What the USA did is unacceptable! They damaged many lives for reasons that would most likely only help the higher-ups in society! Those international laws are in place for a reason, and that reason is to allow humans to be treated like humans rather than lab rats. Most of the things that were done were for a war that never happened (yet... but the odds are slim).
Hey, the USA Has done these things for multiple reasons. But the overall identifying theme is that they are trying to maximize the United States' citizens lifespans. By either
1.) Giving people complications so that they know what to do medically, the injecting of sailors with uranium pellets was to help their people recover from radiation poisoning when the nukes came.
2.) Torturing detainees for information to resolve crises, and to get information on possible future events. How many have been stopped? The world will never know.
1.) Then why has it stuck around for so long? There have to be reasons as to why.
2.) Yes, but America is different. It's larger, and has a bigger population; therefore costs more money to convert.
3.) Yes, but they can convert back. It helps if you click on the link.
4.) But plenty of Americans think that, I was hoping for a win due to this. Seems to work well in televised debates for some reason.
He fked up, and created the cow (when trying to make a shark, don't ask how). He liked the look of it, and so put it on earth with Adam. Adam had no need for the cow, the cow contributed nothing, so God made Adam have hunger... in order to fulfill the 'everything has a use' thing. He then promptly taught animal husbandry to Adam to make use of the milk, and gave Adam fire to make Steak. It is all very simple.
It shouldn't be in place! For multiple reasons,
1.) Tradition, many people are used to the system and know how to use it with enough efficiency to get a spacecraft to orbit mars. It is unneeded as the US does all it needs to do with the system already in place.
2.) Cost, It would cost lots of money to completely convert the US to metric, signs would have to be replaced, traffic systems converted to the new setup, numbers would have to be replaced on weather stations, kittens to be adopted, and also reeducating some of those who would need it.
3.) If the US tries hard enough, and stays on this system long enough, we just might convert the entire world to our system.
4.) If they switch, then the US loses to the FRENCH!
Yep... one of the last three countries to not switch to SI, sad isn't it?
They/We were offered to be the 2nd country on it after France adopted it, but they/we declined due to
1.) 'Tradition'
2.) Expensive to switch at the time... with limited countries accepting it.
How ever they/we are on the way, Liters are used far more commonly than gallons (Thanks, humorously enough, mostly to soda companies only using metric for containers). Similar to the UK in the 60's and 50's, the school system uses it for educational use. Sadly the USA has had that happening for 3 decades now, in the school system. The military uses it and nothing else (except in non-professional occasions rarer).
And as I stated earlier, it is up to each individual state to adopt it on their own willing, because the USA is a federal government (Smaller sections that make up a whole) rather than a Unitary government (one section split into smaller sections) like the UK.
So when are you guys going to switch to Kelvin rather than Celsius? I find it more useful.
NO, it's part of the British heritage (mostly, some things are different). THEY switched in 1975, and they were with the system for a longer time.
So what advantages does the US system have economically? That is what it comes down too in the mixed-type economy the US has.
Well it is already adopted by the technical fields, military, industry, and the school system. For two basic reasons
1.) Easier to use, easier to program, easy to read and understand.
2.) Is the world standard, and is demanded to be used by anything that wishes to be international.
Another thing is that it was decided by the supreme court that the states are the ones to decide if to switch... none have, although they can at their discretion.
I'm a member of the Socialist Party USA.... They aren't ^&@ing close at all! Number of reasons...
1.) Duverger's law pretty much prevents a far-right/left party from gaining power in a 'winner take all' type of electoral system. Like the United States, unlike the EU (thus why many parties are available). While there are some exceptions to the law, the USA isn't one of them.
Think of it like this (highly simplified)... If you have one fascist party that will get 70,000 votes (for a single seat), and two more parties that want freedom and hate fascism; that will both get 50,000 votes (for a single seat), they will be beaten unless they set aside their differences for a common desire. That is why all the large progressive parties and traditionalist parties set aside their differences to become part of a party that as a similar goal. It gives their politicians a chance of winning and inputing their policies, while making one party larger, while all the time it is seemed to be the same mindset. (Thus why some socialists go to the Democrats, larger chance of victory; even if you have to restrain a little.)
2.) Huge economic differences, The democratic party is more of a subscriber of the nordic model than of marxism-leninism. I'll let you guys read those on your own, as I think #1 is the big one.
3.) Least convincing argument I've ever is this.
Their names are spelled different, therefore they are different!!!1!* (PLEASE DON"T TAKE THAT seriously).
Definition of 'pinnacle':
1.)(architecture) a slender upright spire at the top of a buttress of tower
2.)surmount with a pinnacle "pinnacle a pediment"
acme:
3.) the highest level or degree attainable; the highest stage of development; "his landscapes were deemed the acme of beauty"; "the artist's gifts are at their acme"; "at the height of her career"; "the peak of perfection"; "summer was at its peak"; "... ...
4.) a lofty peak
1.) As humans are not buildings it makes no sense to use that definition.
