Wag the Dog
-
Dave Huff wrote: you stand up straight the popping sound you here is your head coming out of your ass Nope. That was Dubya Bush :) Dave - get an education. Read some history will ya and make some sense. Dave Huff wrote: world should wait until Saddam succeeds in making a nuke The "world" has to do something about Saddam's nukes because the "world" let the situation come to this point. Infact the "world" is America. Don't you Americans understand how much arabs hate you? They really, really do. And for a bloody good reason: your policy in the middle-east is crap. There are some reasons Arabs hate you: - American military personnel on Arab holy soil. Would you like me to piss against the Lincoln Memorial. No? Neither do the arabs. - Overt american support towards Israel. This is one of the worst blunders. Ever. - America is percieved as being an imperialistic power which threatens the local culture and, worse, undermine the local regime. Even more worse, sometimes America support unpopular regimes on the basis of "he's a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch". - American hypocrisy. If america loves democracy so much why does it support corrupt/undemocratic regimes. Pakistan's Musharraf (the one Bush didnt know his name) is suddenly a friend of the US. Why is it America which is being fired at and not Japan or Switzerland or any other country? Please stop and engage your brain before opening your mouth. Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
Brian Azzopardi wrote: Brian Azzopardi wrote: The "world" has to do something about Saddam's nukes because the "world" let the situation come to this point. Yes I believe that it was the American allies that convinced the Americans to stop short of taking out Saddam in 1992. Brian Azzopardi wrote: Infact the "world" is America. What the hell do you mean by that? I'm sure the French, Germans, Indonesians, Japanese... would tend to disagree. Brian Azzopardi wrote: Don't you Americans understand how much arabs hate you? First I am a Canadian, second - judging from the number of Arab immigrants to the US I doubt they all hate America. Actually the large numbers of immigrants away from the Arab states indicates they like where they are a lot less. Brian Azzopardi wrote: - American military personnel on Arab holy soil. Would you like me to piss against the Lincoln Memorial. No? Neither do the arabs. You mean all those military personnel in Saudi Arabia that were invited by the Saudi royal family to be there? Hey if they don't want the Americans there ask them to leave - of course the Saudi royal family doesn't want that because they would probably be attacked by their own people. - Overt american support towards Israel. This is one of the worst blunders. Ever. - America is percieved as being an imperialistic power which threatens the local culture and, worse, undermine the local regime. Even more worse, sometimes America support unpopular regimes on the basis of "he's a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch". - American hypocrisy. If america loves democracy so much why does it support corrupt/undemocratic regimes. Pakistan's Musharraf (the one Bush didnt know his name) is suddenly a friend of the US. This is classic. You contradict yourself over and over here. 1 - America supports the only functional democracy in the middle east (Israel) 2 - America is an imperialistic power 3 - America supports corrupt/undemocratic regimes. Well if 2 is true then instead of supporting corrupt regimes they would be going in and replacing them with democratic regimes. America lives in the world of realpolitik - they deal with the governments that are in power. As for America threatening local culture - America does not force "Friends" and Pepsi on the world - the world asks for it. America is not an imperialistic culture
-
Richard Stringer wrote: (1) Does Isael have nukes or WMA's? YES (2) If their homeland was threatened and they were in danger of being overwhelmed would they use them if they had them. YES (3) Does Eqypt, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia have nukes or WMA's? NO (4) Are they dumb enough to attack Israel militaraly? PROBABLY BUT SAUDI ARABIA WOULD ONLY DO IT OFFICIALLY WITH US PERMISSION SO NOT GOING TO HAPPEN (5) What happens to the world economy if there is massive conflict in the middle east ? WE'RE FUCKED (6) What country has the ability to do anything about the above? ALL OF THE WESTERN COUNTRIES (6) Why does the US need the consent of a bunch of pissant countries with a proven record of doing the wrong thing at the wrong time - everytime? THIS IS WHY NO ONE LIKES YOU. WHAT KIND OF ANALYSIS DO YOU CALL THAT? Anthony www.TonysOpenSource.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
Anthony Roach wrote: (6) What country has the ability to do anything about the above? ALL OF THE WESTERN COUNTRIES (6) Why does the US need the consent of a bunch of pissant countries with a proven record of doing the wrong thing at the wrong time - everytime? Actually this is a valid question. Why does the US need the consent or approval of anyone in the world for what it does. If the EU wants to go into a hissy fit because of US policy in Iraq - so what?? What can they do? Make speeches at the UN? More importantly - why should the Americans care? This is not a rhetorical question nor is it American arrogance (I'm Canadian). Dave Huff Igor would you give me a hand with the bags? Certainly - you take the blonde and I'll take the one in the turban!
