"True, i haven’t heard of that law before. But (and this is true for any country in the world) i do not expect a government to give up power (or tax income or whatever) once they have seized it. "
Wrong again! Under pressure from the labor party and Israeli public, the law wasn’t pushed from PArliment and never went through! (this is old news and I never got to reporting it!) I’m very happy to hear this.
"Well, then give it all back to the Turks, who have ruled over that land for most of the last 1000 years. To say “it’s not theirs” you have to define under which conditions you can claim ownership, how long ago is your claim, how long did you own it then and all this. I guess our views differ there, which leads to supporting different groups. "
I see where you are coming from…while we are at it, let’s remake the Roman empire. I call Emperor. Truth is that your logic dictates that we must support the state that exists in modern times. That state is Israel and by that logic you must support its existance.
"“No, i mean that incident about two weeks ago, where the israeli military admitted “it was a mistake” and promised to have a closer look at that.
If you want me, then i can search for the actual date and place.”
You could if you want (to tell the honest truth when you are searching through headlines a million of these pop up.) I bet that it was in some way provoked. It wouldn’t be the first time.
The only reasonable response I can offer is that air power wins games. Buying all bombers is a good, economically beneficial strategy. At least I know they will be doing something in the coming turns instead of staring off at the enemy.
Cameron, hopefully I’ll have some free time in the coming weeks ahead. What side do you want to play as? No bidding please. 😄
The issue of Affirmative Action hits home, especially since I live in Southern California. Now coming from a minority I would be inclined to support AA, right? You’re dead wrong. I recently listened to a radio segment from a very influential person, Larry Elder. He too is against affirmative action, which is interesting, considering he is Afro-American.
“University of California Regents recently voted to change their admissions criteria. Previously, the UC system (consisting of nine universities) chose half of its incoming class primarily on test scores and grades. The admissions department selected the remainder based on an array of criteria, including, but not limited to, credit for “overcoming adversity.”
In 1996, Californians passed Proposition 209, the initiative that discontinued the use of race and gender in admissions. Following 209, the numbers of blacks and Hispanics in the elite UC campuses of UCLA and Berkeley dropped off. Yet the overall number of blacks and Hispanics did not decline, with many now going to the less-competitive schools.
Is the change a subterfuge to ensure the admission of a certain number of blacks and Hispanics? Nationwide, the forced mismatching of lesser-qualified blacks and Hispanics in top-flight institutions results in a lower-than-average graduation rate for these students. Those admitted under “special criteria” or some other code word for lowered standards, drop out at a much higher rate than their peers.
A study of seven Michigan colleges by the Detroit News reveals that “among black students who were freshmen in 1994, just 40 percent got their diplomas after six years, compared to 61 percent of white students and 74 percent of Asians … Universities knowingly admit students who have a high chance of failing … The 10 years’ worth of data analyzed by The News shows that the more selective a university is in choosing its students, the more likely its students are to graduate.” Similarly, in the University of California system, students admitted under special criteria – code for affirmative action – also graduate at a lower rate than do regularly admitted students.
The new UC policy punishes Asians. At the prestigious UCLA and Berkeley campuses, the percentage of Asians stands at 40 percent. If the system relied primarily on test scores and grades, the percentage of Asians would be higher still.
At the distinguished, hard-to-get-into San Francisco public Lowell High School, Chinese-American applicants required higher admissions scores than did other ethnic groups. A lawsuit finally stopped it, but the new UC admissions policy follows suit, giving God-like powers to admissions officers, who punish academic excellence, while doing nothing to improve the substandard K-12 education many receive.
Apparently, punishment of Asian excellence is a worldwide phenomenon. Generations ago, many poor Chinese left China for countries like America, Singapore, and Malaysia, only to face government-backed discrimination by envious natives.
The new UC admissions policy ignores the real problem – the substandard K-12 education many students receive, especially those attending public, inner-city schools. Yet, many of the very same liberals willing to use “holistic” means in college admissions remain adamantly opposed to allowing parents, through vouchers, to select their children’s school.
What do the UC admissions officers say to parents who bought smaller homes, didn’t go on vacation, and lived below their means to ensure a better education for their children? Should they stand at the back of the bus because of the educational establishment’s failure to provide a quality education for others? To those parents, the UC admissions policy says quite bluntly, “sucker.”
oh yeah forgot to mention one thing. Literally, 1 out of 3 rolls (that’s being nice) were 6s. I never saw so many 6s ever. (So many situations when someone would roll a five and 6) Were these dice tricked out? To avoid contemplating that, I’ll just use my regular A&A dice next time! (Though my regular A & A will probably borrow AAE’s chips!)
