Wag the Dog
-
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 -
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]
Brian Azzopardi wrote: 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. And look where it got Osama - and the Taliban who supported him. Brian Azzopardi wrote: 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. All empires fall - every single one of them - and with the hindsight of history its easy to say why. Living in the present its not so easy to say whether the American empire is in decline or ascendency. Brian Azzopardi wrote: sometimes compromises have to be made, especially in politics And the compromise that is going to inevitably be made here is that Britain and Europe and the rest of the world will go along with the US in their war on Iraq. This is the point I am trying to make - the EU wants - no expects - America to listen to it like a child should listen to their parents. But America is no longer the child and the message the EU keeps trying to deliver is not acceptable to the American people let alone the current American president. 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: 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
Richard Stringer wrote: Another Jr. genius Not at all. At least I try to reason out an argument with people. Richard Stringer wrote: 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. That's just it? Are you really incapable of answering at least 1 point from 6? You don't even try to point out where I'm wrong yet you arrogantly state that all of them are wrong. In question 1 u asked whether Israel have nuclear weapons and I answered that yes they do. Yet according to you this answer meant that the argument went over my head. What argument? You asked a simple question and I answered. Can't u deal with this? Point 3 was whether some arab countries you mentioned had nukes and i answered yet, again, according to you my answer was wrong. Can u please tell me why? The same applies for all the other points. You state that you won't comment on my points. Does that mean that i'm right? If you're in a debate you are expected to answer the points raised. If you don't then you're just running away. You never even try to come up with a plausible counter argument. You don't know what you're talking about are u? My answers completely stumped you. You have no way of answering my answers to your questions simply because they are unanswerable. My answers are infact correct. Unfortunately you can't bring yourself to admit it so you just disregard this inconvinient fact with the wave of hand. If, on the other hand, you really can answer my points please do so. I'd really like to listen to your reply. Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
-
: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 ChurchillI agree with you. His attitude is that he has a degree in PolySci and history so we shouldn't be arguing with him but by that reasoning he shouldn't be here at all since he doesn't have a computer science or engineering or math degree.:wtf::wtf: 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!
-
I agree with you. His attitude is that he has a degree in PolySci and history so we shouldn't be arguing with him but by that reasoning he shouldn't be here at all since he doesn't have a computer science or engineering or math degree.:wtf::wtf: 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: since he doesn't have a computer science or engineering or math degree. My degree is in physics - Where does that leave me ? My passsion is jazz guitar and my profession is programming. Is there some type of underlying thread to all these things. 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)
-
I agree with you. His attitude is that he has a degree in PolySci and history so we shouldn't be arguing with him but by that reasoning he shouldn't be here at all since he doesn't have a computer science or engineering or math degree.:wtf::wtf: 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: His attitude is that he has a degree in PolySci and history so we shouldn't be arguing with him Not at all! What I do find insulting is people telling me to read history. It's like asking a guy who's done physics to read up on the theory of relativity. If he doesn't know it how the hell did he get a degree in he first place? bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
-
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!
Dave Huff wrote: poly sci Actually it was in political philosophy :) Dave Huff wrote: ending up working as a programmer would show him the great value in his education My education was of great value to me. The reason I'm currently working as a programmer is because I love it (I'm self taught). I do love programming in C/C++. I'm a geek. But I also have other interests. Programming is going to pay for my PhD. Do not assume that because I'm working as a programmer means that my degree was worthless - in fact I intend to take it further. Working as a programmer for me is getting paid to do the stuff I love but also to pay for my further education. 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 ChurchillJason Henderson wrote: _So you're a know-it-all? _Not at all! That's why i love debate :) That's also why I spend a load of money on books on various subjects, not just geeky ones, so that I try to be well informed as much as possible. Jason Henderson wrote: I think you need to learn some humility. My attitude when debating depends on the medium and the context. When I'm debating with someone face-to-face I have a different attitude to when I'm posting a message to a forum that is read by thousands of people. In the forums, showing humility is seen as sign of weakness :) I ask for no mercy and I dont give it to others when debating on a forum. In other places my style is very different. Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]__
-
Jason Henderson wrote: _So you're a know-it-all? _Not at all! That's why i love debate :) That's also why I spend a load of money on books on various subjects, not just geeky ones, so that I try to be well informed as much as possible. Jason Henderson wrote: I think you need to learn some humility. My attitude when debating depends on the medium and the context. When I'm debating with someone face-to-face I have a different attitude to when I'm posting a message to a forum that is read by thousands of people. In the forums, showing humility is seen as sign of weakness :) I ask for no mercy and I dont give it to others when debating on a forum. In other places my style is very different. Brian Azzopardi bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]__
Brian Azzopardi wrote: When I'm debating with someone face-to-face I have a different attitude to when I'm posting a message to a forum I understand because I'm the same way. I think the partial anonimity of online forums are conducive to heated arguments. You can't read the facial expressions and body language of the person you are debating. Emoticons help, but in some situations they are terribly inadequate. Just try to realize that the interpretation of history is as much opinion as it is fact. ;)
Jason Henderson
start page
articles
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Sir Winston Churchill -
Paul 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]
Brian Azzopardi wrote: You seems to like that word facetious don't you? You can thank/blame yourself for that. I never used to use the word before you used it in one of your posts awhile back :-D Brian Azzopardi wrote: I hope what I wrote/write makes sense Politics and sense in the same sentence? Noooo! Never! ;) I really do appreciate your good understanding of politics, at least I know a bit more than I did before today.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa