Kislyakov (Novosti): Bleak outlook for Russian-U.S. space cooperation

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
I didn't say that we declared war on them. Nonetheless, they've been
making war on us since 1979.
How? It's not a friendly relationship, but I wouldn't call it "war".

You don't think taking over an embassy and taking the diplomats
hostage is an act of war?

It's at least borderline... but it was also over 25 years ago, under
leaders now dead and gone. It's not as if such things have been happening
once a month. The US decided, then, that it was not worth going to war
over. At most, the only reasonable complaint now is that Iran has never
apologized for it.

You don't think supplying arms and training to people killing your
soldiers is an act of war?

No, actually, or the US and the USSR would have gone to war dozens of
times in the second half of the 20th century -- for example, over the
arming and training of the Afghan resistance. There are precedents going
back much farther, e.g. to WW1 and WW2.

It's not exactly a friendly act, no, but the people actually shooting at
you are the ones who may be at war with you (if they represent a nation,
or a would-be nation, rather than just a bandit gang).
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 23:46:16 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
I didn't say that we declared war on them. Nonetheless, they've been
making war on us since 1979.
How? It's not a friendly relationship, but I wouldn't call it "war".

You don't think taking over an embassy and taking the diplomats
hostage is an act of war?

It's at least borderline... but it was also over 25 years ago, under
leaders now dead and gone. It's not as if such things have been happening
once a month. The US decided, then, that it was not worth going to war
over.

Because we had Jimmy ("it's the Jews' fault) Carter in charge at the
time. Once we got them back, we didn't want to expend the resources.
That doesn't let them off the hook.

At most, the only reasonable complaint now is that Iran has never
apologized for it.

So, what's the statute of limitations?

You don't think supplying arms and training to people killing your
soldiers is an act of war?

No, actually, or the US and the USSR would have gone to war dozens of
times in the second half of the 20th century -- for example, over the
arming and training of the Afghan resistance. There are precedents going
back much farther, e.g. to WW1 and WW2.

Mostly based on MAD. That doesn't pertain.

Yet.

We need to ensure that it never does.

It's not exactly a friendly act, no, but the people actually shooting at
you are the ones who may be at war with you (if they represent a nation,
or a would-be nation, rather than just a bandit gang).

No.

Anyone who aids and abets our enemy is our enemy. Life is that
simple. It was complicated only by MAD.

We should never allow ourselves to be put in that position again, but
it seems to be exactly what we're doing.

Rand Simberg wrote:

Because George Bush wouldn't be president. And we would have lost the
****ing war(s).


Assuming your talking about WW II, I think the fact that the Japanese
had attacked us at Pearl Harbor wasn't exactly classified.
The German spies we captured in America were given trials at which the
evidence against them for espionage was presented.
Today I heard on the news that they had originally intended to present
evidence tomorrow on the Iranian connection to the insurgency in
Iraq...but now that's been canceled as revealing that evidence would
compromise ongoing efforts to gather intelligence on the Iran/Iraq
connection... so it may be a while before they can present that
evidence, just as I predicted.

Pat