“his advisors did most of his thinking…kinda like regan.”
How could this be considered bad thing? Really would you like someone like Bush (Jr.) running most of the country or his competent, capable secretaries and administrators?
“Eisenhower was a good president. An vital part of presidency is choosing the right administrators for the correct cabinet positions. Don’t forget that George Washington had to appoint his own staff because he could not commit to being everywhere at one. None of this was ever written in the United States Constitution; nevertheless Mr. Washington knew the tough challenges governing a entire nation would bring. Imagine how much more presidents have to oversee today.”
Well, it nice to see someone agree, even if it does happen to be TM. Choosing the right Cabinet is key to any president, just look an Andrew Jackson, Ulysses Grant, and Jimmy Carter for those who didn’t.
“Profiling should be done by country of birth.”
I can’t really agree with this statement here.
“And Ike should have saved hungary.”
Sure, Ike could’ve send in troops into Hungary, but in a period of high tensions, that probably would’ve led to World War III right then and there. Again, in Vietnam and Korea, Americans didn’t go up against Russian troops (except for Volunteers and Weapons expertise), but a war against the Soviets themselves could’ve triggered nuclear devastation. Especially, if the Military Planners planned to launched pre-emptive first strike attacks, which they were planning to do.
I’m still not convinced however, I’ll reply to a few of your points below further:
Germany desperately needed the Russian oil by 1943 (as well as Russian grain which I will discuss further below). That they failed to take the Caucasus during this time was their last realistic chance at victory, IMO. However, had they taken the oil wells, but with the Russians destroying them in the process as was quite likely, would the Germans be able to restore the flow of oil in sufficient time? It might take months, even years to rebuild the necessary infrastructure in the best of circumstances, let alone during a brutal war. The German industry was already hard pressed to supply the necessary armaments and did not have a great deal of experience with oil industry in the first place. I think they would not have been able to do this.
The same idea goes for the chromium, vanadium, etc., though this would be less difficult for the Germans to accomplish (or mitigate as you also suggest) than the oil problem.
While Germany might have been able to supply an equivalent amount of money, material and engineers to work on their atomic program, there simply were much fewer top nuclear physicists in all Europe than existed in the US. Consequently, it would have probably cost more and taken longer than the US program for this reason alone. I have no doubt they could have eventually done it, but I don’t see how they develop nuclear weapons before the allies developed a delivery system that could get through their defenses.
The German V-2 was a technological marvel, but other than size, no more advanced than the rockets being built by Dr. Goddard. After the war, when Dr. Goddard was able to examine a captured V-2, he was convinced the Germans had stolen his work. And the Germans might have because most of his designs were on file in the US patent office, available for public viewing (which the Germans did prior to the war). I think had the Americans wanted to (and Dr. Goddard certainly did) they could have built a superior rocket in a couple months and have it mass-produced in six. As the A-bombs designs at that time were quite heavy, it might have taken longer than that to build a nuclear capable rocket…but how much longer?
Alternatively, the Allies could have either copied the German jets to enable a delivery system, or devise other means (boats/submarines? special ops?) to deliver these weapons.
In addition, I consider the German attack on Russia to be about food as well as oil The Ukraine was the breadbasket of Europe, and helped the Germans tremendously in 1943. But food was scarce in 1944 and onward. Partly this was due to Russian recovery of territory. But it was also because the Ukraine was normally not sufficient by itself to feed Germany (the year of the capture of Ukraine by the Germans was one of the best years for Ukrainian agriculture as the weather was nearly perfect). Of course, the poor treatment of the Ukrainians by the Germans did not lend itself to helping this problem either. In order to assure itself of adequate food, I think the Caucasus (the next logical food source) was needed.
I also like the idea of an IC in India; it allows some opposition to the Japanese where there would ussually be very little. If the USSR can take Manchuria with a minimum of casualties (say, one or two) then I would do so and build the IC. This forces Japan to make a tough decision; take back Manchuria or try for India, which is extremely difficult with the transport blocking an Amphib assult. If Japan goes after Manchuria they are forced to use their airforce to give the correct punch, weakening their opperations elsewhere.