"They" are not like "us": the most common bias of international politics
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The real question is do you confront evil and actively try to destroy it or do you not? If you do decide to fight it, than you have no choice but to fight it on its own terms. Evil will never fight good on good's terms.
I don't believe USSR was an evil, or would have to blew US with Nuke war heads. It seems perhaps during the cold war time, US was also under "paranoia, hatred and us against them" as we see among the terrorist sympathizer these days.
-Suhredayan
The Soviet Union was just as vile and evil as was Nazi Germany and our ultimate victory over them was equally sublime.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
You still have problems with precise meaning of concepts, uh?
Stan Shannon wrote:
You simply are not perceptive enough to understand that you are making a fundamentally racist argument.
No, I'm not. I am just saying that some people don't want democratic governments because they don't understand it and, therefore, fear it. If they understood it they'd probably accept it. There's nothing racist about it.
Stan Shannon wrote:
classical liberalism (unrelated to neo-liberalism, btw)
Really? What parts of classical liberalism does neo-liberalism rejects? Democracy? Property? Laws written by elected officials? Separation of powers? Government subject to the rule of the law? Intellectual liberty?
Stan Shannon wrote:
it is entirely appropriate that we either isolate ourselves from the 'others', disallowing emigration and integration, or we actively seek to force them to accept our views
Well, it is your assumption that all (or most of) the immigrants don't accept the rules of a democratic state, not mine. Indeed, anyone that chooses to live in a democratic state must adhere and accept its rules, "violently if necessary", immigrant or not. And I believe that democracy is what the majority of people that migrate to these countries wants.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
Diego Moita wrote:
No, I'm not. I am just saying that some people don't want democratic governments because they don't understand it and, therefore, fear it. If they understood it they'd probably accept it.
And therefore what? Such a situation clearly demands either isolating yourself from them or actively promoting your own principles. If you do actively prmote those principles than you must assume them capable of being accepting. Are we to modify them to make them more compatible to those who fear them?
Diego Moita wrote:
There's nothing racist about it.
It certainly is, and xenophonic to boot.
Diego Moita wrote:
What parts of classical liberalism does neo-liberalism rejects?
All of it. MOdern (neo) liberalism is not democratic it does not believe in separation of powers it has absolutely no respect for intellectual liberty and uses the rule of law as nothing more than a means of promoting it own agenda. It represents a completely and utter rejection of the principles of classical liberalism.
Diego Moita wrote:
Well, it is your assumption that all (or most of) the immigrants don't accept the rules of a democratic state, not mine. Indeed, anyone that chooses to live in a democratic state must adhere and accept its rules, "violently if necessary", immigrant or not. And I believe that democracy is what the majority of people that migrate to these countries wants.
If that were true they would not need to emigrate to find it if your original assertion were valid, they would welcome our efforts to bring it to them where they are at.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
suhredayan wrote:
It was US who always prevented India from taking on this bad elements and allowed them to grow to a point where they may take down everyone with them.
Actually, during the late 70's and most of the 80's India was pretty closely tied to the USSR's foreign policy and, for instance in the case of nuclear weapons, mostly told the US to take a long walk off a short wharf.
suhredayan wrote:
However I don't deny US wants to see a better world
Problem is the US keeps spending an inordinate amount of men and resources trying to help the rest of the world - much of it by request. As I pointed out, if we just stop wasting our time and trouble overseas and let the rest of the world sink or swim without us, we'd be better off, and the rest of the world couldn't resent us any more than they do already.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
I pointed out, if we just stop wasting our time and trouble overseas and let the rest of the world sink or swim without us, we'd be better off, and the rest of the world couldn't resent us any more than they do already.
That was pretty much always the American attitude before Pearl Harbor. Precisely how isolated do you recommend we become?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
The worst thing about Christianity is that poseurs like you use it to cloak their racism bigotry.
His bigotry is not limited to race, although racism colors it.
