, to the limits of his authority, began nudging industries toward fulfilling military needs. It's true that prior to December, 1941, Americans wanted no part in Europe's war (see WWI). Roosevelt had also been giving Britain military aid (Lend-Lease act).
After WWII, unlike after WWI, America didn't disarm. Not something a "peace loving" nation would decide to do. The "Cold War" with the Soviets was but a convenient excuse to continue to pour GDP into military might. The U.S. could have maintained military supremacy over the Soviets with a fraction of the amount of GDP actually spent.
The focus on the military industrial complex served, as an aside to this conversation, to allow other nations to take the lead in consumer electronics. By the end of the "Cold War", nary a TV, radio or any other commercial electronic device (save computers, but they went later) were designed or manufactured in the U.S. Ironically, the fact that military electronics are now essentially manufactured by a potential future foe (China) makes me feel even less safe than if China actually had a military strong enough to threaten the United States.

Comment: Re: should slashdot be asking if the U.S. should b (Score 1) 659

by Chickenlips (#44825815) Attached to: Should the U.S. bomb Syria?
Check out what the Japanese did in Nanking in the 1930's. The Japanese leadership of the era was not good (gross understatement). And surrender wasn't an option for the Japanese military. In fact, they brutalized enemies that surrendered to them, because in their eyes it was cowardly. Surrendering made you sub-human in their eyes.

I truly wish that neither WWI or WWII were fought at all. And I truly wish the A-bomb had not been dropped on a civilian city (although the justification was its participation in the Japanese military industrial complex). But by some estimates, it would've cost a million lives - Japanese and American, to successfully invade and conquer mainland Japan.

Japanese died and suffered horribly as a result of those A-Bombs. Japan as a whole was able to forgo even worse bloodshed by using the A-Bombs as an irresistible context to surrender. The military attempted a coup - they wanted to fight to the last Japanese life. In the final analysis, which side was more concerned with the overall preservation of life?

nohup rm -fr /&