Ayatolla Khamenei questions the democrats patriotism

I don't mean to derail the subject but this question has been rattling around in my head since I first saw this post. I would be interested to know how many people saw this photo and immediately recognized it as Chernobyl.

It took me a couple of seconds, and in the last few years I’ve watched a number of documentaries on the subject. Before then I wouldn’t have recognized it. Something like the cooling towers at Three Mile Island seem to be much more iconic of nuclear meltdown than this rather drab square Soviet building, even though that building had an actual meltdown and TMI never actually did.

 

Recognized it immediately. Then asked myself if it were fair to Chernobyl.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

What are all these super- patriots patriotic about?

America is not one ideology it's about the people expressing their will; having elections where we can recycle the scoundrels.


I watch a lot of the History Channel and the Military Channel etc. and one thing I've figure out is that the only way to actually win a war is to totally disreguard the non-combatants and rain down holy hell on the civilization as a whole; kill'em all. The Greeks & Macedonians, Romans, Mongols, British Colonialist, WW 1, WW 2 were all hell on the civilians. If you aren't willing to do this, and I doubt we would ever turn the B-52's loose over Sadr City, then you can never outnumber or out manuver the local resistance.

We aren't going to "win" in Iraq. We might have been able to influence the ruling power structure, but once we removed it and the general population saw us as occupiers (and infidels) it was just a matter of time. The occupied have no other option but to resist and will resist for an unlimited time. Occupiers will eventually retreat.

 

Iron Curtain, I'm sure there were probably no photos when the disaster happened. now that the soviet union has fallen apart, there probably is a lot more information out.

there are still elements of that in russia. when those that submarine went down and the crew drowned a few years ago, I remember criticism of Putin came out that he waited to ask for help for because he didn't want it to get out that one of their subs went down.

 

War's aren't always so simple. Hayes brought up the example in another thread regarding how the British and later Malaysian federal forces defeated the Communists insurgents. They did it not primarily through military means but by working for political reform and eventually giving co-opting, or even giving in to one of the Communists key demands, by granting independence to the Malay States. The Communists that once looked like a fearsome force were rendered irrelevent. At the same time you have to look at the goals that are meant to be acheived. The North Vietnamese won against the US and South Vietnamese even though they were vastly undergunned so did the Afghanis against the British and Soviets.

 

I agree. Until Democrats roll back the almost unimaginable damages caused by their predecessors, their patriotism should be eyed. Republicans hid behind patriotism and utterly destroyed what made this country so great. Americans don't want that to happen again.

Republicans said they loved our country while systematically making it worse. Thiis is perhaps the most unpatriotic action of all. Until Democrats prove they're going to rebuild this great country rather than continue its pillage, their patriotism should be questioned.

 

Well, that's what I'm saying, to be victorious in a foreign land you have either win the hearts and minds of the indigenous population or you have to terrorize them into compliance. As infidels we aren't going to win over the hearts of people with 700 years of entrenched Islamic tradition. They have been fighting Crusaders for 50 generations. In Germany we were at least the same religion and in Japan, we wisely co-opted the Emperor to our side.

IF, if we were are to acheive any kind positive outcome, it will be through emphisizing a mutual benefit. There are two I see. One, the absolute horror of civil war, an American friendly secular administration is the only other option. But I just don't think the leaders of the various sects are willing to capitulate any power yet, I think they will have to see the misery before they compromise. And two, economic development; should have already been felt, where are the billions? Maybe the locals just want to suck us dry and then steal from China next.

Call me a cultural elist if you want but the balance between dictatorship and anarchy is a rare thing for a society to acheive and it almost never arises from a theocratic tradition. It arises from intellectualism. It arises from a spark of enlightenment and your not going to find any enlightenment in the madrassa,

 

I heard on the local news here in MN last night that Al Qaeda websites have been really hard on Representative elect Keith Ellison (D MN 5th District) who will be the first Muslim elected to US Congress. They've been calling him the first "Jewish Muslim" and calling him a traitor to Islam. I think that should show that the Democrats are anything but friends to America's enemies.

 

I don't think its as cut and dry as you think. Muslim countries like Morocco and Malaysia have been able to develop stable democracies so there are other options than anarchy or a western secular state.

 

Nothing is ever cut and dried. But in your two instances, Morocco is pretty Euopeanized with WW2, Spanish Portuguese,and French occupation, and Rick's American Bar etc.

I don't know much about Malaysia but I think it could be considered more multi-cultural than Islamic. It was basically a British protectorate for almost 100 years. ( I didn't say the spark had to be indigenous)