Tony

I am intrigued, can you tell me which Taliban warlords are under the UN banner?

Well, some on the "Right" of this issue thought I was on the "Left" of this issue. Neither do I. I've only fought with my fist and feet. Fortunately, I never had to use weapons, but I am pretty well-trained with them. I agree, after all, Mao didn't know how to use them very well either. Stalin, on the other hand, supposedly knew how to use knife very well, allegedly killed a man with it in prison. Voroshilov was a crack shot with rifle, but a very poor general. Didn't MacArthur want to go to war with Red China? I wish we had better intelligence than better drones or more soldiers on the ground.

Ummm, so Mujahadeen was under the Soviet banner? Since Afghanistan was a communist country in military alliance with Soviets? So you wouldn't have had problem if the Natives killed the most population of U.S. back then? I agree, but....... Not necessarily. I would prefer the expression, "I agree with the way they are doing it for now from the standpoint of view where I am on" Are we fighting this war to protect our interest or are we fighting to be humane? But isn't it in their interest to do so? So we are following UN standard to be humane or because it's in our perceived overall interest... for the time being? I am sorry for getting off track, I've met too many who say only career military men know how to win wars.

Hadn't it been always the case? This didn't necessarily weaken Rome, in fact when the politicians and the generals were the same people, Rome became the superpower and overcame both massive babarian invasions, and Hannibal, plus other patriotic citizen militias. Would it necessarily have been or be a bad thing? What about the war against the Natives? Wasn't it the disaster at Teutonberg forest that put a stop to expansion? So that was the real problem, not the fact that the politicians and generals were the same people? Rome always had a garrison assigned to protect Rome, how come this hadn't caused the political problem during the early Republican Rome to the extent it caused during certain period of the late Republican Rome and the sucession problem for certain time periods of the Imperial period? Indeed.

Good Luck! Red: LOL. Yes, that walk to ending narcissism, etc., would be the march of a million miles. I am not sure it is resolvable Oh, I think it's resolvable, it's simply a matter of timing and the will for those who want to resolve it, but I don't know whether resolving it is necessarily the optimum solution. Yes. I know this has surprised some who don't like me that much.

. But it's so darn easy to sidestep this altogether, I don't understand why people have such an issue with it. It takes nothing to say in a later post, "Here is a correction of my last post. I wrote xxxxxxxxxxxxx, and it should have read yyyyyyyyyyyy." I have done this myself many times. Michael Well, the reason is many times when certain posters with more ego/vanity than intelligence post something stupid and get caught at it, they would say, "Oh, well, I really meant this, not that" as an excuse. True, sometimes most of us might do that for real, some others make a habit of it as way of not taking responsibility for what they say.

How old are you? Following your logic, U.S. should have killed all the British, all the Southerners, all the Natives, all the Hawaiians, all the Filipinos, all the Germans, all the Japanese, all the Russians, all the Koreans, all the Chinese, all the Mexicans, all the Spainards.

Good Luck!

So is he suggesting we all become "Good Germans"?

Sorry about another editing mistake.

I don't necessarily agree with your definition of "win". However, I do agree that U.S. would "win"[per your definition] if U.S. used all the technology available. Do you think it would be in our overall interest to "win" no matter what the cost of using all the technology available entails? Do you mean you don't agree with their[the significant segment you mentioned] definition of 'evil empirical empire' or their opinion that U.S. is an 'evil empirical empire'?

Sorry, messy editing mistake.

Do you think the movie would have been the success that is now, without the fancy special effect? You know what, I kinda agree with you, I did read an article on the director's review.

Do you think that's what would happen if U.S. used all the technology available against Taliban? Do you agree with that definition?

Is Taliban under the UN banner? Didn't U.S. public at large regard the Natives as less than human at one time? So according to your logic, the U.S. soldiers/civilian combatants captured by the Natives didn't deserve chivalry? Who decides what is right or wrong? Indeed, what they are doing it is natural consequence of the war, according to you? I agree. So for the right price, everyone's a whore? Mao was a civilian, Chiang was a career Military man, Mao won despite the overwhelming disadvantage. Splendid! Just 3 more years to go!

Why do you think they [the significant segment you mentioned] is of the opinion that our military is an instrument of an evil empirical empire? What do you mean by "win"?

Why do you think they[Taliban] should play by our[their enemy's for now] rules? Do you think we should play by their rules just for the hell of it? Did Mujahadeen in the 80's wear uniforms while fighting the Soviets? If they didn't, then they were not lawful combatants against the Soviets? So why did the U.S. help them? Forget about "What would Jesus say?", What would Breznev say? Indeed, why shouldn't they want the U.S. to cause maximum civilian casualties? Are you a civilian?

What 'food for thought' did the movie provide?

I, too, have come to dislike Obama and hate some of his cronies. Ba'al, can you quote the original source from which that rules of battle you attribute to Obama came from? What would be a way or the way to win a war?

I don't think Cameron's "Aliens" was an improvement over Ridley Scott's original, and I never was impressed with Terminator series.

Some of the books that inspire me, (in no order of preference), * The Fountainhead * "Mind and Society", and "Transformation of Democracy" by Vilfredo Pareto * Joseph Shumpter's works * Human Action (I'm still working on it, like many German translations into English, it is a bit pedantic, making it unnecessarily slow-going) * Keynes, I've been working on his book for awhile, and while I found some of his attack on certain assumptions of "Free Market Economics" powerful, I also found him to be a little unnecessarily obtuse. * Mao, the unknown story, a bio * Young Stalin, a bio * Huey Long's bios I am also doing a research on "Kempeitai", "Special Assignment Brigade" of defunct Securitate, and Saddam Feyadeen, and "National Syndicalism", and planning to give a fair hearing on Karl Marx, and South Korean economic model during 60's and 70's under General Park. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_South_Korea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kempeitai

The same as yours, the red-highlighted one.

Well, by the definition you used above, the red-highlighted one, I am most definitely not alturist.

Please enlighten me, is there capitalism and militarism that does not use force as an option?

Interesting, can you provide, for example, three aspects of their "real personalities"?** As I analyze these three, based on published bios and articles I have read so far......... 1. Ability to see beyond superficial, and comprehend the real cause and effect(as they saw it). 2. Courage to defy the crowd even at the risk of their lives when risk/reward ratio (as they perceive at the moment) is in their favor in matters they perceive to be worthy. 3. Fortitude not to be swayed by cheap sentimentality, but still capable of mercy/compassion (that is, real mercy/compassion), not phony mercy/compassion for pr purpose. Above apply to Stalin, and Mao. As for Salinger, 1. Analytical ability to see beyond the superficial 2. Courage to defy what other want in favor of what he wanted. A new altruism based on the worth of whom it is trying to help...is that a fair statement of your intent? Adam What is your definition of altruism as you used in your question above? Note to Mr.Kelly, my purpose for the recent edit was to correct my misquote of Selene,due to mistake during my original post, not to put words into Selene's mouth something he had never said. Moderators in other forums used to engage in that kind of bs, and I don't want anyone to imply I'm doing the same.