Random News Observations

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

There are many other countries (e.g., USSR) that had vast natural resources that did not succeed, and many that have basically no natural resources that did succeed (e.g., Hong Kong). The thing the successful countries have in common has little to do with what is in the ground; it is institutions that matter.

It depends what you mean by succeed. Ask Germany if the USSR was a successful world power or not. The were able to have that Power ( which is what world leadership is... power..) because of their resources and their manufacturing capacity. Hong Kong succeeded because they had one of the most important natural resources.. cheap labor. Their manufacturing capacity, for their size, is why they succeeded, not because of their democratic institutions. But they weren't a world power.

China and Russia are basically third world countries with weapons. I don't really consider them great successes. China has allowed a little bit of free enterprise in, but for the most part remains mired in poverty. Look at per capita income -- or any other measure of well-being -- in those countries.The only reason they are in the news at all is because of their *percentage* growth, but that is misleading when one country is starting from a very low baseline. For example, 20 years ago, China could have 20% growth by getting electricity. Once the low-hanging fruit is gone, they will need to adopt modern institutions or continue to fall further behind.

Are we talking about per capitia income, standard of living, or are we talking about world leadership (aka power)? China is a world power, in spite of the fact that they had some of the worst leadership in history in the 50's and 60's. They have succeeded, with huge handicaps, because they have a huge manufacturing capacity, and vast natural resources. And I don't know what planet you're on that you think China is falling further behind . They have a virtual monopoly on rare earth metals, with out which the modern world wouldn't exist. Their manufacting base is massive. Their population is not just an advantage for manufacturing, but also for brain power. More people equals more geniuses, and for their limitations as a country, they are quite efficient at spotting and exploiting genius. Yes, the average chinaman's quality of life is lower than the average americans. That has nothing to do with the power china has, and that power is growing. Also, you're using "modern" incorrectly. Modern doesn't necessarily mean good or desirable. Our institutions aren't modern. China's are.

[hblask 1]

It depends what you mean by succeed. Ask Germany if the USSR was a successful world power or not. The were able to have that Power ( which is what world leadership is... power..) because of their resources and their manufacturing capacity.

I based my view of the USSR on several co-workers who lived there as recently as the 90s. Vast natural resources and they can't get food to feed their family. Their political structure has changed through the years, but post WWII they had none of the institutions that promote growth, and once the wall fell it was obvious what that did to them.

Hong Kong succeeded because they had one of the most important natural resources.. cheap labor. Their manufacturing capacity, for their size, is why they succeeded, not because of their democratic institutions. But they weren't a world power.

And yet, dozens of other countries with *more* natural resources and *more* cheap labor failed. Why?

Are we talking about per capitia income, standard of living, or are we talking about world leadership (aka power)? China is a world power, in spite of the fact that they had some of the worst leadership in history in the 50's and 60's. They have succeeded, with huge handicaps, because they have a huge manufacturing capacity, and vast natural resources. And I don't know what planet you're on that you think China is falling further behind . They have a virtual monopoly on rare earth metals, with out which the modern world wouldn't exist. Their manufacting base is massive. Their population is not just an advantage for manufacturing, but also for brain power. More people equals more geniuses, and for their limitations as a country, they are quite efficient at spotting and exploiting genius. Yes, the average chinaman's quality of life is lower than the average americans. That has nothing to do with the power china has, and that power is growing.Also, you're using "modern" incorrectly. Modern doesn't necessarily mean good or desirable. Our institutions aren't modern. China's are.

I'm basing it on per capita wealth or any other standard of living you'd like to choose. China is still at least a half a century behind us. A vast percentage of their population still lives in poverty -- that's poverty by world standards, not the inflated USA standards where "only one car" is considered poor. As with the USSR, they've shown that if you have a big enough natural resource base to waste on the instruments of war, you can threaten other countries. By that measure, North Korea is a success, but all you have to do is look at the nighttime satellite pictures of those countries to see that "able to build big bombs" is a poor indicator of success. China's "economic miracle" will be revealed in the next 15 years for what it is -- the harvesting of the low-hanging fruit of a poor country. They are moving toward the institutions of wealth, but not nearly quickly enough to keep up with the industrialized world.

[hblask 1]

Also, you're using "modern" incorrectly. Modern doesn't necessarily mean good or desirable. Our institutions aren't modern. China's are.

I'm not sure what you are referring to; by modern institutions of wealth, I was referring to the institutions of property rights and rule of law. China is severely lacking in those, and until it gets them has no hope of keeping up with the rest of the world. Their *total* wealth will definitely pass our, just because their population is so large, but their personal wealth -- per capita or whatever measure of well-being you like -- has no chance of catching up to ours any time soon.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/19/joe-the-plumber-gun-control-holocaust_n_1609652.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003Joe The Plumber who is running for Congress claims in a video that the Holocaust and Armenian Genocide were caused by gun control. Sigh

[hblask 1]

http://www.huffingto...kusaolp00000003Joe The Plumber who is running for Congress claims in a video that the Holocaust and Armenian Genocide were caused by gun control. Sigh

I think he was saying that gun control *allowed* it to happen, not caused it. The headline is stupid. An armed populace is far less likely to allow things like the Holocaust to happen. Would private gun ownership have prevented the Holocaust? Probably not, but it certainly made it easier.

[mrdannyg 274]

How the ****ing **** is an armed populace less likely to allow the Holocaust to happen? Are the Jews (/gypsys/homosexuals/catholics, etc) going to start shooting down the police who knock on their doors? Do you think they would've even had guns in any significant number, based on the discriminatory laws and such that were being enacted in the mid 30's? Though it might have happened differently, an armed populace probably just exacerbates and quickens the Holocaust, since a bunch of riled up majority gun owners have it that much easier to injure and kill their favourite scapegoats, presumably with no real punishment.

[hblask 1]

How the ****ing **** is an armed populace less likely to allow the Holocaust to happen? Are the Jews (/gypsys/homosexuals/catholics, etc) going to start shooting down the police who knock on their doors? Do you think they would've even had guns in any significant number, based on the discriminatory laws and such that were being enacted in the mid 30's? Though it might have happened differently, an armed populace probably just exacerbates and quickens the Holocaust, since a bunch of riled up majority gun owners have it that much easier to injure and kill their favourite scapegoats, presumably with no real punishment.

Really? You don't see how an armed populace could possibly help resist invasion vs an unarmed populace? Really?This seems so obvious I'm not even sure why it is controversial. Could the Jews have stopped Hitler? I've already said probably not, but in other countries it's not so clear. There's a reason some countries have never been successfully invaded. Heck, the existence of the US is in large part due to an armed populace. There are plenty of historical examples.I think claiming the Holocaust would've been prevented is overstating the case, so I would not argue that, but it could've helped end the war sooner and reduced the number of Jewish casualties.

[mrdannyg 274]

Really? You don't see how an armed populace could possibly help resist invasion vs an unarmed populace? Really?This seems so obvious I'm not even sure why it is controversial. Could the Jews have stopped Hitler? I've already said probably not, but in other countries it's not so clear. There's a reason some countries have never been successfully invaded. Heck, the existence of the US is in large part due to an armed populace. There are plenty of historical examples.I think claiming the Holocaust would've been prevented is overstating the case, so I would not argue that, but it could've helped end the war sooner and reduced the number of Jewish casualties.

This is really one of the dumber posts you have ever made. Firstly, it wasn't an invasion. Do you know what the Holocaust was? You know there wasn't, like, a country of Jews just living together in Germany and it got invaded. It was the police and citizenship against a group of people within. So both the victims and attackers would've been better armed. And considering Jews couldn't even own a business at the time, I'm guessing the anti-Jew crowd would've been slightly better armed.The Jews "probably" couldn't have stopped Hitler if they had guns? What the **** are you smoking. Like, put a few guns in the hands of bankers and merchants, and they would've organized an army to fight Hitler and the National army? Or do you think Hitler murdered all the Jews by himself, so all you need is a few guys with guns and one lucky shot is going to get him and stop the entire movement.The only way the Holocaust might have reduced Jewish casualties, is that there may have been some instances of a Jew discovering a gun in the house of the family sheltering them, used it to murder the family and assume their identities, thereby saving their own lives.You're right about there being historical examples. In the 1700's, guns in the hands of a few hundred thousand citizens, with a common goal and both weaponry and numbers exceeding those of the invaders could determine a war. I don't see a single way that is not fully relevant to the a civil war in the 1930's and/or our current environment.