-
Brian Azzopardi wrote: Dave - get an education. Read some history will ya and make some sense. You are the one that needs a history lesson. Read a bit about the late 30's and Chamberlain. How the British paid no attention to Churchill. The stupidity of Italy and France ( quite similar to your precesent viewpoints ). Don't just read - study - learn - analyze - see. Don't impress us with your book knowledge of the salient facts - give us an alternative persepective - what would you, from your exalted point of view, do to stabilize the situation? Ask yourself these queations: (1) Does Isael have nukes or WMA's? (2) If their homeland was threatened and they were in danger of being overwhelmed would they use them if they had them. (3) Does Eqypt, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia have nukes or WMA's? (4) Are they dumb enough to attack Israel militaraly? (5) What happens to the world economy if there is massive conflict in the middle east ? (6) What country has the ability to do anything about the above? (6) Why does the US need the consent of a bunch of pissant countries with a proven record of doing the wrong thing at the wrong time - everytime? RIchard When we mean to build, We first survey the plot, then draw the model; And when we see the figure of the house, Then must we rate the cost of the execution. William Shakespeare (King Henry IV)
Richard Stringer wrote: (1) Does Isael have nukes or WMA's? Yes. Palestine does not. Richard Stringer wrote: (2) If their homeland was threatened and they were in danger of being overwhelmed would they use them if they had them. The Isrealis would only ever use them as a means of last resort. They're not dumb. Infact they conduct diplomacy very well - they've managed to get America to do it for them. Israel is smart. It wouldn't have to use it's nuclear weapons because if it ever came to that point the US would have long declared war on any Arab country threatening Israel. They're using the US and getting them to fight their war for them. Richard Stringer wrote: (3) Does Eqypt, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia have nukes or WMA's? NO Arab country has nuclear weapons. Some of them may have produced bits of them (Iran, Iraq, maybe Syria) but *not* a weapon. Only Pakistan has been proven to have a nuclear weapon but Musharraf is now Bush's friend. Richard Stringer wrote: (4) Are they dumb enough to attack Israel militaraly? Are you a moron? Seriously, are you a moron? First you accuse me of not knowing history then you come back with such a stupid question. Yes they did attack Israel: at least 3 times including the Yom Kippur War and the Six Day war. In the Six Day war Egypt and Syria were going to attack but Israel preemted them by attacking first. The arabs were routed. Richard Stringer wrote: (5) What happens to the world economy if there is massive conflict in the middle east ? Intelligent countries are hedgeing their bets and securing oil supplies. Such a country would be Japan for example. Please remeber that in case of conflict the price of oil will prolly go up and yes that would have an adverse effect but not as much as you think. There are oil-producing countries ready to take advantage of the situation and increase their oil production. Also the market has already factored into the price of oil the probabilty of a conflict. Richard Stringer wrote: (6) What country has the ability to do anything about the above? Many. Or none. Russia still has leverage over the arabs. Why would other countries get involved anyway? Why would they fight somebody else's war? They don' want a vietnam. They're smart. Richard Stringer wrote: Why does the US need the consent of a bunch of pissant coun
-
Once the current situation is over they'll probably cook up sonme story about how Castro's forces infiltrated Bush's home with exploding pretzels so they can bomb Cuba Anthony www.TonysOpenSource.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
Anthony Roach wrote: Castro's forces infiltrated Bush's home with exploding pretzels so they can bomb Cuba Hehe :) America send bombs to Baghdad. Baghdad send a bag of pretzels back to the white house. I wonder which one has the most chance of killing its intended recipient :) Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
-
Brian Azzopardi wrote: It would never have hitched itself to one country. That's just plain dumb. Thanks for the lesson on relations :) * I am not being facetious
Paul Watson
BlueGrassGroup.com
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: * I am not being facetious You seems to like that word facetious don't you? Paul Watson wrote: Thanks for the lesson on relations :-O Assuming that you're not being facetious, thanks for reading through it all. I hope what I wrote/write makes sense :) Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
-
Anthony Roach wrote: (6) What country has the ability to do anything about the above? ALL OF THE WESTERN COUNTRIES (6) Why does the US need the consent of a bunch of pissant countries with a proven record of doing the wrong thing at the wrong time - everytime? Actually this is a valid question. Why does the US need the consent or approval of anyone in the world for what it does. If the EU wants to go into a hissy fit because of US policy in Iraq - so what?? What can they do? Make speeches at the UN? More importantly - why should the Americans care? This is not a rhetorical question nor is it American arrogance (I'm Canadian). Dave Huff Igor would you give me a hand with the bags? Certainly - you take the blonde and I'll take the one in the turban!