-
Diego Moita wrote:
Unfortunatelly the truth is that many people simply don't want that simply because they can't understand it. The devil they know sounds better that the good they don't know.
Pure bullshit. You simply are not perceptive enough to understand that you are making a fundamentally racist argument. If what you are saying has any merit, and if we do wish to embrace classical liberalism (unrelated to neo-liberalism, btw) than it is entirely appropriate that we either isolate ourselves from the 'others', disallowing emigration and integration, or we actively seek to force them to accept our views, violently if necessary. Which is it?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Pure bullsh*t. You simply are not perceptive enough to understand that you are making a fundamentally racist argument.
The problem isn't lack of perception, and it isn't lack of ability to reason properly (in this case meaning to see where the logic of his onw statements go). The problem is a studied refusal to reason properly.
-
suhredayan wrote:
It was US who always prevented India from taking on this bad elements and allowed them to grow to a point where they may take down everyone with them.
Actually, during the late 70's and most of the 80's India was pretty closely tied to the USSR's foreign policy and, for instance in the case of nuclear weapons, mostly told the US to take a long walk off a short wharf.
suhredayan wrote:
However I don't deny US wants to see a better world
Problem is the US keeps spending an inordinate amount of men and resources trying to help the rest of the world - much of it by request. As I pointed out, if we just stop wasting our time and trouble overseas and let the rest of the world sink or swim without us, we'd be better off, and the rest of the world couldn't resent us any more than they do already.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Problem is the US keeps spending an inordinate amount of men and resources trying to help the rest of the world
This is the some thing I don't understand, despite of all the efforts and sacrifice by your own brave soldiers, why lot of people hate US like anything? I come from a city where there is lot of Muslim population, and my state Kerala is ruled by communist party! and you have no idea how much hatred is there against US within a large section of people over here, anti-US street protects will have no less than hundreds of thousands, even though US has not done anything bad against my state Kerala or to the Muslim population here, this really scares me. The point is the US policy is missing something really bad.
-Suhredayan
-
This article is very funny: a Russian pundit "predicts" that the U.S. will fall apart in 2009-2010 and the US territory will be controlled by China, European Union, Mexico and Canada[^]. But my point here is not about an idiot saying bullshit about US politics. The really interesting issue is the mechanics of the bias, how it is generated. Basically Russians see politics in every country in the world the same way they see their own politics: split appart by nationalist and ethnical feelings and under assault of extern superpowers. That's why they love Putin. He is a thief and a tirant but he gives them security and stability. A lot of people in the Russian Federation's provinces know that they were sovereign countries before communism. And the Russians imagine the Western Hemisphere (North, Central and South America) as being in the same state. It is easy to call this whole thing as stupid, but the fact is that a lot of the foreign policy of the American government has been repeating the same bias inverted. When Bush-father anounced a "New World Order" he believed that Russia would fall into the ranks of capitalism and open society, not into kleptocracy. When neo-cons created the domino effect theory to justify nation building in Iraq/Afganistan they completely ignored the power of tribal and clan loyalties; these don't exist in the U.S. The classical liberal/neo-liberal political philosophy (starting in John Locke) preaches that freedom, the rule of the law and democracy are the natural state of every human being. Unfortunatelly the truth is that many people simply don't want that simply because they can't understand it. The devil they know sounds better that the good they don't know.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
I saw a poll taken in Russia that showed that the majority feel just as oppressed as they did under the Soviet Union, and most felt that it was more tolerable under open communism just because they knew the plan and felt like they were part of it. I think you nailed that pretty well.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Oakman wrote:
You have already admitted to, and displayed, ignorance of your own country's and the world's history further back than about ten years.
Are you referring to financial aid? If then you didn't get the point, unsolicited aid are more an attempt to buyout countries or get more control on their foreign policies, than anything genuine. Even today US tries such unsolicited assistance, an attempt to make India sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty(NPT)[^], slightly OT, but still convey the message that a policy of trying to impose stuffs on others may not work.