[InternetExplorer 2,609]

iraq in the years 2003-2007 was a pretty fine example of low-tech resistance getting the best of high-tech invaders.hard to say it's a pure example because 1) we weren't there to exterminate people and 2) there was a whole lot of external support from iran.

[CaneBrain 95]

iraq in the years 2003-2007 was a pretty fine example of low-tech resistance getting the best of high-tech invaders.hard to say it's a pure example because 1) we weren't there to exterminate people and 2) there was a whole lot of external support from iran.

It's not an example at all. If we felt like killing them all, we could have in hours. Joe the plumber's commercial is complete insanity and basically indefensible.

[hblask 1]

This is really one of the dumber posts you have ever made. Firstly, it wasn't an invasion. Do you know what the Holocaust was? You know there wasn't, like, a country of Jews just living together in Germany and it got invaded. It was the police and citizenship against a group of people within. So both the victims and attackers would've been better armed. And considering Jews couldn't even own a business at the time, I'm guessing the anti-Jew crowd would've been slightly better armed.The Jews "probably" couldn't have stopped Hitler if they had guns? What the **** are you smoking. Like, put a few guns in the hands of bankers and merchants, and they would've organized an army to fight Hitler and the National army? Or do you think Hitler murdered all the Jews by himself, so all you need is a few guys with guns and one lucky shot is going to get him and stop the entire movement.The only way the Holocaust might have reduced Jewish casualties, is that there may have been some instances of a Jew discovering a gun in the house of the family sheltering them, used it to murder the family and assume their identities, thereby saving their own lives.You're right about there being historical examples. In the 1700's, guns in the hands of a few hundred thousand citizens, with a common goal and both weaponry and numbers exceeding those of the invaders could determine a war. I don't see a single way that is not fully relevant to the a civil war in the 1930's and/or our current environment.

I'm confused by your apparent anger over this issue. This seems like a no-brainer: soldiers going door-to-door, hauling unarmed people away to their death, vs soldiers going door-to-door occassionally being shot in the face and dying. Are you really questioning whether the death of, say, 10 or 15% of the soldiers would slow down the Holocaust?There are only a certain number of people willing to turn on innocent people the way Nazis did. If you start taking out a healthy percentage of them, it gets harder to recruit and retain more of them.There are countries throughout the world that have held their own due to an armed populace that refused to be ruled.... Afghanistan comes to mind, being called "the Graveyard of Empires". Seriously, why is it even controversial that shooting back at your attackers tends to slow them as compared to just laying down and obeying them?

[hblask 1]

It's not an example at all. If we felt like killing them all, we could have in hours. Joe the plumber's commercial is complete insanity and basically indefensible.

I haven't seen the commercial, just a write-up of what it is about, but the supposedly controversial quotes I saw from it were pretty straightforward. An armed populace has a better chance of repelliing attackers than an unarmed populace. This is such a basic truism I can't even understand why it could be controversial.

[mrdannyg 274]

I'm confused by your apparent anger over this issue. This seems like a no-brainer: soldiers going door-to-door, hauling unarmed people away to their death, vs soldiers going door-to-door occassionally being shot in the face and dying. Are you really questioning whether the death of, say, 10 or 15% of the soldiers would slow down the Holocaust?There are only a certain number of people willing to turn on innocent people the way Nazis did. If you start taking out a healthy percentage of them, it gets harder to recruit and retain more of them.There are countries throughout the world that have held their own due to an armed populace that refused to be ruled.... Afghanistan comes to mind, being called "the Graveyard of Empires".Seriously, why is it even controversial that shooting back at your attackers tends to slow them as compared to just laying down and obeying them?

Hmm, never thought of it that way. I guess if you really wanted to be a smart anti-invasion group, you'd just take the doorbells out of your homes! Soldiers can't come get me door-to-door if they can't find the doorbell, haha!I know you'll leave this conversation still being completely convinced you are right. I hope you will take the advice of a reasonable person that your arguments are so far from a realistic consideration of the situation that it isn't even worth arguing about. Go read a detailed history of the holocaust. Think about how it would've been different if guns had been in the hands of the populace at the time.

[ShakeZuma 585]

this argument is extremely confusing to me. let me try to understand, danny, you're basically saying that a person without a gun has an equal ability to defend him or herself than a person with a gun...? could you also travel from new york to la in a car equally as fast as you could in a plane?

[SAM_Hard8 50]

I always love the my side is reasonable and you're not argument.