2.)Not usable.
3.) Evolution drives 'forward' (read as 'in the direction of being the best able to procreate'), generations go on and on each somewhat better suited for the environment, so it stands to say that the only 'pinnacle' of evolution is the lifeform that doesn't have to change throughout any environment presented. Which humans are not, as we are not suited to every environment that is available to us.
4.) Hmm... humans don't make any physical peak that I know of. Which is what is being refereed to here.
At about dusk in your local area is that part 'leading the world' as in pointing in the direction the earth is going, 'therefore leading the world'.
Honestly I have no answer to your question, but I do have criteria of world leading... not in order of importance.
1.) Scientific research: How much information is the country giving to the world via science? India is highly important to the world in this aspect, particularly in medical and communications fields. So in this aspect it can be seen as one of the leading countries in the world.
2.) Military might: How easily can this country take over Venezuela? India is both a nuclear and military power in the world, with a large military and a modernized one. So it is a leading country of the world.
3.) Population: How large is the population of this country? AKA Could all the people in this country fit on the isle of man or not? Well India is a leader here as well, 2nd only to China. Population stability differs on the region (don't worry same with most nations, EXAMPLE: USA and its south-eastern area).
4.) Educational Superiority: Are the people of this nation literate? And do they know basic mathematics? India isn't a leader here; it does have many educated people, but the less fortunate areas lower the placement of India on the world scale.
5.) Economic Superiority: If this nation disappears how badly would the world economy be hurt? India is deeply ingrained in the world economy, in multiple ways
1. It is the largest producer of food for the world, which ingrains it into the economy.
2. It is a major market, for all industries.
3. It is a major producer of marketable goods.
4. Has a larger labor force than the USA's population.
So India is a leader, but in a limited sense when speaking economically.
6.) Resources: Can ____ be made without this country in large quantities? India is a massive producer of cattle and crops, has about 10% of the world's coal supply, and a major potential producer of nuclear fuel. I'll let you be the judge.
Those are the main ones, there are others but those typically are what creates superpowers. Enjoy the Commonwealth games by the way!
This is going to be difficult to D. Advocate for... put on my mask
We should! If it minimizes the discomfort of the people from their current 'government' (the only real government is one by the people, democracy!) causes them, then yes as it is the humanitarian thing to do.
It also quickens the inevitable, as all governments become a democracy eventually... take a look at the 1989 revolts, even the idealogical opposite will eventually fall to the will of the people! cough, sorry
As democracy works so well for us, it must work good for everyone right? Cough Well after a couple years of cutting out the people from the despots from the last government from the system, as they shouldn't be put back into power even if the people vote for them! Because they did bad things right, that's why we are doing this.
The real reason is to get buffer in an inevitable 2nd cold war and to maximize our current advantages against whatever the new competing ideology will be.
I am a horrible devils advocate...
The communist manifesto described that as 'Primitive Communism', tribes also fought until one gained power over a large area (or teamed up in a coalition to fight aggressive tribes). Then it was split into districts where a tribe leader (now king) gave power to chieftains (now nobles) over said districts, after a time the nobles gained power and to prevent war set up a council. The king's power diminishes over time and more goes to the council, the council then allows people more freedoms in order so that the council is viewed more favorably. Then the people after getting this morsel of freedom demand more, and either through the council giving it or the people revolting a democracy is put into place. Parties form in the democracy and then start to manipulate the people to vote for them. Then one day a single group has an idea, to make it so that the happiness and well being of society must be maximized. They either get there through revolt, or democratically (both by populist efforts). This new government makes it so that things are spread pretty fairly among the people, over time this gets to where everything is shared equally.
TL;DR
Anarchy-> Tribalism/Primitive communism-> Feudalism->Oligarchy -> Democracy-> Populist socialist state-> Communistic state->????-> Profit!!1!
So what I take from your statement is these points, please correct me if I am wrong.
1.) A group can gain power and crush freedoms if what they say they stand for is a popular sentiment?
2.) That it is more effective to just yell lies than to tell truths when trying to smash opposition?
Now a couple questions:
1.) How large of a threat is this to America?
2.) What do you think the primary tactics for this group will be when they try to gain power?
3.) Is populism the way to gain power in a 'democracy'?
4.) Does this relate to fundamentalism?
So people that want to maximize the freedoms of the individual (without going into anarchy) are the main danger?
Or do you mean the American 'liberal', a quasi-left group that people are grouped into if they disagree with the G.O.P on more than three issues?
Please elaborate on how they will destroy rights/liberties? As what you have is very basic, with little to no backing; an implied statement is made with a winking face that is common on social networking sites can be interpreted in many ways you know.
Sigh... the classes I took in my nation went along the lines of this...
Primary: Creation of the nation, a brief history of the UK, Canadian studies (year 4), History of the USA up to the Lincoln Assassination, History of the Portuguese empire (WHY? I don't know)...
