Hardly. Faschism was not invented by Hitler. He was a Johnny come lately following the lead of El Duche and Franco. Nor do ultra nationalists look good in non Faschist societies. Consider the current crop in the PRC, or North Korea, or Burma, or Sudan, or (the list goes on and on...

borders language culture not murder death kill.

I agree with you. I think people with a disrespectful attitude and linguistic style ought to be the first on the list to have their ideas not regarded as wrothy of Prime Time. There is no intellectual value in un-civil debate, and I won't lower myself to your level of name calling. It is an ironic truth that charges such as you level tell a great deal more about yourself than they do about who you are pointing at. Among those who are the most cynical about human nature, and people of our culture in particular (people on the street, people in prisons, people in places predisposed to be anti-USA) my word is regarded as more valuable than cash - because cash might be counterfit - but you can bet your life on what I say. But you are not the sort of person to discern the quality of a mind - at least not if it does not happen to feed your prejudices. I see no point in debate with On Watch. I submit debate is not possible with a person who states, in advance, he knows everything that might be said is false. It is like debating with a North Korean "negotiator."

Correction: that is only ONE alternative. There are many others. One might, for example, not use a national frame of reference at all. Thus a person who is really a Christian (or Jewish, or Muslim for that matter) does not see the merit of a person (or a policy) primarily in terms of some national context. [The first question is not "what country are you a citizen of" before deciding if we will trust you, like you, help you, do business with you, etc.] A non religious person might similarly adopt a similar attitude, and think in terms of "is what this person, or idea, represents, good for the world as a whole" instead of from the point of view of, say, Nigeria. To the extent the world economic-political system is really viable and popular, it is because it serves the interests of most (perhaps even all) nations. No one considers violating the International Postal Union, for example, because there is no sound reason to do so. In most cases, when a person is overly focused on the narrow interests of a single nation, their judgements are less likely to produce something admirable, from a general point of view. The reason the USA "leads" the world is that we have learned how to promote things very different than classical imperial powers did. Japan's idea of a Pan East Asia Co Prosperity Sphere, and China's equivilant idea today, are examples of non US styles as abberant as that of the Nazis was.

I do not think that people adopt a religion because of diseases, or fighting styles. Nor do I think voodoo has roots in Catholic Christianity. I had the opportunity to learn about it in Haiti - and the teachers say its roots are African. Certainly the technical innovation of voodoo powder is not from Catholicism. I was trained in the major branches of Western religious thought for service as a lay leader in the Navy (including Orthodox, Protestant, Coptic and Catholic Christians, Juadism, and Islam) - under the auspices of the Archbishop of New York (before there was a Military Diocese) - and also at at Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. I taught this same material at Elmendorf AFB in the 1990s, to anyone interested in learning the root ideas. I think it is clear that Voodoo has no respect for the Holy Scriptures shared by all these religions (the Old Testament) - much less the newer books used by any of them. Can you imagine the Ten Commandments preached at a Voodoo ritual?

Except not all of us do. The Russians call a ship "he" - See Tom Clancy's novel Red Storm Rising for an opening commenting on this fact. It is probably a linguistic thing - in German the moon is masculine and the sun is feminine - the opposite of English thought - even though English is a German dialect (Angelish) at its heart.

Anyone who is not a sexist truly interested in debating ideas will address the idea without reference to the sex of the person being addressed. But On Watch is a special case: he is insulting for its own sake - in any way he can figure out to do so. Most of the time he attacks men - if only because there are few females on the board. He will attack them on the basis of their religion. If that is not an option, he will attack them on the basis that they are "liers" - apparently becuase to disagree with On Watch is ipso facto proof the writer must be wrong. To use unnecessary references to sex - and then to imply it is a feminist trick to complain - is just typical of his tactics. Do ANYTHING to divert to a bit of heat instead of a useful policy discussion. It is really too bad - his linguistic usage indicates there is a real mind there. Too bad he won't use it for intellectually useful exchanges which might actually benefit someone.

Anyone who is not a sexist truly interested in debating ideas will address the idea without reference to the sex of the person being addressed. But On Watch is a special case: he is insulting for its own sake - in any way he can figure out to do so. Most of the time he attacks men - if only because there are few females on the board. He will attack them on the basis of their religion. If that is not an option, he will attack them on the basis that they are "liers" - apparently becuase to disagree with On Watch is ipso facto proof the writer must be wrong. To use unnecessary references to sex - and then to imply it is a feminist trick to complain - is just typical of his tactics. Do ANYTHING to divert to a bit of heat instead of a useful policy discussion. It is really too bad - his linguistic usage indicates there is a real mind there. Too bad he won't use it for intellectually useful exchanges which might actually benefit someone.

>>The Russians call a ship "he"...It is probably a linguistic thing --elcid<< I'm not a Russian, and neither is the Admiral that wrote the piece. As for your linguistics, sounds like leftover linguini to me! On Watch -- Let's Roll

Your wasting bandwidth! On Watch