[hblask 1]

I don't even see how this can be up for debate, based on both common sense and history.To note: I'm not saying the Holocaust would not have occurred, but clearly there would've been fewer innocent deaths if Nazi soldiers died in the streets at random moments. It is impossible to overpower an armed populace that is ready to defend itself to the death. Did the Jews meet that criteria? Once they saw how bad it is, I think they would've been. That probably wouldn't have been in time to stop the entire thing, because some people will wait until there are no other options and no other hope.

[Balloon guy 158]

How the ****ing **** is an armed populace less likely to allow the Holocaust to happen? Are the Jews (/gypsys/homosexuals/catholics, etc) going to start shooting down the police who knock on their doors? Do you think they would've even had guns in any significant number, based on the discriminatory laws and such that were being enacted in the mid 30's? Though it might have happened differently, an armed populace probably just exacerbates and quickens the Holocaust, since a bunch of riled up majority gun owners have it that much easier to injure and kill their favourite scapegoats, presumably with no real punishment.

Danny is right, History has shown that guns are only used by bad guys and good guys never use them for anything worthwhile.In fact had the Jews not had any knives, it is likely the holocaust could have been avoided all together.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I also think that if Jews ate more bananas, they could have left banana peels all over their houses that the Nazis would have slipped over. Some of them may have fallen and gotten hurt.Are you seriously saying that a house without banana peels is less well defended than a house with one?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I also think it's somewhat funny that this argument is essentially: "The Nazis came in with guns and killed lots of Jews but if the Jews had more guns they would killed less Jews therefore guns are good."Also, you guys are aware of the Luftwaffe, right?

[timwakefield 68]

You guys are also aware that, when the Nazis were rounding up Jews, they didn't advertise their destination as a death camp, right? And that fighting back would result in instant death unless you managed to kill every Nazi?

In fact had the Jews not had any knives, it is likely the holocaust could have been avoided all together.

Too bad there's no 'Dislike This' button.

[BaseJester 1]

I also think it's somewhat funny that this argument is essentially: "The Nazis came in with guns and killed lots of Jews but if the Jews had more guns they would killed less Jews therefore guns are good."Also, you guys are aware of the Luftwaffe, right?

I don't think the assertion is that guns are good. The assertion is that criminals and governments only having guns is worse than criminals, governments, and citizens having guns.

[hblask 1]

Wow, some people really need to study history harder. An determined armed populace generally wins over technologically superior invaders. Have we really reached a point in this country where people don't believe that an armed populace is harder to oppress than an unarmed populace? Really? I... just.... wtf?

[CaneBrain 95]

Wow, some people really need to study history harder. An determined armed populace generally wins over technologically superior invaders. Have we really reached a point in this country where people don't believe that an armed populace is harder to oppress than an unarmed populace? Really? I... just.... wtf?

I think that in terms of the Holocaust, most people think it would have had a negligible impact if any. Just like if the US military today decides to end you, they will, even if you have a few guns in your house.What we've reached is a point where modern militaries are far, far too well equipped and trained for an armed populace to do much more than kill a handful of foot soldiers.A determined armed populace is no longer a favorite over technologically advanced invaders. To think so, is a fantasy. Things that happened in the 1700 and 1800s are OBVIOUSLY not predicative of what will happen if the US or Israel or Russia or whoever aims a handful of predator drones at a well armed populace with "determination". WTF, right back at you.

[hblask 1]

Explain that to the Soviet Union regarding Afghanistan.... or the US.Hint: there were no drones during WWII. Every Jew who was killed required a face-to-face confrontation. Six million died. You don't think six million points of resistance could've made a dent?Of course, not all 6 million would've done it, because most people are cowards. But the largest size estimate I found for Hitler's army at any time was about 4.5M, with most estimates less than a million.Estimates are that 3 in 10 Americans own a gun. What if those 6 million armed themselves at that rate? This discussion is absurd. How could "having the ability to fight back" have anything other than a positive impact? Do you guys really think the outcome would have been identical?

[CaneBrain 95]

Explain that to the Soviet Union regarding Afghanistan.... or the US.

This is a false example. Our goal in Afghanistan is not the same as the goal of the Germans in WW2 for the Jews. If we wanted to just kill everybody in Afghanistan, we could. Tomorrow.And yes, I think even if the Jews of Europe were armed at a normal rate for that time, the end result would have been very similar though not identical.