In reply to this comment by Asmo:
Long time lurker, ... doesn't making broad generalisations about us men kinda send everyone back to square one on the whole inequality of the sexes issue?... storm in a d-cup?

Clever poster de-cloaking off the port bow! Thanks for finally jumping in. Let me know if you need anything in terms of finding / posting videos, Asmo.

Long time lurker, first time poster. This thread convince me to jump in and say something (because the comments are the things that make the sifts that much more enjoyable around here).

To start, did anyone bother to ask Ms. Von Teese if she feels exploited? I mean, she is the woman of the minute as it were, did anyone bother to get her input before jumping in to save her from objectification?

Wasn't that the point of women's rights? Being free to choose what you want to do without fear, judgement or condemnation?

Second, while I sympathise with where you're coming from thepinky, doesn't making broad generalisations about us men kinda send everyone back to square one on the whole inequality of the sexes issue? If we don't make the choice you want us to make, we get condemned even though you do not have the right to tell us what to do (likewise, we hold no such right over you).

Aren't there enough actual inequalities still around in everyones society to go after that we really have to get all hot and bothered about this storm in a d-cup?

I've had trouble with vimeo too. One time, I just tried over and over and it eventually worked, mystifying me. I had previously tried all number of "clever" edits that got me no where (so I went back to square one, and it worked).

I think Mr. TCLTC loves Scientology so much because he finally found a religion where's he taller than its leader.
__________

Seriously, I almost feel sorry for Tom Cruise. This feeling is based on the assumption that he's NOT making money off the whole Scientology scam, but rather he's just another rich, gullible victim. If he's being exploited like so many others then he's just as much a victim as any other cult member. But if he's a vested partner in these scams then fuck him. Of course the Church of Scientology so thoroughly obfuscates its finances that I doubt anyone could prove one way or another if Tom Cruise is making money on this shit.

I'll tell you one thing: He speaks with the wild-eyed conviction of a true believer. But he is an actor, and a good one at that. So we're back to square one in determining his true beliefs.

Mink, you are correct I was being snide. I've seen you articulate your views much better than reverting to calling someone a disthinker because they use fancy words (you should have put a smiley after the comment :-).

If you agree with 99% of what he says why the harsh words ? I'd be interested to hear what you think of the 1% that he is wrong about.

Most things dawkins says can be related to "any" religion and I guess that's where you find offense ?

Along with Max Wilder above, I can't say that "there is no god". But i can say that I don't believe in the god(s) based on the evidence (or lack there of) that has been presented to me.

this is how i see the issue of vocal atheists.

1. People who believe in god(s) don't want their views challenged, and when they do (get challenged), they call those who are pointing out the obvious rude, militant and disrespectful.

2. "Some" people who believe feel the need to push their religious beliefs, ethics and values on others, which brings up questions of validity of their beliefs, so now we are back at square one with people questioning the "truth" of those beliefs.

Most christians are happy to live their lives without pushing their religion onto others (through government legislation). I have no problem with anyone believing what they want. I do have a problem with any religion pushing its views on non-believers. I think we could point to many, many cases here in the USA of religious zealots pushing their beliefs on non-believers.

You "choose" to interpret dunbar's number in totally the wrong way. Really, read it again, it's an interesting concept for any community.

"More people in comments sticking their hands up and saying "I know something about that". or "I speak Swahili" etc, etc. "
that is undoubtedly a very nice advantage of getting bigger. Unfortunately if you are so big the swahili guy never even finds the video because it died in the queue and the search doesn't work properly and people are bad at tagging and the good users are swamped by the bad users... then you are back to square one. I guess strength comes from having a high good/bad user ratio, perhaps regardless of size. Size is a distraction, and is not necessary, especially if you are a bad entrepreneur who doesn't like adverts

But with size, you have a nice easy statistic you can track and applaud... other stuff harder to measure.

Oh, right. The genious hypothesis that throngs of secret government ninjas repeatedly infiltrated the two towers and apparently 7WT dressed as UPS delivery boys for months and perhaps years on end before 9/11/01 planting these so-called "much more advanced" military bombs that explode without actually generate any sound, yet are capable of collapsing a building. But wait, call me stupid but anything that explodes causes noise as a result of the compression of sound waves spreading out from the source. So, the military must have even more advanced technologies than we conspiracy theorists were aware!

Perhaps they are so advanced they no longer even need bombs. Perhaps there were invisible laser beams being fired from a distance. Or is more likely that they government has simply developed termites with diamond teeth and an appetite for metal and they were simultaneously all released from their well-hidden hibernation tubes located on each floor right near the appropriate support beams within the walls? And of course since these much more advanced termites have been in hibernation for years, they had quite the appetite and they powered through the building so quickly that dust and smoke started pouring out which is why people mistakenly believe there was a fire in the building. Then I guess to leave no evidence behind, they must have had jet-packs attached so when the building came down they were able to fly away hidden in the clouds of smoke only to be captured later and assassinated alongside all the secret govnernment ninjas so they could never reveal in what they had participated.

