Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/09/27 01:16:12
Subject: Mexico a more important national security issue than the Middle east?
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
dogma wrote:It doesn't generally work that way. Oppression can lead to rebellion, but a strong state with military support is damned difficult to dislodge, and even harder to replace with something that is meaningfully distinct. Basically this means that incidences of rebellion don't tend to scale with severity of oppression. Just look at North Korea.
Yeah, rebellion is far more a product of stability than it is of oppression. States can and have carried on for centuries with unbelievable amounts of oppression, while other relatively tame societies have been overthrown because of weak government within . The Tsarist regime of Nicholas II was oppressive, but by Russian standards it was pretty tame (getting sent to Siberia to sit a wood cabin in the cold was cruel, but similar crimes were dealt by death in previous regimes). What cost Nicholas was the economic and political instability from the war effort.
It's funny, I remember an American fellow I hung around with when I was in Austria. We went to the museum to the resistance to the Nazis* and he kept going on about how everything would have just been fine if people just stood up and overthrew Hitler, and I kept trying to explain to him that it's all a lot more complicated than that. I've seen a lot of similar thought on-line, and it's always from Americans. I wonder if the history of your founding has been taught in such a way that Americans are now very likely to assume oppression just leads inherently to rebellion and glorious victory...
*Which bizarrely enough basically just said 'okay, we admit there was fuckall resistance to the Nazis, sorry about that. Automatically Appended Next Post: Melissia wrote:Dogma: Pardon me for bargin' in, but I think it's hard to argue that paying a person (IE not the system, the actual law enforcement officer) money to avoid being prosecuted by the system is pretty corrupt. An official accepting bribes to let criminals go unpunished has been one of the hallmarks of corruption for thousands of years in many, many cultures (including cultures such as China, which are widely different from the western culture we're used to).
Not all of them labeled said corruption as OMG THE WORST THING EVAR, sure, but it is a sign of corruption.
You should read up on the standard of policing in the US in the 1920s & 30s, before you consider how different we are.
Relatively corrupt policing is a very modern thing.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/09/27 01:16:56
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/09/27 07:51:24
Subject: Mexico a more important national security issue than the Middle east?
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
sebster wrote:
It's funny, I remember an American fellow I hung around with when I was in Austria. We went to the museum to the resistance to the Nazis* and he kept going on about how everything would have just been fine if people just stood up and overthrew Hitler, and I kept trying to explain to him that it's all a lot more complicated than that. I've seen a lot of similar thought on-line, and it's always from Americans. I wonder if the history of your founding has been taught in such a way that Americans are now very likely to assume oppression just leads inherently to rebellion and glorious victory...
The three things I most often see Americans forget about the problems of rebellion are:
1) There is a world of difference between overthrowing a colonial government that is being supported by an Imperial power in conflict with another Imperial power on the other side of the world's second largest ocean, and overthrowing a national government.
2) The "oppression" of the American colonies was a pale reflection of the oppression experience by people in North Korea, Nazi Germany, or Stalin's Russia.
3) Rebellion is dangerous, and most people will elect oppression, or the death of others, if the alternative is their own death.
The first and second issues are, I think, the result of the way the American Revolution is taught in school (or, alternatively, the way that world history is taught), as well as at least some degree of American Exceptionalism (ie. if everyone acted like us the world would be better). The third is basically just the result of lacking any personal experience with countries in which rebellion is a serious issue, and a fair amount of wangst. Automatically Appended Next Post: Melissia wrote:Pardon me for bargin' in, but I think it's hard to argue that paying a person (IE not the system, the actual law enforcement officer) money to avoid being prosecuted by the system is pretty corrupt. An official accepting bribes to let criminals go unpunished has been one of the hallmarks of corruption for thousands of years in many, many cultures (including cultures such as China, which are widely different from the western culture we're used to).
Not all of them labeled said corruption as OMG THE WORST THING EVAR, sure, but it is a sign of corruption.
I think that, if you've de facto accepted that bribery occurs to the extent that it has become part of the standard practice of governance, it isn't indicative of corruption.
Melissia wrote:
I think you mean dogma. It appears he's engaging in sophism.
I don't see how its sophism to suggest that conventional understandings of corruption are deeply flawed.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/09/27 07:56:07
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/09/27 08:20:05
Subject: Mexico a more important national security issue than the Middle east?
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
dogma wrote:The three things I most often see Americans forget about the problems of rebellion are:
1) There is a world of difference between overthrowing a colonial government that is being supported by an Imperial power in conflict with another Imperial power on the other side of the world's second largest ocean, and overthrowing a national government.
2) The "oppression" of the American colonies was a pale reflection of the oppression experience by people in North Korea, Nazi Germany, or Stalin's Russia.
3) Rebellion is dangerous, and most people will elect oppression, or the death of others, if the alternative is their own death.
The first and second issues are, I think, the result of the way the American Revolution is taught in school (or, alternatively, the way that world history is taught), as well as at least some degree of American Exceptionalism (ie. if everyone acted like us the world would be better). The third is basically just the result of lacking any personal experience with countries in which rebellion is a serious issue, and a fair amount of wangst.
That sums it up pretty well, I think. I'd probably add a couple of extra points, one on how oppression of itself doesn't really spur revolution so much as instability (North Korea is far more likely to collapse from famine than human rights abuses) and one on how remarkably few people within a state object to what are, from the outside, unthinkable acts of cruelty.
|
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/09/27 13:52:40
Subject: Mexico a more important national security issue than the Middle east?
|
 |
Consigned to the Grim Darkness
|
dogma wrote:I think that, if you've de facto accepted that bribery occurs to the extent that it has become part of the standard practice of governance, it isn't indicative of corruption.
You're welcome to think that Dogma, but to me it seems an incredibly skewed perspective. Hm. Dunno if "skewed" is the right word for it... but that pov strikes me as odd to say the least.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/09/27 13:58:28
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/09/27 14:13:53
Subject: Mexico a more important national security issue than the Middle east?
|
 |
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought
|
dogma wrote:
The three things I most often see Americans forget about the problems of rebellion are:
1) There is a world of difference between overthrowing a colonial government that is being supported by an Imperial power in conflict with another Imperial power on the other side of the world's second largest ocean, and overthrowing a national government.
I would also add, "long before planes were invented, when you had to fething sail everywhere on a floating coffin, and half of your enemies country didn't support the war anyway.
What Sebster said is very true, and many civilians both in the USA and the UK seem to have that ignorant "its their own fault" attitude.
And another fact Americans don't like, is that they still lost more men in combat than the British. I was shown the figures during a lecture from the department of defence when I was in Baghdad. You know they have the figures from every single war the US has ever been involved in? Regardless, the redcoats killed more guys than they lost. Which is entirely expected with them being the professionals and all. But Americans seem to only tell the cool stories from the rebellion.
The point is, rebellion is hard work, and it was when we were still with boats and muskets and neither side was particularly brutal in what was essentially a civil war which neither side had that much heart for.
Go to some gak hole country and see what they do to rebels. In Sierra Leone we routinely bumped into the remains of blokes who had been tied to trees with burning tyres melted onto their swedes. That's got to sting.
Its all very well gobbing off about how easy rebellion is when your a trendy 2011 youngster who only knows about war from movies and when it was Britain vs America and it was all "pip pip jolly good we surrender, so its alright to just down tools and walk home, lets all shake hands and then go off for tea and sticky buns"
But try it when the guys in charge rape every woman in a 20 mile radius, decapitate everyone's kids while they force the town to watch and then they burn them all alive leaving only one survivor to nip to the next city and let them know what's coming if they try to take the piss.
Mass torture and genocide or submission wasn't an option back during the American revolution, but if the fether in charge is willing to butcher a few million people, then latter is infinitely preferable.
|
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/09/27 14:19:04
Subject: Mexico a more important national security issue than the Middle east?
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
mattyrm wrote:dogma wrote:
The three things I most often see Americans forget about the problems of rebellion are:
1) There is a world of difference between overthrowing a colonial government that is being supported by an Imperial power in conflict with another Imperial power on the other side of the world's second largest ocean, and overthrowing a national government.
I would also add, "long before planes were invented, when you had to fething sail everywhere on a floating coffin, and half of your enemies country didn't support the war anyway.
What Sebster said is very true, and many civilians both in the USA and the UK seem to have that ignorant "its their own fault" attitude.
And another fact Americans don't like, is that they still lost more men in combat than the British. I was shown the figures during a lecture from the department of defence when I was in Baghdad. You know they have the figures from every single war the US has ever been involved in? Regardless, the redcoats killed more guys than they lost. Which is entirely expected with them being the professionals and all. But Americans seem to only tell the cool stories from the rebellion.
The point is, rebellion is hard work, and it was when we were still with boats and muskets and neither side was particularly brutal in what was essentially a civil war which neither side had that much heart for.
Go to some gak hole country and see what they do to rebels. In Sierra Leone we routinely bumped into the remains of blokes who had been tied to trees with burning tyres melted onto their swedes. That's got to sting.
Its all very well gobbing off about how easy rebellion is when your a trendy 2011 youngster who only knows about war from movies and when it was Britain vs America and it was all "pip pip jolly good we surrender, so its alright to just down tools and walk home, lets all shake hands and then go off for tea and sticky buns"
But try it when the guys in charge rape every woman in a 20 mile radius, decapitate everyone's kids while they force the town to watch and then they burn them all alive leaving only one survivor to nip to the next city and let them know what's coming if they try to take the piss.
Mass torture and genocide or submission wasn't an option back during the American revolution, but if the fether in charge is willing to butcher a few million people, then latter is infinitely preferable.
It was an option actually, especially in the South and on the frontier. The Indian Wars side of that was quite bloody.
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/09/27 14:59:27
Subject: Mexico a more important national security issue than the Middle east?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
To the OP question first... yes, Mexico is a more important security issue. It's our back yard, for crying out loud. Just by sheer proximity it's more important. Add in the gross levels of corruption and violence and it becomes even worse. More people have died in Mexico over drug wars and crime than all the casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan in the same time period. Over 3000 people died in just one year in one city (Juarez)... 4400 or so US soldiers died in the entire Iraq campaign since 2002. Only 2700 or so casualties are reported in the Afghanistan campaign combined.
By any measure, proximity or severity, the Mexican narco crisis is the biggest challenge facing America today. And few in DC are doing a damned thing about it.
Securing our border has to be the first step in all this. No, I'm not talking about building a moat with alligators... unless it's needed in popular crossing spots. I'm OK with boots on the ground and helicopters with FLIR and night vision.
Necroshea wrote:So far I've yet to hear about gangs having access to missiles or similar weapons, so just close the borders and let them sort out the mess by themselves.
Hate to burst your bubble...
http://www.hstoday.us/channels/dhs/single-article-page/anti-tank-rocket-launcher-c-4-found-along-rio-grande-underscores-concerns-over-cartel-attack-threats.html
Necroshea wrote:
Another tactic is to legalize some of the softer drugs. Robbing the gangs of their business.
This is the way to go. You don't see Anheiser Busch going to war with Heineken nowadays, at least not with guns. Just lawyers.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/09/29 02:27:56
Subject: Mexico a more important national security issue than the Middle east?
|
 |
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak
|
The Green Git wrote:To the OP question first... yes, Mexico is a more important security issue. It's our back yard, for crying out loud. Just by sheer proximity it's more important. Add in the gross levels of corruption and violence and it becomes even worse. More people have died in Mexico over drug wars and crime than all the casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan in the same time period. Over 3000 people died in just one year in one city (Juarez)... 4400 or so US soldiers died in the entire Iraq campaign since 2002. Only 2700 or so casualties are reported in the Afghanistan campaign combined.
You're comparing all on all sides in Mexico to purely the coalition casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. Which is an odd way to go.
That said, right now there's more people dying there than in Iraq and Afghanistan.
|
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/09/29 03:24:25
Subject: Mexico a more important national security issue than the Middle east?
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
Melissia wrote:You're welcome to think that Dogma, but to me it seems an incredibly skewed perspective.
Hm. Dunno if "skewed" is the right word for it... but that pov strikes me as odd to say the least.
Well, conceivably you could still call bribery a form of corruption, and further reduce corruption to a particular classification of political actions that has no connotation regarding efficacious governance; but that seems to strip the concept of meaning.
Mind you, this distinction really only applies to bribery. As I said before, things like clientelism are already viewed as being extrinsic to corruption, while electoral fraud would not be. Automatically Appended Next Post: mattyrm wrote:
Its all very well gobbing off about how easy rebellion is when your a trendy 2011 youngster who only knows about war from movies and when it was Britain vs America and it was all "pip pip jolly good we surrender, so its alright to just down tools and walk home, lets all shake hands and then go off for tea and sticky buns"
But try it when the guys in charge rape every woman in a 20 mile radius, decapitate everyone's kids while they force the town to watch and then they burn them all alive leaving only one survivor to nip to the next city and let them know what's coming if they try to take the piss.
When I was in undergrad we were having a meeting for this group project we were working on in a class in humanitarianism. The assignment involved discussing the refugee experience in one country or another, and I think we were assigned the Congolese. Anyway, we were winding down, and the talk, as it generally does in discussion of repression, turned into some American kid (my football teammate) asking "Why don't they just rebel?" Everyone gives the standard answer about danger and difficulty, but one kid from Eritrea said something to the effect of "When the choice is losing your hand, if lucky, to a machete, or leaving; you leave." My idiot teammate said something like "What's a little pain?" after which the Eritrean kid punched him the stomach; causing my friend to double over, and said "That's a little pain."
Oh, how I laughed. Automatically Appended Next Post: The Green Git wrote:More people have died in Mexico over drug wars and crime than all the casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan in the same time period. Over 3000 people died in just one year in one city (Juarez)... 4400 or so US soldiers died in the entire Iraq campaign since 2002. Only 2700 or so casualties are reported in the Afghanistan campaign combined.
I don't see why we're comparing deaths in Mexico to the death of US soldiers.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/09/29 03:37:16
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/09/29 08:22:34
Subject: Re:Mexico a more important national security issue than the Middle east?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Here's a bit from a story posted in Wired.com's Danger Room today ( http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/09/cartels-snuff-social-media/#more-58497)
Robert Beckhusen wrote:
The execution of Marisol Macias Castaneda — known online as “The Laredo Girl” and as “Nena de Laredo” — is the latest in a series of attacks against Mexicans who go online to discuss drug violence. It’s an epidemic which a new report describes as “so horrific as to approach a civil war.”
The report, released Monday by the Texas Department of Agriculture and authored by retired Major General Robert Scales and retired General Barry McCaffrey, describes a conflict in which drug cartels have forced the “capitulation” of Mexican border cities, killed more than 40,000 people and have fueled “an internal war in Mexico that has stripped that country of its internal security to the extent that a virtual state of siege now exists adjacent to our own southwestern states.”
Residents in towns along drug trafficking routes have been forced out by cartels, leaving them abandoned. Throughout northern Mexico, civil society has “severely deteriorated.”
The authors go on to claim Mexican cartels have moved into Texas border counties to use as safe havens: hiding out from Mexican authorities under the nose of U.S. law enforcement, directing drug shipments into the United States interior and engaging in kidnapping. Cartels have built command centers in Texas comparable to brigade-level headquarters.
Cartel operatives are also becoming more confident. The authors note pickup trucks emblazoned with large “Z” stickers and Ferrari logos — symbols used by the Zetas cartel — are an increasingly common sight in Texas. Drug traffickers have also been spotted in uniform and have shown willingness to confront U.S. law enforcement.
During a press conference Monday, Texas Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples even warned that without adequate U.S. assistance to Mexico, the Mexican government may be forced to negotiate with the cartels following presidential elections next year. The Mexican government strongly denies any consideration of negotiating with criminals.
The McCaffrey/Scales report contains some problems. Talk about “spillover violence” is exaggerated and relies heavily on anecdotes. I listened to Laredo, Texas Mayor Raul Salinas incredulously tell an audience in Austin on Sunday that it’s “baloney” U.S. border cities are experiencing a surge in violence.