Oakman wrote:
Anybody who knows anything about history will guarantee you that on October 27th, 1962, the world was within a handsbreadth of Armageddon.
Even this was the result of the similar policy, "I am bigger than you", not because USSR or USA was evil.
-Suhredayan
suhredayan wrote:
unsolicited aid are more an attempt to buyout countries or get more control on their foreign policies
No-one, especially the U.S. has ever forced India to take a nickle. India has accepted massive aid from Russia, Europe and the U.S. and it is the only thing that kept India going long enough to have the brilliant economy she does today. Read your own history. Certainly there have been quid pro quo offers from time to time, in addition to massive direct food grants that asked for nothing. But so what? Do you object to the U.S. occasionally expecting something in return? Are you under the impression that Foreign Aid is Foreign Welfare? Do you think the U.S. owes India a living?
suhredayan wrote:
Even this was the result of the similar policy, "I am bigger than you", not because USSR or USA was evil.
What the fuck does your statement have to do with whether or not the U.S. and the USSR almost went to Defcon 1 over Cuba? No-one, not even you, has been talking about good and evil. Just reality.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
modified on Wednesday, December 31, 2008 8:31 AM
-
Oakman wrote:
I pointed out, if we just stop wasting our time and trouble overseas and let the rest of the world sink or swim without us, we'd be better off, and the rest of the world couldn't resent us any more than they do already.
That was pretty much always the American attitude before Pearl Harbor. Precisely how isolated do you recommend we become?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
That was pretty much always the American attitude before Pearl Harbor. Precisely how isolated do you recommend we become?
Actually, before Pearl Harbor, we were very much appreciated by many of the countries that now resent us. But I am not talking about isolation. Talking about not spending money overseas without getting something for it in return. Stop playing world cop and stop letting other nations think they have anything to say about how the U.S. conducts its own affairs. Certainly stop sending Foreign Aid overseas. Elsewhere in this thread[^] you can see how warmly it has been received and how much it has been appreciated. Military assistance and treaties should be eschewed wherever possible, and replaced by the idea that we will make decisions about going to war in our Congress when the President determines there is a need to do so. Btw, I don't think it was Pearl Harbor that changed our national attitude. It was the aftermath of the war when we suddenly realised that Joe Stalin was as dangerous as Adolph Hitler.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
suhredayan wrote:
unsolicited aid are more an attempt to buyout countries or get more control on their foreign policies
No-one, especially the U.S. has ever forced India to take a nickle. India has accepted massive aid from Russia, Europe and the U.S. and it is the only thing that kept India going long enough to have the brilliant economy she does today. Read your own history. Certainly there have been quid pro quo offers from time to time, in addition to massive direct food grants that asked for nothing. But so what? Do you object to the U.S. occasionally expecting something in return? Are you under the impression that Foreign Aid is Foreign Welfare? Do you think the U.S. owes India a living?
suhredayan wrote:
Even this was the result of the similar policy, "I am bigger than you", not because USSR or USA was evil.
What the fuck does your statement have to do with whether or not the U.S. and the USSR almost went to Defcon 1 over Cuba? No-one, not even you, has been talking about good and evil. Just reality.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
modified on Wednesday, December 31, 2008 8:31 AM
Considering that global stock markets have fallen around a 33% this year, and more in India 50%+ and Shanghai 65.2%, with shrinking worldwide economies, it could be argued that time needs to be called in massive direct food grants. Note, I'm not suggesting a complete cessation of food aid, but a substantial scaling down might have to occur. The reason could be a simple as "it is needed for our own people" in these times of deepening hardship. Regarding the Cuba Missile Crisis, those who lived through it have a certain clarity whereas those of a later generation have the history books to refer to and the gravity of the then situation is perhaps quite hard to convert into text on a page. If I don't speak with you later, happy new year Jon.