Maybe the ninjas in fact delivered newborn babies into the walls of the buildings on every floor 10 years ago with a decade worth of foodstuffs and a How-To manual for the included welding kit they would instinctively know to break open on the morning of 9/11. Hmm, but they'd need to use the bathroom and might die of boredom... Perhaps they were really robots with advanced military laser beams that cut through all the major supports for the building.

Oh, but wait, the video that dictates what I'm supposed to believe says from "explosive energy" that caused the "hot dust clouds." Looks like I'm back at square one...

Help me out here. There are just so many very plausible, believable, realistic theories that it's hard to determine with which one I should embarass myself by announcing my enormous gullibility to the world.

Or wait, maybe gorgonheap has a point: Code in the united states requires that buildings over 3 stories high be able to collapse in on themselves so as not to damage, or to minimize damage to surrounding structures.
Nah, he's out of his mind. It was the government with their advanced ninja non-exploding-bomb weapons. Everyone knows it.

In response to your comment about there being no clear plan, the plan is for the additional troops to be a police force. This is right out of the counter-insurgency playbook. Look at successful counter-insurgencies throughout history and they all applied overwhelming force to police the populace, provide security, and prevent insurgent forces from operating freely. This may not be the dashing, clear mission objective such as "take Hill 317" or "defend this bridge until relieved" but again successful counter insurgencies have all used military forces in a police role.

To be honest I do not think 21,000 additional troops will be sufficient to establish the baseline of security necessary for an effective counter-insurgency. It is worth a try however because there is still a possibility it might slow down the escalation of sectarian violence, and if we cannot slow down said violence then nothing else we do will really matter. My key point here is that the additional troops for security purposes is straight out of the counter-insurgency playbook. Watch the movie Battle for Algiers sometime. Granted France eventually lost Algeria but they conducted a successful counter-insurgency against the FLN in Algiers several years prior to the mass uprisings that would eventually lead to independence. If you watch the movie, you will see that the French had a military presense on virtually every street corner. Attacks still got through, but the ability of the FLN to operate freely throughout the city was severely, severely limited.

"I agree that a force addition looks good on paper, but it looked good on paper back in Vietnam, the additional force elements there were just not enough to back out of what turned into a civil war. The same situation is being repeated here."

Except that Vietnam was a conflict between two sovereign nation-states. Granted both states were ethnically linked, but it was an external conflict between two states rather than an internal conflict in one state. In the event that the Soviet Union ever invaded Western Europe, US Special Forces teams would have been deployed throughout eastern Europe to make contact with dissident forces and train, equip and lead them on guerilla operations in the Soviet rear. In Vietnam, the North was doing the exact same thing to the South in preparation of a conventional invasion. The reason why we failed in Vietnam was because we treated the conflict as if the South had a domestic insurgency, rather a foreign infiltration by the North. Granted Iran is playing a part in supporting the Shiite militias, but such support pales in comparison to the guerilla combat operations that the PAVN was conducting in South Vietnam.

"If the 21,000 force commitment fails. What then?"

Then it fails and we try plan B, which I would hope would be a partitioning of the country.

"The US will have no maneuvering "

So are you saying we should hold said 21,000 troops in reserve for deployment in some later, alternative strategy? If not, then how does deploying the troops now limit our ability to maneuver? Look, the NIE makes it pretty clear that withdrawal in the next 12 to 18 months is not an option. In the face of that we either commit our available resources in one last push to make this thing work, or we can immediately turn to other options such as partitioning the country. Either way we will be in this for the long haul. With that in mind, giving the surge a try for 5-6 to months is worth a shot. If the security situation improves then we follow up on such success, if we see no improvement then we pursue the other less favorable options (i.e. partition). In the event it doesn't work, having additional forces on the ground gives us additional flexibility to pursue an alternate strategy. If said troops are not needed for an alternate strategy they can be redeployed, if they are then they are already in country availible for use.

"there will be another crushing morale plummet as US forces will pull out like they did in South Vietnam."

In the likely event that Iraq completely falls apart then such a moral plummet will occur regardless of whether or not the troop surge occurred.

Look, I am very pessimistic about our chances for success in Iraq. I think success would still be entirely possible were there still support for the War. I think the troop surge could possibly work, but probably won't. And I think if the surge fails we should look into a soft partition of the country, which is far less than ideal but will serve our interest of regional stability for better than a failed Iraqi state. In all likelihood I think the failed state is the outcome we're going to get however. The last three years in Iraq have basically been wasted, and I blame the bush administration entirely for that. If we are to succeed we basically need to start from square one. There simply isn't patience among the American people any more for such a long term commitment to Iraq however. I suspect that if the troop surge does not succeed, which is highly probably, patience for the war will be entirely over and a rapid withdrawal will follow leading to the collapse of the Iraqi government and a destabilization of the region. With that in mind what I think we should do is entirely a moot point because there will never be an opportunity to do any of it.

Man, Square One was the shit. Of course, when I was a kid I was the only one I knew of that watched this show. Ah, the splendid nature of the internet, putting me in contact with childhood consociates that I never knew I had.