If there is a state of mind where that is a valid question then I revert to my previous answer "we're all fucked" Anthony www.TonysOpenSource.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
-
Richard Stringer wrote: (1) Does Isael have nukes or WMA's? Yes. Palestine does not. Richard Stringer wrote: (2) If their homeland was threatened and they were in danger of being overwhelmed would they use them if they had them. The Isrealis would only ever use them as a means of last resort. They're not dumb. Infact they conduct diplomacy very well - they've managed to get America to do it for them. Israel is smart. It wouldn't have to use it's nuclear weapons because if it ever came to that point the US would have long declared war on any Arab country threatening Israel. They're using the US and getting them to fight their war for them. Richard Stringer wrote: (3) Does Eqypt, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia have nukes or WMA's? NO Arab country has nuclear weapons. Some of them may have produced bits of them (Iran, Iraq, maybe Syria) but *not* a weapon. Only Pakistan has been proven to have a nuclear weapon but Musharraf is now Bush's friend. Richard Stringer wrote: (4) Are they dumb enough to attack Israel militaraly? Are you a moron? Seriously, are you a moron? First you accuse me of not knowing history then you come back with such a stupid question. Yes they did attack Israel: at least 3 times including the Yom Kippur War and the Six Day war. In the Six Day war Egypt and Syria were going to attack but Israel preemted them by attacking first. The arabs were routed. Richard Stringer wrote: (5) What happens to the world economy if there is massive conflict in the middle east ? Intelligent countries are hedgeing their bets and securing oil supplies. Such a country would be Japan for example. Please remeber that in case of conflict the price of oil will prolly go up and yes that would have an adverse effect but not as much as you think. There are oil-producing countries ready to take advantage of the situation and increase their oil production. Also the market has already factored into the price of oil the probabilty of a conflict. Richard Stringer wrote: (6) What country has the ability to do anything about the above? Many. Or none. Russia still has leverage over the arabs. Why would other countries get involved anyway? Why would they fight somebody else's war? They don' want a vietnam. They're smart. Richard Stringer wrote: Why does the US need the consent of a bunch of pissant coun
Brian Azzopardi wrote: It doesnt. Or to put it another way: it doesn't have to. But it will only increase anti-american feelings in the rest of the world. Historically, when a country gets too powerful the others band around and cut it down to size. Remeber that in 50yrs time America will be a small country compared to China. If i were the UK i'd start getting cozy with China: huge market, huge potential and the next world superpower. Good answer I was going for the same feel but it would have been a 20 page dissertation so I kept it simple Brian Azzopardi wrote: PS If you reply please try to answer at least some of the points raised above - at least we'll then know that you can think. Nasty but v funny :-D Anthony www.TonysOpenSource.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
-
Brian Azzopardi wrote: It doesnt. Or to put it another way: it doesn't have to. But it will only increase anti-american feelings in the rest of the world. Historically, when a country gets too powerful the others band around and cut it down to size. Remeber that in 50yrs time America will be a small country compared to China. If i were the UK i'd start getting cozy with China: huge market, huge potential and the next world superpower. Good answer I was going for the same feel but it would have been a 20 page dissertation so I kept it simple Brian Azzopardi wrote: PS If you reply please try to answer at least some of the points raised above - at least we'll then know that you can think. Nasty but v funny :-D Anthony www.TonysOpenSource.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
Anthony Roach wrote: Good answer I was going for the same feel but it would have been a 20 page dissertation so I kept it simple Your answer was good and to the point. I just felt the need to twist in the knife a little deeper, point by point. Anthony Roach wrote: Nasty but v funny :) Thanks I was gonna be nastier. You'll notice that in his list he repeats the number 6 twice. Surely proof of something? Like stupidity? :) Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
-
Anthony Roach wrote: (6) What country has the ability to do anything about the above? ALL OF THE WESTERN COUNTRIES (6) Why does the US need the consent of a bunch of pissant countries with a proven record of doing the wrong thing at the wrong time - everytime? Actually this is a valid question. Why does the US need the consent or approval of anyone in the world for what it does. If the EU wants to go into a hissy fit because of US policy in Iraq - so what?? What can they do? Make speeches at the UN? More importantly - why should the Americans care? This is not a rhetorical question nor is it American arrogance (I'm Canadian). Dave Huff Igor would you give me a hand with the bags? Certainly - you take the blonde and I'll take the one in the turban!
