|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
On 16 Feb 2007 18:03:17 -0800, "Quadibloc" wrote:
But do I feel like lording this over the United States? No. Countries like Israel, Taiwan, or South Korea are not as comfortable to live in as Canada. The lives of people in those countries are regimented in some ways that our lives are not. Young men have to serve a term in the armed forces in those countries (and in Greece, Britain, and in much of Continental Europe, in fact, too). Not in 'Britain'. -- Darren J Longhorn It's all faked, I tell you, all of it! You want proof? I'll give you your stinkin' proof... http://www.geocities.com/darrenlonghorn/proof/nasa2.jpg |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
On Feb 16, 11:54 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Rand Simberg wrote: Yes, you can't imagine that they might actually believe the apocalyptic rants that they spout daily, and are actually interested in immanentizing the eschaton. (Hint: MAD only works when both parties want to survive) The ayatollahs may chant a lot, but they are as keen to get destroyed as TV evangilists are to have Christ really show up and start passing out the judgments on people. You do not base the safety of your people on such simplistic psychological analysis. These are the people who run mass demonstrations where the chant is 'death to America'. It is possible that they mean it. Imagine what people would think of America if they thought we really were going to do things the way Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell wanted us to. We want the end of the world to occur ASAP, that's what they'd think. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell do not run the USA. The Ayatollahs actually do run Iran. Has it ever occurred to you that you're a living parody of the conspiracy leftist? Yup, me and Time magazine:http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...576593,00.html It is the working assumption that when other nations say they want to destroy you they can't really mean it that worries me. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Henry Spencer wrote: In article , Pat Flannery wrote: Is there something funny going on with your computer's clock,or your ISP BTW? Your messages are showing up several hours after you have written them over the past few days. Pat |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Rand Simberg wrote: Ahhhh...yes, Henry, but you forget that this also demonstrates that Pat is a solipsistic narcissist, Jeeze, Mr. Simberg! You can do fancier things with your tongue than a ten-dollar whore ! Pat Rock Ridge |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Darren J Longhorn wrote:
On 16 Feb 2007 18:03:17 -0800, "Quadibloc" wrote: But do I feel like lording this over the United States? No. Countries like Israel, Taiwan, or South Korea are not as comfortable to live in as Canada. The lives of people in those countries are regimented in some ways that our lives are not. Young men have to serve a term in the armed forces in those countries (and in Greece, Britain, and in much of Continental Europe, in fact, too). Not in 'Britain'. I'm glad to hear that the United Kingdom has been able to abolish national service for the time being. I had thought that even after they did not need large forces for Northern Ireland, they were still maintaining it for various purposes. John Savard |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message ... On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 06:28:14 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Remember how I said pulling out of the ABM treaty was a dumb move, because the Russians would think that any treaty we had with them wasn't worth the paper it was written on? No, but I can imagine you saying such a silly thing. We didn't abrogate the treaty. We withdrew, which was completely within the bounds of the treaty. Your imagination really must be working over time. He never said we abrogated it. But hey, don't let what he actaully said get in the way of what you want to say. You are factually correct in your statement, as far as it goes. Pat Flannery indeed did not claim that the U.S. acted in direct violation of the terms of the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. However, he *did* claim that what the U.S. actually *did* do would lead the Russians to conclude "that any treaty we had with them wasn't worth the paper it was written on", as is shown by what you have quoted. The implication, therefore, is that the U.S. did something naughty. Thus, for Rand Simberg to explain in explicit detail what "pulling out of the ABM treaty" meant, and that it involved withdrawal from the treaty in accordance with its stated provisions, is a legitimate clarification in preparation for the argument that hence in no way should this withdrawal from the treaty lead to the conclusion that the United States is less than conscientious in abiding by the treaties it signs. John Savard |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 19:35:16 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote: Henry Spencer wrote: You'll say: "But yes! But a nuclear war could wipe out all of our nation." Oddly enough, anyone it wipes out _after_ me isn't of much concern to me in any concrete form. :-D By that I meant that I didn't want to get killed in one, nor do I imagine much of the population does. After I get vaporised, whatever the fate of the rest of Earth's history is like is pretty moot as far as I'm concerned. And you think, e.g., the Ayatollah Khamenei is any different? Or that it is specifically *nuclear* death that invokes the "who cares about anyone else?" reaction? If the mob is about to put his head on a pike outside the palace, what does he care that nuclear war would kill the mob? Once he's dead, the fate of the rest of the world's history would be pretty moot as far as he's concerned. Except: Some people do kind of sort of want to know that the people what did them in, will get theirs not long afterwards. A nuclear war between Iran and the United States, would accomplish that very nicely And: He might have better odds in the nuclear war. First off, it will give the Iranians a nice common enemy to unite against, under whatever leader they can find - even if it's one they were about to kill yesterday. Note, e.g., the massive spike in Bush II's popularity right after 9/11. Second, Iran is a big country, with lots of room for him to hide. Probably too big for the United States to actually invade and conquer so long as we can convince ourselves we don't have to. And we're probably too nice, we certainly *appear* to be too nice, to engage in a literally genocidal nuclear counterstrike. We might just nuke the place a little bit, with him arranging to be someplace else when the missiles hit. Then he can play Mullah Omar for many years to come. Iran's aggressive foreign policy isn't some arbitrary whim of its present leaders, it's an almost necessary consequence of the country's domestic political problems. Which are severe enough that "head on a pike" is a constant threat to pretty much any Iranian politician, and which really are alleviated by providing foreign enemies for the people to unite against. Which means there is a real threat that after too many iterations of "Yes, food is scarce and expensive but LOOK, OVER THERE, JEWS, KILL THEM ALL!" or "I assure you that concerns about the fairness of the last elections are AIEEE! GREAT SATAN! DESTROY!", the Iranian people are going to insist on more than words or token gestures before they put away the torches and pitchforks. -- *John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, * *Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" * *Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition * *White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute * * for success" * *661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition * |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
