ashw_justin

Trust me I'd love to know what actually motivates our leaders and their adversaries during the worst of times. It's possible that we never will--these are things that we as lowly political fodder are not supposed to even consider. But I'll take that as an acknowledgment that this theory isn't about to be disproven. I wonder why we had nuclear missiles deployed in Turkey by 1961 if we had no agenda of nuclear domination? I bet there was some sort of "Turkish Missile Crisis" in Russia to go along with our little political festival in the Caribbean, but certainly we would have been insulated from this sort of introspection.

How do you know that fear over our apparent plan of nuclear-backed domination of the world didn't sour the deal? I wasn't there (i.e. in the CCCP), and neither were you. Forgive me for my skepticism in the face of the constant dogma that we are always good, innocent victims and that our enemies always have been and always will be evil murderers who have it coming. Somehow that strikes me as a little too simple... it almost sounds like some kind of idealistic political philosophy... executed perfectly, at least until people start realizing that there is no shit that does not stink.

No, I'm not. I'm merely presenting what is an apparently unimaginable possibility, that our own displays of aggression might actually encourage the development and support of repressive governments elsewhere on the pretense of their own national defense. Anxiety over a U.S. nuclear attack was probably a dream come true for the fearmongerers.

But FW's merely paying homage to a time when we became the Good Guys and they the Bad Guys--because we got the bomb first, and the winners write the history books.

Communism IS inherently violent. Look at the body count and the track record, you worthless piece of shit. Violence is violence. Call it whatever you want (especially if you are in power).

Are you serious? For all the ugliness, the entire Cold War advanced science. The particular nuke-test in question here only proved that underwater nuclear weapons were NOT very effective against a potentially threatening naval flotilla. Only 14 of 130 ships sunk or seriously damaged. Is it possible you should stick to chemistry and leave history/politics alone? ps. you missed the point entirely. You brought up the idea of enabling. As in enabling nuclear proliferation, which any successful test of nuclear weapons does.

Fairweather, I wonder if it's even possible to dumb this idea idea down any further for you. How about this. Imagine it's 1945. Russia just dropped nuclear bombs on German cities. How would the use of nuclear weapons by Russia have affected politics in the U.S.? It would have encouraged a repressive, jingoistic government to take control under the guise of protecting its citizens from an evil enemy, regardless of how much direct military conflict actually existed. Is this getting through to you? Our display of violent force only encouraged the beast called "communism" to do its business. Young enough not to have been brainwashed by what was apparently highly effective cold-war era U.S. propaganda. Since you bring it up, here's just one idea from scientific theory that is highly relevant to world politics. That is the idea of symmetry, specifically as expressed by Newton's third law. All actions have repercussions... And now I await your next insults. Just how far will you go to insult me personally in order to avoid addressing my arguments, I wonder?

FW, your picture of the "historical record" illustrates the very inspiration for the cold war, an unprecedented demonstration of destructive power by the U.S. that "enabled" (an understatement) communist opposition and a massive proliferation of nuclear weapons. Now anyone who declares themselves a "insert stupid symbolic name here" is a fool for obvious reasons, and I challenge you to show evidence of anyone here claiming "communist" affiliation. In any case, please tell me what is uniquely (or even remotely in practice) "communist" about the ideal of [non-violently] opposing dishonest, violently imperialistic elements in one's own country? Tell me this: who should be proud of the use of nuclear weapons in any context? Or do you expect us to believe that the only thing that the detonation of your bomb enabled was the advancement of science?

But kevbone, who is going to support the insecurity industry if we learn to stop measuring our self-worth by comparison to how hard other people can climb? Who is going to buy all of the magazines, videos, tiny ropes, 1-month-sole rock shoes, and gym memberships if people realize that the only relevant difference (if any) between 5.X and 5.Y is how enjoyable it is for whoever happens to be climbing?

Yeah, so does pregnancy, I hear. But really though, what is the point of marriage again? How many people should really be saying "let's just try not to fuck this up for the kids" instead of all the "I do" and "till death do us part" bullshit? I mean if one is so sure about that stuff, why should they need promises and rings and such? Doubt, that's why.

Keep in mind there a lot of sexbots out there whose idea of avoiding 'premarital sex' can include some pretty freaky shit.

While it's true that lipids do not enter into glycolysis, that's irrelevant. Aerobic energy is generated from Acetyl-CoA, which is produced just as readily from fats as from sugars. Second, Acetyl-CoA produced from the breakdown of fats can enter gluconeogenesis to produce glucose (say for your brain). Thus there is technically nothing wrong with burning large amounts of fat for energy. It just has to be aerobic (very low intensity), and importantly, it takes a lot more molar equivalents of water to metabolize lipids than it does sugars. Burning protein/amino acids for energy is another story. If you want to avoid this you will have to move way more slowly, eat frequently but not too heavily, and drink a lot more. Easier said than done.

"...there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.' " They are representatives. It's probable that at the time they felt that they were faithfully carrying out the will of their sponsors. And now, they are still just telling us exactly what 'we' want to hear, which is exactly what they are programmed to do. Should we expect anything less? Do they not appear to be representing the cries of their constituency? And by the way, Dummycrats aren't the only sudden critics of all things War on Terror these days. Oh, the joys and miseries of catering to the fickle masses... pseudomocracy's a bitch.

Hey now let's leave the yes-bots out of this, after all they were hired on to say pretty things into the camera, not to think or to have a 'conscience.'

Well they must be the chains for the first boulder problem then.

WHOA there buddy! Were such an 'adblock plus' for this 'firefox' to exist (and become openly promoted on the internet), then the omnipotent ad gods would surely have already recognized it as a threat and taken violent and expensive steps to render it useless by any means necessary. So let's not stir them with such outrageous and ridiculous claims, and just let them rest assured that we are all helplessly hypnotized by their virulent brainrape. Heretic! Moderators!

I can only assume you're referring to this guy (at least assuming your points are relevant to the era).

Why does cultural history give someone the right to a double standard? Should someone be allowed hang slaves for old times sake in The South?

That is a really nice graphic. It really highlights a major flaw in the Bush Dynasty's oil strategy: if senior had let Iraq take over Kuwait in the prelude, then they could have gotten #4 for free.

I don't know, can you pass these qualifications?

As unimpressed with the protesters as I am, I'd like to think that at least some of them would actually take up arms (or otherwise support the government) against a real threat to our country, if it existed (and no sorry, Islamofascistan does not count). But I could just be projecting.

Yeah, so it's a good thing they went off to die in Iraq, otherwise these people in Oly wouldn't have the right to protest? HHmmmm... Ok well I was assenting, but we put you on government list now as dangerythinkerperson anyway

Yeah, sounds like the kind of men we'd be better off hanging on to.