Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

A typical case of needing to know the questions to make any sense of it at all. Such negativity toward immigration from, say, Australia would be surprising. Presumably the "border" states are negative toward immigrants from respectively North Africa, the Middle East, and Russia. I do wonder what's up in Czechia. Russians too?

No fewer than 72 percent of Swedes said they were either fairly positive or very positive towards immigration from countries outside the European Union, with an even greater 82 percent welcoming immigrants from other EU countries. 

No other country came anywhere close, with only 48 percent of the citizens of the next most open countries, Croatia and Spain, saying they felt positive to immigrants from outside the EU.

On average, a solid majority of 57 percent of European citizens described themselves as either fairly or very negative to immigration from outside the EU, with just 35 percent in favour.

you had half a million in Vietnam against all those amateurs and you looked and acted just like those Frenchies

Third, we won the actual war. Our "democratic" politicians surrendered, and consigned a million or more Vietnamese to death… To appease the likes of you! (You're damned right I'm resentful.)
That, sir, is one of my country's most reprehensible acts.

Just to make sure I'm reading this right. You're not saying the war was reprehensible, but rather that the surrender was. Right?

Quote from: ersi on 2015-05-24, 21:25:53

Just to make sure I'm reading this right. You're not saying the war was reprehensible, but rather that the surrender was. Right?

The so-called peace and the abandonment of our allies. Mere money would have been enough help to them, since they were a well-trained and effective force by then. But our Congress cut them loose… Wars are always expensive.
Were there strategies that were too brutal? On both sides, probably yes. And there were atrocities committed by both sides. Such is war.

If you're committed to only wars of self-defense, your understanding of human nature is deficient: How could there be a war of self-defense if your commitment were widely shared?

So, I guess your question boils down to: Were the political aims of the U.S. involvement in Viet Nam rational?
Is that a correct reading, ersi?

You were supposed to be there on high sounding morals and the usual contradiction.

But doesn't help you one iota as it is filed under corruption and incompetence.

More temperature-related deaths happen on moderately cold or hot days, rather than during heatwaves or freezing spells, according to researchers who studied mortality rates in 13 different countries in a paper published in The Lancet medical journal.

The public health experts studied 74 million deaths in 384 locations between 1985 and 2012, including in Sweden, Canada, Japan and the UK, and discovered that cold weather was responsible for 7.29 percent of all deaths, while heat was a factor in only 0.42 percent.

But the study showed huge differences between nations, with Brits almost twice as likely to die during cold weather (7.8 percent of deaths) compared to Swedes (3.8 percent). In fact, Sweden fared better than nearly all the other countries surveyed as part of the research, with only Taiwan, Brazil and Thailand reporting a lower percentage of deaths linked to moderately cold weather.