[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

I've always wondered if Japan's peacefulness and harmony is not in at least in part derived from its ethnic homogeneity and its long centuries of isolation. No hostility or anything intended, but lately I've been thinking about the implications of ethnic diversity and multiculturalism on things like this. So many of the most violent areas of the world are also pretty diverse or derive at least some of their violence from ethnic, religious, sociocultural, etc. fault lines.

kuraimen

I don't doubt it. Eastern approaches towards religion in any case have always seemed more practical and tolerant than anything I've yet to find in most of western civilization.

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

The more I learn about the near futility of the U.S. being invaded or having a conventional threat being posed to it any time soon, the more skeptical I get over the notion of soldiers and the military "fighting for our freedom". I think they can think of a more honest and realistic rallying cause than that. If they're trying to keep the geopolitical equation tilted in the favor of the U.S.'s or believe that they are instead helping people of other countries, that's still very important and fine. But don't give that half lie.

BluRayHiDef

I would say that the war in Afganistan is a war that is genuinely for the sake of the safety of the U.S., since Afganistan harbors terrorists.

I don't know about that. Since we can seem to no longer reach most of the operating region of Al Qaeda in the frontier region of North-West Pakistan, the mission has seemed to morph into one in the nature of struggling tremendously to cement at least an Afghan government that will last when the U.S. and NATO are gone.

Regardless though, it just seems to be a phrase that gets tossed around too much, and I'm always sickened by the fact that the U.S. seems to put a verydisproportionateamount of care towards its military in comparison to the people they are actually fighting in support for.

The longest elevator ride I'm ever regularly on is 13 floors, and with no one else getting on or coming off, that's 90 seconds tops. So naturally I don't do much.

The biggest advantage the US has over most other countries is that invasion is almost impossible. I say almost because it could still be done but it would take a massive effort. The US is surrounded by two oceans and two friendly countries. In order to successfully invade, they would have to either ally themselves with Mexico and/or Canada to use their land as a staging area (similar to how we used Kuwait as a staging area to invade Iraq in 2003) or they would have to have the most powerful Navy and Air Force in the world. The former scenario with them using Canada or Mexico is highly unlikely since they're two of our biggest allies. The latter scenario would mean they have the means to get their ships and planes all the way across the planet (depending on who's doing the invading) and then be able to sustain a constant supply line for their troops during the duration of the war.

This is part of the reason most people who have basic military knowledge laugh at the plots of Homefront and Modern Warfare 2, both of which had US land invasions where they were able to fly halfway across the planet to nearly annihilate us. Most civilians with no military experience don't know the logistics an invasion would take and just assume it's as simple as gathering a bunch of tanks, jets, and ships and attacking said country. Granted, there were attacks on US soil. However, you have to look at what kind of attacks they were. Pearl Harbor was a suicide attack, the pilots who attacked knew they wasn't coming back alive and their only mission was to cause death and destruction at the sacrifice of their lives. Alaska wasn't nearly as occupied and it was close enough to not be as hard to reach. The other missions were stealth missions or hit and run missions that wasn't at the level of an invasion.

ad1x2

The more I learn about the near futility of the U.S. being invaded or having a conventional threat being posed to it any time soon, the more skeptical I get over the notion of soldiers and the military "fighting for [our] freedom". I think they can think of a more honest and realistic rallying cause than that. If they're trying to keep the geopolitical equation tilted in the favor of the U.S.'s or believe that they are instead helping people of other countries, that's still very important and fine. But don't give that half lie.

I've always wondered if Japan's peacefulness and harmony is not in at least in part derived from its ethnic homogeneity and its long centuries of isolation. No hostility or anything intended, but lately I've been thinking about the implications of ethnic diversity and multiculturalism on things like this. So many of the most violent areas of the world are also pretty diverse or derive at least some of their violence from ethnic, religious, sociocultural, etc. fault lines.

you f with a corporations' monies, you go to jail. that's america baby.comp_atkins

More like ****ing with anyone who has money and / or power as well as their interests. And that goes for practically anywhere.

Err. I don't see that at all as an indication of the economy becoming more powerful. It's just that when markets and equities go down so much and so rapidly, you will naturally see a temporary rally stemming from a lot of different reasons. The vice versa also holds true as well. Nothing more, nothing less.

And if you're interested, look up "dead cat bounce".

ugly...no talent. whats with the sudden uprise of teenage girls who sing. First justine beiber..now this lasscampzor

Eh. It's always been that way. We just tend to idealize some of them and forget about the rest of them. There just appears to be more of them because there's more money, more outlets, and many more marketing channels.

I still haven't.

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]Lonelynight

Now I'm wondering what business the Viets had in adopting it as their coat of arms!