Dave Huff wrote: Actually this is a valid question. Why does the US need the consent or approval of anyone in the world for what it does You can't even begin to imagine how invalid that question is in the real-world. I seriously hope that US policy makers don't really believe that this question is valid (as, unfortunately, they seem to) because God help us all! Diplomacy does not work like this. Diplomacy is the art of the subtle, of finesse, of nuance. Bush himself said that he doesnt understand nuance. He's a light-weight and intellectually a tadpole; get rid of him for America's sake. The question above would have provoked laughter in the one truly great diplomat america had these last 50 years - Henry Kissinger. If you really want an answer to the above question read his book: "Does America need a Foreign Policy?". Kissinger is German (and a Jew), raised in the States, which might explain why he was succesful at diplomacy. Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
-
Richard Stringer wrote: (1) Does Isael have nukes or WMA's? YES (2) If their homeland was threatened and they were in danger of being overwhelmed would they use them if they had them. YES (3) Does Eqypt, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia have nukes or WMA's? NO (4) Are they dumb enough to attack Israel militaraly? PROBABLY BUT SAUDI ARABIA WOULD ONLY DO IT OFFICIALLY WITH US PERMISSION SO NOT GOING TO HAPPEN (5) What happens to the world economy if there is massive conflict in the middle east ? WE'RE FUCKED (6) What country has the ability to do anything about the above? ALL OF THE WESTERN COUNTRIES (6) Why does the US need the consent of a bunch of pissant countries with a proven record of doing the wrong thing at the wrong time - everytime? THIS IS WHY NO ONE LIKES YOU. WHAT KIND OF ANALYSIS DO YOU CALL THAT? Anthony www.TonysOpenSource.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
Anthony Roach wrote: THIS IS WHY NO ONE LIKES YOU. WHAT KIND OF ANALYSIS DO YOU CALL THAT? I did not really enter this debate to win a popularity contest. But if the sum total of your debating expertise is encapsulated by the above I can understand why Brittiania no longer rules the waves. As I said earlier to others - study some history and try to learn from it. Personal attacks only mark you as someone with no ideas or thoughts of significance to add to the discussion. Richard PS: If you think any of the Western Countries (IE Europe ) has any real influence in the ME area you are sadly mistaken. When we mean to build, We first survey the plot, then draw the model; And when we see the figure of the house, Then must we rate the cost of the execution. William Shakespeare (King Henry IV)
-
Anthony Roach wrote: THIS IS WHY NO ONE LIKES YOU. WHAT KIND OF ANALYSIS DO YOU CALL THAT? I did not really enter this debate to win a popularity contest. But if the sum total of your debating expertise is encapsulated by the above I can understand why Brittiania no longer rules the waves. As I said earlier to others - study some history and try to learn from it. Personal attacks only mark you as someone with no ideas or thoughts of significance to add to the discussion. Richard PS: If you think any of the Western Countries (IE Europe ) has any real influence in the ME area you are sadly mistaken. When we mean to build, We first survey the plot, then draw the model; And when we see the figure of the house, Then must we rate the cost of the execution. William Shakespeare (King Henry IV)
Richard Stringer wrote: I did not really enter this debate to win a popularity contest. Sorry I didn't actually mean u personally i meant america and its attitude Richard Stringer wrote: PS: If you think any of the Western Countries (IE Europe ) has any real influence in the ME area you are sadly mistaken. Actually according to the bbc when reporting that Vladimer Putin has vetoed any un agreement on attacking iraq the russians seem to have an awful lot of influence Anthony www.TonysOpenSource.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
-