-
Oakman wrote:
Problem is the US keeps spending an inordinate amount of men and resources trying to help the rest of the world
This is the some thing I don't understand, despite of all the efforts and sacrifice by your own brave soldiers, why lot of people hate US like anything? I come from a city where there is lot of Muslim population, and my state Kerala is ruled by communist party! and you have no idea how much hatred is there against US within a large section of people over here, anti-US street protects will have no less than hundreds of thousands, even though US has not done anything bad against my state Kerala or to the Muslim population here, this really scares me. The point is the US policy is missing something really bad.
-Suhredayan
suhredayan wrote:
The point is the US policy is missing something really bad.
US foreign policy has been mismanaged by one-world wonks on both the right and the left since the fifties.
suhredayan wrote:
despite of all the efforts and sacrifice by your own brave soldiers, why lot of people hate US like anything?
Same reason so many used to hate England when there was a British Empire; Spain before that; and so on back to how the Greeks felt about Macedon (I think they still feel that way, as a matter of fact.) The dominant power is seen as arrogant, condescending, and terribly unlikable simply because it is seen to rule the world. Microsoft and the Yankees baseball team suffered the same fate for awhile in the last century.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
The Soviet Union was just as vile and evil as was Nazi Germany and our ultimate victory over them was equally sublime.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
Problem is the US keeps spending an inordinate amount of men and resources trying to help the rest of the world
This is the some thing I don't understand, despite of all the efforts and sacrifice by your own brave soldiers, why lot of people hate US like anything? I come from a city where there is lot of Muslim population, and my state Kerala is ruled by communist party! and you have no idea how much hatred is there against US within a large section of people over here, anti-US street protects will have no less than hundreds of thousands, even though US has not done anything bad against my state Kerala or to the Muslim population here, this really scares me. The point is the US policy is missing something really bad.
-Suhredayan
suhredayan wrote:
even though US has not done anything bad against my state Kerala or to the Muslim population here
suhredayan wrote:
The point is the US policy is missing something really bad.
Then I don't really see much of a meaning in this. What's the point in anti protests for NO apparent reason? You can't claim a policy to be wrong. Believe me it would have undergone numerous iterations for its validity and its open for the world to see. Most Muzzies are like that world wide. They are anti to anything that is not-a-Muzzie
------------------------------------------- It's code that drives you - Shyam
-
Considering that global stock markets have fallen around a 33% this year, and more in India 50%+ and Shanghai 65.2%, with shrinking worldwide economies, it could be argued that time needs to be called in massive direct food grants. Note, I'm not suggesting a complete cessation of food aid, but a substantial scaling down might have to occur. The reason could be a simple as "it is needed for our own people" in these times of deepening hardship. Regarding the Cuba Missile Crisis, those who lived through it have a certain clarity whereas those of a later generation have the history books to refer to and the gravity of the then situation is perhaps quite hard to convert into text on a page. If I don't speak with you later, happy new year Jon.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Note, I'm not suggesting a complete cessation of food aid, but a substantial scaling down might have to occur. The reason could be a simple as "it is needed for our own people" in these times of deepening hardship.
It's a hard choice, but I agree, it's one that will probably need to be made. Of course, the decision will be decried as selfish by those who have never shown gratitude for what has been sent.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Regarding the Cuba Missile Crisis, those who lived through it have a certain clarity whereas those of a later generation have the history books to refer to and the gravity of the then situation is perhaps quite hard to convert into text on a page.
I suppose you are right, though there are some excellent documentaries on what happened that last week of October as well as some well-written books. Unfortunately, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," and it appears that neither Pakistan's nor India's leaders remember that confrontation with any clarity. . .
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
happy new year Jon
May those who love us love us. And those that don't love us, May God turn their hearts. And if He doesn't turn their hearts, May he turn their ankles, So we'll know them by their limping. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
suhredayan wrote:
The point is the US policy is missing something really bad.