On 17 Feb 2007 06:35:32 -0800, "Quadibloc" wrote:
I'm glad to hear that the United Kingdom has been able to abolish national service for the time being. I had thought that even after they did not need large forces for Northern Ireland, they were still maintaining it for various purposes. National in the United Kingdom ended on 31 December 1960, before 'the troubles' began in Northern Ireland. -- Darren J Longhorn It's all faked, I tell you, all of it! You want proof? I'll give you your stinkin' proof... http://www.geocities.com/darrenlonghorn/proof/nasa2.jpg |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Quadibloc wrote: Eric Chomko wrote: I don't know what is worse, those that are brainwashed into thinking that the US and Israel are the worst countries in the world or those that are brainwashed into thinking that they are best countries in the world. Canada and New Zealand are much nicer! They are more friendly and peaceful. Dishonest police officers running "speed traps", or framing black motorists for traffic offences in order to search their vehicles without being accused of racial profiling, are unheard of! Citizens of these countries of Arab origin can go from place to place without harassment! Universal health care is paid for by the government! With as much snow as Buffalo, NY was gotten this year and Canada is north of that, no thanks. I'd take living in the Caribean over Canada any day simply due to the difference in weather. But do I feel like lording this over the United States? No. Countries like Israel, Taiwan, or South Korea are not as comfortable to live in as Canada. The lives of people in those countries are regimented in some ways that our lives are not. Young men have to serve a term in the armed forces in those countries (and in Greece, Britain, and in much of Continental Europe, in fact, too). That's because countries like Israel, Taiwan, and South Korea happen to have hostile neighbors close beside them. They are under a genuine threat of attack. So the problems of life in *those* countries are not the fault of their regimes... they are the fault of their enemies. All right, so what is the United States' excuse? One of your former Presidents, Harold "S" Truman, kept a notice on his desk with the wording of which you may be familiar. Before World War II, the American people thought that they could practise the policy of isolationism. Let foreigners squabble over their silly differences and kill each other; America is far from these squabbles, and strong enough to defend itself, so it need not court trouble. It can just mind its own business, and enjoy peace forever. How do you explain the claims of imperialism of the US it was getting at the turn of the 19th to 20th centuries? It took Pearl Harbor to shock America out of that thinking. And then the liberation of Belsen caused many to question the morality of isolationism. Then the Soviet theft of the secret of the Atom Bomb meant that the world was a small place, and the Atlantic and Pacific oceans no more guaranteed security than the Rhine, the Elbe, or the Danube. The strangling of the infant democracies of Eastern Europe, so soon before freed from the Nazi jackboot, made it clear that Stalin was an enemy of freedom. To preserve its own freedom, the United States had to fight the Cold War itself. Unlike the rest of the world, it didn't have a bigger democratic superpower that would hold off the Communist menace so that it could irresponsibly bask in low taxes. Do you realize how big the front of the former USSR was as compared to what the west could protect in Europe during the Cold War? Canada to Mexico vs. Kansas City to Oklahoma City, respctively. There was no way that the west could have won a conventional war in Europe during the Cold War. Best country in the world? The United States has its internal problems. Because it had certain international responsibilities to live up to, however, it has not had the luxury of concentrating exclusively on fixing them. Not to mention that our public transportation is lousy compared to many other counties and that the oil industrialists run the country. Eric John Savard |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Bye-bye INF treaty?
Henry Spencer wrote: In article , Pat Flannery wrote: After I get vaporised, whatever the fate of the rest of Earth's history is like is pretty moot as far as I'm concerned. Exactly. Which means that if you're the Maximum Leader of Flanneristan, and you expect that reversing your "reclaim those lost provinces even if the US objects" policy would lead to your being deposed and executed, then deterrence is useless against you. Going head-to-head with the US, despite the risk of starting a nuclear war, is your smartest move. It might work, and the alternative is certain death. Changing that "might" to "probably won't" would be a big, big improvement. I could almost picture North Korea being whacko enough do do something like this, but not Iran. I actually am inclined to agree with this... today. The current Iranian government probably *can* be deterred. However, that wasn't always the case. In particular, even though he was theoretically the US's buddy, the Shah was a dangerous man, who wanted to re-establish the Persian Empire and wasn't above taking some big chances to do it. Despite the odious nature of the regime that replaced him, I'm not sorry to see him gone. However, there are more like him around, and ten years from now, one of them might be in charge again. Clearly the Shah would never have replaced Mossadegh in 1953 without the help of the US and Britain. As bad as the Shah was he was not trying to nationalize Iran's oil as Mossadegh clearly was trying to do. And note that I said "(and its neighbors)". That general area is not noted for its stability. Given the lead times, establishing a missile- interceptor base is more about tomorrow's politics than today's. which leaves us with Crazy Islam standing in the line-up of the usual suspects. Right beside Crazy Imperialist -- both the Shah and Saddam Hussein being recent examples of would-be Mideast Hitlers whose motives had little or nothing to do with Islam. And from our perspective they are judged on, will they sell us oil or not. I'm afraid we'll judge future leaders in the exact same manner regardless of those leaders' other motives. Eric -- spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bye-bye INF treaty? | Pat Flannery | Policy | 418 | March 20th 07 04:12 AM |
Limited ASAT test ban treaty | Totorkon | Policy | 3 | March 9th 07 03:19 AM |
Outer Space Treaty | John Schilling | Policy | 24 | May 24th 06 03:14 PM |
Bush to Withdraw from Outer Space Treaty, Annex the Moon | Mark R. Whittington | Policy | 7 | April 2nd 05 08:02 PM |