Richard Stringer wrote: stop studing VB I'm not a VB programmer. I happen to know C/C++ very well thank you. Richard Stringer wrote: go study some history Are you sure about this? Did you read my bio? Would you really wanna argue politics and history with me? I can really show you how hard I worked for my degree if you want :) Richard Stringer wrote: Are you as dumb as you sound or are you just making an extra special effort today I'm making an extra effort today so that dumb people (like you) can understand me. Unforunately it seems even that's too taxing for their/your beer-adled brains. Despite insulting me you did not come up with one, NOT one single argument to rebut mine. What does that make you? Even if I say so myself, my original argument was on the whole reasonable. Yet you did not even attempt to counter one sentence. Grow up. Go to debate class: it would do u some good. Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
Brian Azzopardi wrote: Are you sure about this? Did you read my bio? Would you really wanna argue politics and history with me? I can really show you how hard I worked for my degree if you want Brian Azzopardi wrote: Grow up. Go to debate class: it would do u some good. So you're a know-it-all? I think you need to learn some humility.
Jason Henderson
start page
articles
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Sir Winston Churchill -
Richard Stringer wrote: I did not really enter this debate to win a popularity contest. Sorry I didn't actually mean u personally i meant america and its attitude Richard Stringer wrote: PS: If you think any of the Western Countries (IE Europe ) has any real influence in the ME area you are sadly mistaken. Actually according to the bbc when reporting that Vladimer Putin has vetoed any un agreement on attacking iraq the russians seem to have an awful lot of influence Anthony www.TonysOpenSource.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
Anthony Roach wrote: Actually according to the bbc when reporting that Vladimer Putin has vetoed any un agreement on attacking iraq the russians seem to have an awful lot of influence What if the US does not seek Security council approval of its actions? If GWB stands before the General assembly one year and one day after and act of war that killed 3000 Americans and lays out a reasonable case for attacking Iraq - and the rest of the world say "No you can't do this because we don't want you to." , the people of the US will surge in support of their president. Then you will have the true case of the bull in the china shop - except no one else in the world has the ability to grab this particular bull by the horns. (Is that enough metaphors yet?) The world has changed dramatically recently. The Americans are a hyper-power. They will not have any problem going it alone if they have to (or want to), but they will remember who was on their side when its all over. Dave Huff Igor would you give me a hand with the bags? Certainly - you take the blonde and I'll take the one in the turban!
-
Dave Huff wrote: Actually this is a valid question. Why does the US need the consent or approval of anyone in the world for what it does You can't even begin to imagine how invalid that question is in the real-world. I seriously hope that US policy makers don't really believe that this question is valid (as, unfortunately, they seem to) because God help us all! Diplomacy does not work like this. Diplomacy is the art of the subtle, of finesse, of nuance. Bush himself said that he doesnt understand nuance. He's a light-weight and intellectually a tadpole; get rid of him for America's sake. The question above would have provoked laughter in the one truly great diplomat america had these last 50 years - Henry Kissinger. If you really want an answer to the above question read his book: "Does America need a Foreign Policy?". Kissinger is German (and a Jew), raised in the States, which might explain why he was succesful at diplomacy. Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
Brian Azzopardi wrote: You can't even begin to imagine how invalid that question is in the real-world. I seriously hope that US policy makers don't really believe that this question is valid (as, unfortunately, they seem to) because God help us all! Which is it - its invalid - or the Americans have decided that it is a valid question. If they have what can anybody do about it? You can't damage their economy (without tanking your own)and the whole world isn't a threat to them militarily. If the Americans choose to toss diplomacy out the window there are next to no consequences for them and nobody can do anything about it. Brian Azzopardi wrote: get rid of him for America's sake Not till 2004 at the minimum - toppling Hussein will probably get him in til 2008. Dave Huff Igor would you give me a hand with the bags? Certainly - you take the blonde and I'll take the one in the turban!