US foreign policy has been mismanaged by one-world wonks on both the right and the left since the fifties.
suhredayan wrote:
despite of all the efforts and sacrifice by your own brave soldiers, why lot of people hate US like anything?
Same reason so many used to hate England when there was a British Empire; Spain before that; and so on back to how the Greeks felt about Macedon (I think they still feel that way, as a matter of fact.) The dominant power is seen as arrogant, condescending, and terribly unlikable simply because it is seen to rule the world. Microsoft and the Yankees baseball team suffered the same fate for awhile in the last century.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
the Yankees baseball team suffered the same fate for awhile in the last century
Bah, I still hate the Yankees. I used to hate Notre Dame, not because they won games, but because of the unfair advantage they had in the press and thereby the polls. Now I just feel sorry for them.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
Rob Graham wrote:
His bigotry is not limited to race, although racism colors it.
But then, you *are* a liar (and probably a bigot, too, you damned-stupid cracker).
Wow. "cracker", a new insult (new for Troy, at least). I'm impressed, and honored. How long did it take you to find that one? Or did a someone else suggest it to you?
-
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
The Orthodox Church created similar moral foundations, but in the countries outside Catholic Church area of influence.
But the Orthodox Churches, by being tied to nations, did not provide the concept of laws that transcended national borders.
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
I'm lost here
Google is your friend
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
But the Orthodox Churches, by being tied to nations, did not provide the concept of laws that transcended national borders.
And what is the moral of this? Yes, no more generalizations. You are right for the facts, but wrong in the conclusions. Just for example the Orthodox Churches in Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire/ and Bulgaria helps them to be a shield against Arabian invasion in Europe for hundreds years /especially for Byzantine/, help them to survive Ottoman rule and was a base for creating and spreading the Cyrillic alphabetic in Bulgaria. Nowadays I wouldn’t say that the both countries are uncivilized, non-democratic or are ruled by dictator. So if you be so kind to stop narrowing the good influence of the Christianity only to Catholic Church we wouldn’t have for what to argue about.
Oakman wrote:
Google is your friend
The European history is my hobby from a plenty of years, so please don’t send me to google. I asked you a direct question. P.P: Happy New Year!
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
Oakman wrote:
But the Orthodox Churches, by being tied to nations, did not provide the concept of laws that transcended national borders.
And what is the moral of this? Yes, no more generalizations. You are right for the facts, but wrong in the conclusions. Just for example the Orthodox Churches in Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire/ and Bulgaria helps them to be a shield against Arabian invasion in Europe for hundreds years /especially for Byzantine/, help them to survive Ottoman rule and was a base for creating and spreading the Cyrillic alphabetic in Bulgaria. Nowadays I wouldn’t say that the both countries are uncivilized, non-democratic or are ruled by dictator. So if you be so kind to stop narrowing the good influence of the Christianity only to Catholic Church we wouldn’t have for what to argue about.
Oakman wrote:
Google is your friend
The European history is my hobby from a plenty of years, so please don’t send me to google. I asked you a direct question. P.P: Happy New Year!
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
You are right for the facts, but wrong in the conclusions.
Hard to believe. But I have been wrong before. . .I remember once, when I was twelve. . .
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
Nowadays I wouldn’t say that the both countries are uncivilized, non-democratic or are ruled by dictator.
Skipping earlier history, I will point out that, as a kingdom, Bulgaria fought with Germany in WWI and WWII. It then became one of the USSR's staunchest allies as a 'People's Republic' with one man, Zhivkov, ruling for 33 years. In 1990, it finally had free elections for the first time. I cannot, no matter how I try to twist logic, consider this any sort of a track record of the rule of law rather than men. Get back to me in about fifty years and let's see how it works out.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
You are right for the facts, but wrong in the conclusions.
Hard to believe. But I have been wrong before. . .I remember once, when I was twelve. . .
