If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Because responses to disasters in communist/socialist countries have always been so brilliant?
Indeed, Chrnobyl being a prime example. Although it could be argued that there were no votes to be won there either..
Snopes gives the reasoning behind the different wording.
Regarding the AFP/Getty "finding" photo by [photographer Chris] Graythen, Getty spokeswoman Bridget Russel said, "This is obviously a big tragedy down there, so we're being careful with how we credit these photos." Russel said that Graythen had discussed the image in question with his editor and that if Graythen didn't witness the two people in the image in the act of looting, then he couldn't say they were looting."
So you see in the compensation culture how the reporters did actually chose their words VERY carefully and neither had a racist agenda?
It was pretty clear that both photos were from different places! still your paranoia is understandable! These lefty papers do sometimes lie to prove a point
One of them didn't chose his words as carefully as the other did he?
Your obsession with "compensation culture" and "political correctness" appears to be limitless. There is hardly a subject you don't manage to drop the concept into. Very impressive.
Was it?
What lefty papers are you talking about?
Hardly reasoning so much as hopeless excuse-making on the part of Associated Press.
Devil: do you actually have a point. Your constant whingeing about "PC gone maaaaad" is rather tiresome, especially as it is just about completely irrelevant.
:banghead:
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Elaborate please...........
Its a straw man...I never said that rescue efforts in "communist/socialist" countries have been great. Mainly because there have never actually been any countries that I would consider as communist or socialist.
You implied that the poor response was the 'logic of capitalism' impliyng that it would not be the case or less likely to be the case in non-capitalist countries..........
There aren't any non capitalist countries.
Do you think disaster management is very good there?
I would say not according to reports of famines there recently........
Stalinist, yes, communist no. State capitalist you could say.
They are all feudalism but updated a bit. It's monarchies with disposable kings.
They were prohibited form intevening by law. Congress had to authorise the use of the military.
Posse Comitatus Act
THis is why the national guard is used for American natural disasters( it is under state control), but the army isn't.
Quite, so you would say generally that N.Korea is pretty capitalist then?
So, as that website suggest, that law is about the use of the green machine for law enforcement, I was talking about the delivery of aid/rescue services.
I'm not aware of any US law which stops the military from using is helicopters/boats etc to ship in water/food and ship out sick/injured...
Stalinist, which can be argued to be a form of state capitalism, yes. It certainly ain't communist, no countries have been. There have been pockets of communism/anarchism but they have all been defeated often by "communist" states (e.g. Stalin sold out the social revolution in Spain in the 30's etc).
The military is under comand of the federal government. The law makes sure the federal government has no business intervening in state affairs, which is where the responsibility of this disaster lies.
"Though a criminal law, the PCA has a more important role as a statement of policy that embodies "the traditional Anglo-American principle of separation of military and civilian spheres of authority, one of the fundamental precepts of our form of government."
Was this aimed at me? Explain.
Basically the old 'there has never been a communist stae so you can't criticise communism' argument is a 'strawman' in my opinion.........
Do you even know what a strawman argument is?
Yes "my strawman is better than yours"...
"No, mine is"
"Wanna fight?"
Maybe I'm missing something, but that site suggest that the PCA is there to prevent the federal government from intervening in the law enforcement rols of indivudal states.
Now, providing that the army don't act as law enforcement officers (such a detaiining looters etc) then there is nothing there which suggests that they cannot fly over an area an drop food parcels.
Indeed the website comments "The PCA proscribes the use of the military"as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws." it also mentions that "Exceptions-in-name allow the military to provide equipment and supplies, technical assistance, information, and training to law enforcement agencies. Such provisions constitute passive assistance to civilian law enforcement, which does not subject any civilian to the regulatory, proscriptive, or coercive power of the military." and "The doctrine allows the military ... to perform their military functions even if there is an incidental benefit to civilian law enforcement again suggesting that if not directly acting in a law enforcement capacity then there is no problem with the US military providing humanitarian support.
There is also the specific "The PCA proscribes use of the army in civilian law enforcement, but it has not prevented military assistance in what have been deemed national emergencies, such as strike replacements and disaster relief. However, these emergencies differ in character from other exceptions to the PCA by their very nature as emergencies and by the duration of the military involvement.... Disaster relief, another common use of the military, does not seem to violate the PCA because it is not a mission executing the laws." which is pretty conclusive...
Stalin did alot for his country, he is the reason the USSR ever was a superpower. You can thank him for the fact you exist too, without him, WW2 would have been lost. He made Russians proud of themselves, gave them a strong country that could defend itself, and industrial power. For all his faults, we forget all his sucesses and great acheivements. Why? Because the Media likes to tell us to do so. After all, the US Won the cold war. They get to tell history as they see fit.
Kim has done nothing for his country. At all. Ever. Except manufacture nukes, increase famine, and of course, fail to maintain his T-34's.
Wow. Better good as Saddam at this Tyranical thing.
Eh I'm not sure what version of history you've read but Stalin was an evil mudering cunt on the same par as Hitler, his 5 year plans all failed horribly and he fucked the working class over something serious. He did nothing for Russia.