-
Anthony Roach wrote: Actually according to the bbc when reporting that Vladimer Putin has vetoed any un agreement on attacking iraq the russians seem to have an awful lot of influence What if the US does not seek Security council approval of its actions? If GWB stands before the General assembly one year and one day after and act of war that killed 3000 Americans and lays out a reasonable case for attacking Iraq - and the rest of the world say "No you can't do this because we don't want you to." , the people of the US will surge in support of their president. Then you will have the true case of the bull in the china shop - except no one else in the world has the ability to grab this particular bull by the horns. (Is that enough metaphors yet?) The world has changed dramatically recently. The Americans are a hyper-power. They will not have any problem going it alone if they have to (or want to), but they will remember who was on their side when its all over. Dave Huff Igor would you give me a hand with the bags? Certainly - you take the blonde and I'll take the one in the turban!
On the same hypothetical approach What if Russia and China turn round and say that any attack on iraq will be viewed as an open declaration of war against them or that they will protect iraq? From a UK point of view would even the poodle want anything to do with that? All we peasants can do is wait and see. Anthony www.TonysOpenSource.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
-
On the same hypothetical approach What if Russia and China turn round and say that any attack on iraq will be viewed as an open declaration of war against them or that they will protect iraq? From a UK point of view would even the poodle want anything to do with that? All we peasants can do is wait and see. Anthony www.TonysOpenSource.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
-
Brian Azzopardi wrote: Are you sure about this? Did you read my bio? Would you really wanna argue politics and history with me? I can really show you how hard I worked for my degree if you want Brian Azzopardi wrote: Grow up. Go to debate class: it would do u some good. So you're a know-it-all? I think you need to learn some humility.
Jason Henderson
start page
articles
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Sir Winston ChurchillJason Henderson wrote: So you're a know-it-all? I think you need to learn some humility. I don't know - you would think that taking a degree in poly sci and ending up working as a programmer would show him the great value in his education.;P Dave Huff Igor would you give me a hand with the bags? Certainly - you take the blonde and I'll take the one in the turban!
-
Brian Azzopardi wrote: You can't even begin to imagine how invalid that question is in the real-world. I seriously hope that US policy makers don't really believe that this question is valid (as, unfortunately, they seem to) because God help us all! Which is it - its invalid - or the Americans have decided that it is a valid question. If they have what can anybody do about it? You can't damage their economy (without tanking your own)and the whole world isn't a threat to them militarily. If the Americans choose to toss diplomacy out the window there are next to no consequences for them and nobody can do anything about it. Brian Azzopardi wrote: get rid of him for America's sake Not till 2004 at the minimum - toppling Hussein will probably get him in til 2008. Dave Huff Igor would you give me a hand with the bags? Certainly - you take the blonde and I'll take the one in the turban!