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
Nowadays I wouldn’t say that the both countries are uncivilized, non-democratic or are ruled by dictator.
Skipping earlier history, I will point out that, as a kingdom, Bulgaria fought with Germany in WWI and WWII. It then became one of the USSR's staunchest allies as a 'People's Republic' with one man, Zhivkov, ruling for 33 years. In 1990, it finally had free elections for the first time. I cannot, no matter how I try to twist logic, consider this any sort of a track record of the rule of law rather than men. Get back to me in about fifty years and let's see how it works out.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Skipping earlier history, I will point out that, as a kingdom, Bulgaria fought with Germany in WWI and WWII.
You are wrong for the WWII. The Bulgaria was allied with Germany “on a paper” only in the beginning of the war and thus achieved to save the civilian population and all of our Jews. In the second part the Bulgarian army fights effectively against the Nazis. Check your sources. The end of the war has found my grandpa in Austria with a heavy machine gun two times loosing his entire platoon because of 90% casualties. What about yours?
Oakman wrote:
It then became one of the USSR's staunchest allies as a 'People's Republic' with one man, Zhivkov, ruling for 33 years. In 1990, it finally had free elections for the first time.
If I understand you correctly, you are skipping more then 1300 years of history to take some 45 years which fits to your theory for “all-good-comes-from-the-Catholic-Church” thing? This definitely have some entertainment value!:)
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
Oakman wrote:
Skipping earlier history, I will point out that, as a kingdom, Bulgaria fought with Germany in WWI and WWII.
You are wrong for the WWII. The Bulgaria was allied with Germany “on a paper” only in the beginning of the war and thus achieved to save the civilian population and all of our Jews. In the second part the Bulgarian army fights effectively against the Nazis. Check your sources. The end of the war has found my grandpa in Austria with a heavy machine gun two times loosing his entire platoon because of 90% casualties. What about yours?
Oakman wrote:
It then became one of the USSR's staunchest allies as a 'People's Republic' with one man, Zhivkov, ruling for 33 years. In 1990, it finally had free elections for the first time.
If I understand you correctly, you are skipping more then 1300 years of history to take some 45 years which fits to your theory for “all-good-comes-from-the-Catholic-Church” thing? This definitely have some entertainment value!:)
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
The Bulgaria was allied with Germany “on a paper” only in the beginning of the war
That paper alliance allowed Bulgaria to invade and occupy parts of Greece and Yugoslavia. You are absolutely right about saving the entire Jewish population. In 1944, Bulgaria turned its coat and allied itself with Stalin, allowing the Bulgarian Communist Party to take over. Neither before or after the switch could Bulgaria claim to be ruled by laws.
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
If I understand you correctly, you are skipping more then 1300 years of history to take some 45 years which fits to your theory for “all-good-comes-from-the-Catholic-Church” thing?
If you want to explain to me about how either the first or second Bulgarian Empire supported the rule of law rather than of the Tsar I'd be delighted to hear your explanation. I skipped everything but the last 100 years only because I assumed you knew that Bulgaria had been dominated by the Tsars and boyars.
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
The end of the war has found my grandpa in Austria with a heavy machine gun two times loosing his entire platoon because of 90% casualties
My father died in 1943. My stepfather was a REMF in the Army Airforce. One of my uncles was a bomber pilot flying daylight precision bombing raids over Germany. Another was a navigator doing the same thing. A third uncle flew P51 close support for those bombing raids. My second cousin commanded a little organization called the Third Army. My grandfathers were much too old to fight in WWII, but both of them saw combat in France during WWI. I've also had relatives in the Spanish American War, the American Civil War (both sides), Custer's Last Stand, the War of 1812, and the American Revolution - again both sides. Personally, I rode shotgun in Hueys during the Vietnam war and got an early discharge after I had to be evacked to Hawaii when the one I was in was shot down. So tell me, you want to have more pissing contests, or are we done with this thread? :)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface