extending this to the political realm is actually very bad news. The tyrannical potential of female dominated societies is probably greater than that of male dominated ones given the technology (modern weapons and universal surveillance) that makes physical strength and even willingness to fight irrelevant (somewhat similar tendencies may exist regarding male leaders but they are mitigated by the fact that men have to stand out AS INDIVIDUALS to get female attention and have biological adaptions to this fact).

9-11 WAS the equivalent to Pearl Harbor (in that we were attacked by a foreign govt). Asserting otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence that this was the case really undermines the effort to portray the right wing as the ones driven by fantasy, emnotion, and cultural hysteria and the left as rational, which is unfortunate because mostly that IS the case.

I didn't say it posed an equivalent military threat to the US. Do you really not see the difference?

It's pretty much everywhere as I'm sure you know. Yes, yes I know it's all fake.

My impression is the Pearl Harbor is fairly well remembered.

"Right. 19 guys with box-cutters are exactly the same as 361 air-crafts launched from six Japanese aircraft carriers into Pearl Harbor to bomb the entire US naval fleet of ships. And the ragtag bunch of guys in Afghanistan are exactly the same as the Government of Japan. To say otherwise is fantasy."

Where do you point on the differnce between a militarily significant attack by a foreign power (Pearl Harbor) and an attack by a foreign power which constitutes "only" a political and emotional threat (9-11). BTW Pearl Harbor WAS the start of the US war with Japan.

attacked the US on 9-11. It may be the case that non all parts of this govt were fully informed ahead of time, but it was definitely a hybrid entity which functioned as such after the fact and thus was legitimately held accountable.

So a foregin govt is entitled to stage attacks on US soil but isn't to be retaliated against as long as it doesn't have the ability to invade and take over? If that isn't the criteria what is?

and thus were justifiably attacked. If the Japanese navy had sailed to Argentia after Pearl Harbor and been sheltered and defended by the govt of Argentina we would have been at war with Argentia. Would have been the same situation, in principle, as in Afghanistan.

No, but there was never any possiblity of them doin that.

when they refused to hand over Bin Laden and everyone else who was part of the attack they became a party to the hosilities. What happens after a war is over is different than what happens while it was going on. The taliban in the aftermath of 9-11 conducted themselves entirely as a belligerint and they expected an American attack, if it came, to meet the same fate as the Russians. It may turn out that politically, if not militarily, they were right.

and the US would have been dealing with a different govt. Your implication that the Taliban were in any way neutral in Bin Ladens war against the US is just the kind of lunacy that is of such help to the Republicans in wreaking havoc.

and his organization and turn them over to the US they had a month to do it. If they couldn't do it in a month it's doubtful they ever could have even if they had wanted to. Look how much trouble it caused when an American govt let the Iranians off the hook for seizing our embassy because, according to the Iranian govt "it wasn't us it was students",(and that was a case where it would have been difficult to take practical action). If ANY American govt. would have let the Taliban off the hook after 9-11 with some similar half assed bullshit excuse no one associated with them would ever hold national office again.

so the US just had to accept it. Speaking only as a partisan democrat I would have LOVED to see Bush swallow a similar line from the Taliban after 9-11. I wouldn't count on any American govt commiting that type of political suicide though.

in fact most of the evidence and analysis would seem to point the other way, although I admit there MAY be SOME question as a matter of law before 9-11. But even if it is conceded that the two entities were deserving of some differentiated treatment before 9-11 the actions of the taliban afterwards erased any legal or practical distinction between them.

doesn't seem to be hurting the show though

you'd have a better understanding of dark humor, I guess.

the US had no evident interest in Afghanistan or the taliban after the soviets left until it started being used as a base to attack us.

the situation is a little different.

one thing is for sure though, lots, lots, LOTS of people REALLY respond to them.

they aren't perks they are the main point. Since men are bigger and stronger than women and children they always could just take most of food without having to worry too much or work too hard-which also explains a lot about mens lack of sensitivity to lots of the things women worry about and are bothered by.

This is, at best, only partially true: "trying too hard" definitely hurts your changes but (under almost all circumstances) SIMPLY NOT trying will not in and of itself help. It is true that being pushy and overbearing (usually) won't get you laid, but the simple absence of pushyness and "overbearingness" won't get you laid either. Like most things it is only in question at the margins but that is where the right balance between doing what it takes and trying too hard might make the difference. It is similar to women wearing makeup, it doesn't make a BIG difference in how she looks but in some circumstances it might make enough difference to matter.