Dave Huff wrote: Americans have decided that it is a valid question The americans have made it a valid question. In polite society people don't fart. If someone does fart it still does not make it acceptable. Dave Huff wrote: the whole world isn't a threat to them militarily. You don't need the whole world. Just a couple of 747s aimed at strategic places. And yes lobbing a couple of 747s at the WTC did have an effect on the american and world economy. Dave Huff wrote: If the Americans choose to toss diplomacy out the window there are next to no consequences for them and nobody can do anything about it. There have been precendets where empires tossed out diplomacy and in the end they all succumbed and fell. In the short term there are no consequences but in the long term there sure will be. If you really think that not giving a sh*t about what others think is a valid policy option than this discussion is futile. You are not ready to consider the consequences of your arguments. You don't even try and see what history says. Life is not so simple / black-and-white as u make it; sometimes compromises have to be made, especially in politics. Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
-
Richard Stringer wrote: (1) Does Isael have nukes or WMA's? Yes. Palestine does not. Richard Stringer wrote: (2) If their homeland was threatened and they were in danger of being overwhelmed would they use them if they had them. The Isrealis would only ever use them as a means of last resort. They're not dumb. Infact they conduct diplomacy very well - they've managed to get America to do it for them. Israel is smart. It wouldn't have to use it's nuclear weapons because if it ever came to that point the US would have long declared war on any Arab country threatening Israel. They're using the US and getting them to fight their war for them. Richard Stringer wrote: (3) Does Eqypt, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia have nukes or WMA's? NO Arab country has nuclear weapons. Some of them may have produced bits of them (Iran, Iraq, maybe Syria) but *not* a weapon. Only Pakistan has been proven to have a nuclear weapon but Musharraf is now Bush's friend. Richard Stringer wrote: (4) Are they dumb enough to attack Israel militaraly? Are you a moron? Seriously, are you a moron? First you accuse me of not knowing history then you come back with such a stupid question. Yes they did attack Israel: at least 3 times including the Yom Kippur War and the Six Day war. In the Six Day war Egypt and Syria were going to attack but Israel preemted them by attacking first. The arabs were routed. Richard Stringer wrote: (5) What happens to the world economy if there is massive conflict in the middle east ? Intelligent countries are hedgeing their bets and securing oil supplies. Such a country would be Japan for example. Please remeber that in case of conflict the price of oil will prolly go up and yes that would have an adverse effect but not as much as you think. There are oil-producing countries ready to take advantage of the situation and increase their oil production. Also the market has already factored into the price of oil the probabilty of a conflict. Richard Stringer wrote: (6) What country has the ability to do anything about the above? Many. Or none. Russia still has leverage over the arabs. Why would other countries get involved anyway? Why would they fight somebody else's war? They don' want a vietnam. They're smart. Richard Stringer wrote: Why does the US need the consent of a bunch of pissant coun
Brian Azzopardi wrote: If you reply please try to answer at least some of the points raised above - at least we'll then know that you can think. Another Jr. genius. I won't comment on you answers to the questions because #3 is wrong and since you decided to call me a moron on #4 while not seeing the diachotomy or relationship to 1 2 and 3 I will assume the argument went over you head. #5 is of course completly wrong. # 6 is the US only. So on to your Annon like solution: Brian Azzopardi wrote: The first and foremost is to withdraw US troops from Saudi Arabia. SA is considered holy land and the american presence is considered as an insult to their religion. I would agree to this with a few caveats primarily that we don't ever go back and we take our weapon systems out with us. I don't think it would make much difference however. It would be interesting if we left and Saddam moved on SA again as to who would run to the rescue Brian Azzopardi wrote: The second would be to really get serious with Isreal and the Palestine. Bush calling for the removal of Arafat was an incredible feat of stupidity. Arafat has been leader for years: when bush was still a boy. You think Arafat would really go? America needs to be seen as being neutral in the conflict and not biased. Arafat is the problem. And why do we need to be seen as neutral. We are not in this conflict to win friends and influence people. This can get to be a circular argument real quick but something is going to have to change on the Palestine side for anything to be resolved. Brian Azzopardi wrote: But it must also recognize that there are emerging powers: the EU, China, even India in the distant future I am assuming that you are funning around here right? The EU will never resolve its internal problems long enough to be a world power economically let alone militarally. Never has - never will.It will always be fragmented. China and India have enough problems just trying to feed its ( growing )population. They simply do not have the natural resources ( ariable land -energy - metals - computer power - manufacturing capacity) to become a world power in a technoligical world. In the next 50 -100 years oil will cease to be the primary fuel source and at that time the ME will , once again, become insignifigant on the world stage. The winners in the technology race will be the US and Japan and possibly Russia. The european winners
-
Jason Henderson wrote: So you're a know-it-all? I think you need to learn some humility. I don't know - you would think that taking a degree in poly sci and ending up working as a programmer would show him the great value in his education.;P Dave Huff Igor would you give me a hand with the bags? Certainly - you take the blonde and I'll take the one in the turban!
:laugh: I have a degree in Econ., see where that got me? I'm just trying to tell him that just because he has a degree doesn't make him any smarter than the rest of us.
Jason Henderson
start page
articles
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Sir Winston Churchill