Secondary: WWI, WWII (but not the Warsaw uprising or invasion of Madagascar, both awesome), French Vietnam, US Korean War... Cold War, History of communism ( 2nd Best class ever in basic schooling), History of Afghanistan and Iraq (Best class in basic schooling).
Honestly terrorism is a cruddy tactic for warfare... you lose more manpower than an average attack, and you attack things that have little importance to the war machine.
I stopped worrying about it when I thought about how weak the entire thing is, a successful terroristic attack is more show than immobilization. It kills less than what a coordinated fire attack on major crop lands in a nation would do through famine caused by it, and you put your men out like that just begging to be eliminated in a bomb-vest (you can destroy how many crops with a lighter compared to people killed with a vest?). It does get people scared though, but in my experience this just unites them.
For the sake that this is a debate site I will take the side opposing you... this will be fun!
Would you pay for a half-ass police agency? Neither would anyone else. If cutting corners means cutting customers, then you can rest assured that the only companies able to remain competitive on the market will be the ones that provide the best services. ;)
McDonalds is that a half-ass food service? To many yes, yet people buy from them despite them being half-assed and unhealthy... they do this by cutting corners to cut time and save money on products increasing profit. By your logic it should be out of business, it's not thanks to the fact that free enterprise doesn't care about quality, but about amount of money made. A robotized police force could go around some of these issues, but has a massive overhead cost.
You're ignoring my point. You can get away with a lot more if your company is the only one of its kind (monopoly). And you can get away with a hell of a lot more if your monopoly is coercive... like the ones we have now.
But in a free-enterprise system people can open up their own competing business and if people don't like the monopoly they can use your service... some people already use private companies for a police force (some gated communities, some resorts) so there is potential that a privatized police force could come into the mainstream (why hasn't it?). So the regular police force isn't as much of a monopoly as you think, but it still has a large share of the market.
You're going to have to do better than this. Show me an example of a free-market insurance agency being "abusive".
As a side note, they do take those policies to prevent themselves from being open to fraud like this therefore losing money. However some companies do overreact by putting up barriers to who can join (you know what I mean, who doesn't?), along with disadvantages of the unlucky (those who have the same thing happen multiple times).
You can only raise an army with a tax base. Customers aren't enough because customers tend to not pay companies that start to militarize.
Can you give an example of costumers stop paying a company that starts to militarize? The business plot is interesting, but unprovable. If anything a private police force would be the easiest company to mask a militarization, they could get more funding because more customers would like the 'sliding' level of protection (with the highest tiers having Assault rifles and such) with the higher cost for the better gear; so people would be paying for the militarization.
Really? Because the only free-market I can think of in recent history was Somalia... and crime went waaaaaaaaaay down in that time.
Actually there were states, but micro-states with limited influence over the individual... so libertarianism it is then? Also there was law, but unwritten laws and societal expectations; which have a large influence over what you do. So it differs on the cultural background, and about size of the micro-states.
In Somalia some areas were better off, like banking and industry... and others were worse off, like violence but due to warlords taking advantage of the situation, and wanting control of it all through war...
It's already been proven that things work better without a state. This isn't a matter of arguing logic anymore, but rather a matter of getting the facts out and talked about.
Prove it, why do states keep appearing? There is a reason. Get the facts out, I want to see them. I'm interested.
side note also I think it differs per person what kind of state (or lack of) they would function best in, due to the way people act under different situations. So trying to find out what's best for all is never the way to go; if you conquer the whole world keep Australia open for the dissenters of your ideology, they would have no excuse really to not go if that way of life is not the way they roll.
A couple of things, first paragraph below deals with public image... then the second below will be why I prefer Obama over McCain...
It is highly unlikely he would have won at all if you were to play back the tape to the election... have any of you read Fahrenheit 451? There is a scene in there dealing with a election, the women (more than one) voted for one candidate because he looked better, was taller, thiner, younger, and didn't put out complicated ideas on politics just simple stuff. The same can be said as a big reason why Obama won, because people are easily swayed by these factors unless entrenched in their ideology... I mean 'hope' and 'change' are damn easy to remember slogans. Obama's campaign seemed to emphasize his better looks, and easy concepts to grasp described small words, which gets votes. Like it or not.
I do prefer him for trying newer things (well more new things than the alternative, excluding indies), actually experimenting with society hoping to optimize it (people always have what seems to them the best interests of the world at heart) while there are policies I disagree with as a quasi-socialist (nationalize the damn health care, don't corporatize it!) this way we can see what works (better) for american society rather than keep doing the same old things... I don't know if the world will end up as a atheistic-communistic-fascist-satanic society if he remains in power for two more years, but hey at least we tried something else. It will be over soon anyways. Billions spent, however we really don't see the affect those billions have on the world until at least a decade into the future when we can get a bigger picture... see the American (or French) Vietnam for perceived worth when it was started compared to now.
In short, people are manipulated by good looks and small words. As well as we are trying something new, which will take time to see the full situation and the effect of actions/policies taken.