Indeed, FBI crime statistics show Laredo, El Paso and other border cities to be relatively peaceful for their size, though Scales and McCaffrey are right that FBI statistics alone don’t tell the whole story. Cartel-related violence does in fact occur on the U.S. side of the border. As recently as Tuesday morning, an apparent power struggle within the Gulf Cartel led to a fatal shooting on a highway in McAllen, Texas.
We have to legalize drugs. When are responsible adults going to take control of these substances from criminals and children? It is the most important issue for the continent, imo. How many dead people will it take, how much taxes do we have to waste before we discard these broken policies?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/09/29 08:26:44
Fun and Fluff for the Win! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/09/29 08:50:27
Subject: Mexico a more important national security issue than the Middle east?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Here's a question, drugs get legalized, rewarding the cartels for all the people they murdered, and they move into the U.S. under free trade agreements, etc. What then?
It isn't as though the house fulls of money they have are going to evaporate or they suddenly turn into model citizens.
They're murdering bastards who don't think twice about wiping out families of people, down to the family pets, who cross them and they have more money to hand than a lot of small countries. I really don't want them having a free hand to start their industries in this country.
Add into the mix all the home grown gangs in on the same action and you find yourself giving a lot of power over to some true evil.
These guys are several degrees worse than any prohibition era gangsters were, as has time and again been proven. This isn't a 30's prohibition style situation. These people are activly overthrowing a government and establishing a reign of terror.
Responsible people in this situation shouldn't put everything on the U.S. government to save them like it's some magical being that can make everything right. People have to realize if they are doing drugs, they are acting as the accomplces of the cartels and other gangs selling drugs and murdering people by giving them the money to buy the weapons and politicians that allow them to flourish.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/09/29 10:20:04
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/09/29 09:21:36
Subject: Re:Mexico a more important national security issue than the Middle east?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
CL VI Store in at the Cyber Center of Excellence
|
murdog wrote:We have to legalize drugs. When are responsible adults going to take control of these substances from criminals and children? It is the most important issue for the continent, imo. How many dead people will it take, how much taxes do we have to waste before we discard these broken policies? I'm not sure cocaine and heroin are substances that should be legal. If you turned them into prescription drugs the Cartels would still be able to have a huge non-prescription market, you would really not change much. These drugs are just not the type you can make legal without prescriptions.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/09/30 14:44:09
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/09/29 09:36:59
Subject: Re:Mexico a more important national security issue than the Middle east?
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
CptJake wrote:
I'm not sure cocaine and heroin are substances that should be legal. If you turned them into prescription drugs the Cartels would still be able to have a huge non-prescription market, you would really change much. These drugs are just not the type you can make legal without prescriptions.
Oh, Everclear is just like vodka right?
I mean, clearly major depressant should not be legal without government supervision.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/09/29 09:43:51
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/09/30 14:36:09
Subject: Re:Mexico a more important national security issue than the Middle east?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
dogma wrote:CptJake wrote:
I'm not sure cocaine and heroin are substances that should be legal. If you turned them into prescription drugs the Cartels would still be able to have a huge non-prescription market, you would really change much. These drugs are just not the type you can make legal without prescriptions.
Oh, Everclear is just like vodka right?
I mean, clearly major depressant should not be legal without government supervision.
The effects of alcohol vs. Drugs seems to be a topic for another thread. Here it's a straw man.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/09/30 14:52:43
Subject: Re:Mexico a more important national security issue than the Middle east?
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
Relapse wrote:
The effects of alcohol vs. Drugs seems to be a topic for another thread. Here it's a straw man.
This is exemplary of the problem.
Alcohol is a drug. One of the more addictive ones, actually.
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/09/30 15:05:54
Subject: Mexico a more important national security issue than the Middle east?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
I refer you to the topic of the thread.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/09/30 18:05:34
Subject: Mexico a more important national security issue than the Middle east?
|
 |
Consigned to the Grim Darkness
|
Indeed.
We really need to do more on our side of the border, but we're too busy cutting budgets to be able to dedicate more manpower to the situation...
|
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog |
|
 |
 |
|