There is a major problem with using "objective" and "Morality" in the same sentence. The simple fact is that social morality is subjective. That being said there is factual evidence to indicate that there are certain morals or maybe more accurately "principles" that have generally negative consequences if they are violated. Murder, stealing, lying, adultery, ect....generally have negative consequenses. Of course; some people would argue what constitutes negative consequences.....morals and values have more to do with one's personal beliefs and popular social views. For instance; in medieval times it was common practice for women to marry and have children in thier early teens. This was not commonly viewed as immoral. It is commonly viewed as immoral in our society. No; I'm not advacating teen pregnancy. Just sayin.
weather they would have "won" or not would depend entirely on one's view of victory. That there would have been as complete a victory as the one that was achieved is certainly debatable. The fact of the matter is that no matter what one thinks of the political ideology of wwii Germany they; nevertheless, had the best and most inovative military of that era. American industrial capacity along with geographical isloation from direct attack enabled US forces to overwhelm axis forces by the sheer number of tanks and aircraft that were deployed in the European theater. On the eastern front Germany faced a similar situation with a flood of humanity that Russia was not at all timid about sacraficing. Some estimates have the Soviet's losses at around 11 million. The answer is "yes" Germany would have lost anyway. Just not to the Brits. More to the Soviets. Germany would have probably at the very least been able to survive as a regime without US involvment.
Yeah....if it was just cops, firefighters, roads, the armed forces ect...that would be great. Virtually everyone wants the basic services and protections that organized government has traditionally offered. The problem arises when it ends up being billions for other countries, billions for banks and car companies, billions for social programs, billions for people that are not even citizens of our country......It's actualy more like making people buy some of the shit that they want and a whole lotta shit that they dont' want or need.
Yeah....they are experienced when they are appointed alright. They are experienced at all the beauracratic BS., political ass kissing and money motivated decision making that you would expect out of any experienced lawyer. After all..they are almost entirely lawyers. Being appointed makes them virtually impervious to any consequences even if they repeatedly make bad decisions. They always have connections and personal affiliations that they have cultivated to get to where they are at and protect them once they are there. If they were elected, they would be beholden to the constituents that elected them.
His statement is basically true. Capitolism is the greatest catalyst for economic growth, health and well being. The problem is that when Capitolism exerts undue influence on those that govern a country you are sure to have greed, corruption and govenment that favors a huge disparity in economic benefits. The recent government bailouts were a perfect example of this. The majority of the country were against them yet Congress and the Pres. pressed forward with them anyway. Wealthy merchants, banks and businessmen are the real governing body of our country. Socialism on the other hand......hmmm....where are the shining examples of this again???
"Why would any citizen willingly fight any war for a country that treats them like garbage? I'll take Iceland in a war over China. I don't care how many human shells you throw at someone, a person who has a reason to live will defeat a person who doesn't 99 times out of 100.
The Soviet Union did it against the Germans and it worked great. Many Soviet soldiers hated thier own generals as much as the Germans.
The police will do an excellent job at investigating the murder of you or your loved one but they will NOT protect you from it happening. Those that are so against gun ownership and concealed carry have never been the direct victim of a violent crime.
Africa??? WTH??
Limited to just China against the countries of Africa..it would be a slaughter. However; like others have already pointed out, any conflict of this size would be a dynamic event with many other players world wide. Just like the last two WW's in the previous century. Who knows what the ultimate outcome would be......
Of course they are if they make up 80% of the welfare system. But not by themselves. Teen mothers and the fathers of these children ultimately make the decision to have children that they are not capable of providing for and that is bad. What is even worse is the fact that our society promotes this behavior by being "accepting" of everyone, all personal beliefs and all behaviors regardless of principal. Government policy reflects this social viewpoint and facilitates by providing social programs that take away the consequences of poor judgement.
Of course they are if they make up 80% of the welfare system. But not by themselves. Teen mothers and the fathers of these children ultimately make the decision to have children that they are not capable of providing for and that is bad. What is even worse is the fact that our society promotes this behavior by being "accepting" of everyone, all personal beliefs and all behaviors regardless of principal. Government policy reflects this social viewpoint and facilitates by providing social programs that take away the consequences of poor judgement.
Does thier preference toward skin color in the child that they chose to adopt make them racist? If they chose to adopt a boy child over a girl child would that make them sexist? The definition of racist is: "The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others." Thier stated preference by itself does not qualify them as racist according to the definition.
There are those of all races that feel that the needs and interests of both the children and the parents would be best served by adopting within thier own race or culture. There are those that feel that adopting children of another race will enhance both the childrens and parents life. I think that this is largely a matter of personal belief on either side and does not qualify the perspective parent as a bad candidate by itself.
Both were very well trained no matter what age they started training. Both were well equiped and both were geard soley toward warfare. Most importantly; both were incredibly brutal. In the scenario of 5000 against 5000 the edge would go to the ones with the longest spears and larger shields. Probably the legionaires. One other point to consider. The Romans admired and studied many aspects of the earlier Greek civilization to include warfare. You can bet that they copied and improved upon what they learned.
