Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 17 Jan 2007 10:06 In article <cb12$45ad9e2b$4fe7061$31057(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: > >> In article <d1b41$45ad1040$49ecff1$28143(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> [...] >> >>>Bush isn't very bright. >> >> >> Either that or his motives are extremely foul. > >I don't think he's clever enough for that. It does make for a nice "tin foil hat" level conspiracy theory. If Bush wanted to cause the downfall of the US, you could fit all of his actions into a nice logical sounding argument. [....] >> You are I assume refering to "I'm a dinner jacket" of Iran. I don't think >> he is such a fool. His hold on power isn't very strong. He has to play >> some internal politics to remain in power. If he can get Bush to make >> threats but never actually act, his position is improved. > >Bush doesn't have that much longer to play. This is true. I expect some lasting affect from his threats but somewhere in the term of the next president, we can expect to see him lose his grip on power. >>>We need to buy off North Korea for another decade. > >> It may be longer. We may have to wait for a generation of leaders to die >> off. The thing that worries me the most about them is the question of >> what they may do when they see the wheels fall off. They may lash out. > >Naw, they're only playing the international politics game >handicapped by an insane leader. The insane leader looks fairly healthy. The masses don't get to hear external news. Either, we have to wait for the wheels to fall off like happened to the USSR or the current crop to die off. [....] >> We may have to wait for a generation or tow to die over there too. The >> folks that see the fiasco of today won't ever trust the US. > >LOL, you're wrong. They've *never* trusted the US or Europeans. >Hell, they barely trust one another on a good day. So it doesn't >matter what they see, it only reaffirms their prior convictions. Many people in the middle east did admire the US and would have trusted them. Bush Sr. screwed that up quite a lot when he allowed Saddam to put down the revolt in the south. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 17 Jan 2007 10:09 In article <45ADA44F.4D6818AB(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >unsettled wrote: > >> Ken Smith wrote: >> > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> > >> >>Bush isn't very bright. >> > >> > >> > Either that or his motives are extremely foul. >> >> I don't think he's clever enough for that. > >The cabal behind him is though. >http://www.newamericancentury.org/ This may be his goal. It is not the extremely foul motives I was suggesting. Imagine that Bush hates the US and everything it stands for and look at his actions in that light: (1)Running up a huge debt (2)Causing the US to lose a war in the middle east etc > >Graham > -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Lloyd Parker on 17 Jan 2007 04:40 In article <KuWdnQS7OMC4oDDYRVnyvAA(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >news:6bdf6$45ad29e5$49ecfad$28734(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>T Wake wrote: >> >>> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>> news:a4fbd$45ad19d6$49ecff1$28333(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>> ><snip> >>>>You surprise me with this question. Please read the sequence again. >>> >>> >>> I am still lost. >>> >>> I read it as BAH asking if any Constitutional Scholars have thought about >>> a war that can't be nation against nation and I mentioned the US has gone >>> through the "war" of Independence and the Civil "war" - suggesting (maybe >>> obliquely) that this implies they will have. >> >> I think we call it the US Civil War because it had the obvious >> trappings of a war. But one has to look at how it happened and >> the politics of it. >> >> Northern, official US troops under the command of the president, >> approached Fort Sumpter in order to take over the command. The >> military who held it fired on the official USA army, claiming >> allegiance to The Confederate States of America (officially a >> rogue alliance.) >> >> To declare war would have meant recognition of the Confederacy >> as being a bonafide independent nation. AFAIK no war was declared >> and indeed the "Civil War" (just as the Korean one) was a police >> action. > >Which is why the "war on terror" should not be called a war. Has any one >declared "terror" as a bona fide independant nation? > >> The Revolutionary war was, similarly, from the British standpoint, >> a police action. Once again because the crown didn't want to give >> independent nation status to the colonies. >> >> A "Declaration of Independence" is meaningless until it has some >> teeth in it. So it was Brit against Brit. It was said at the time >> that England had never lost a war, and that in this case it was >> the sons of Englishmen who had won, so the English still hadn't >> lost a war. > >Again, none of this is at odds with what I said. While it is easy to debate >the use of the word war and it's correct context (remember, I am the one >saying the global [insert terms] against terror should not be called a "War" >on terror), I think it is incorrect to say the people who framed the US >Constitution and its subsequent ammendments were unaware of an armed >conflict which could occur without it being a war between nations. > Bush at one time tried calling it "the struggle against extremism". But then he couldn't call himself a "wartime" president I guess. "Struggle-time president"? >>> BAH says "no" in a manner which I read as saying the two examples I gave >>> were not wars which were not nation against nation or not relevant to her >>> claims that the constitution was not suited to wars which were not nation >>> against nation. As a result I replied that BAH's claims were in fact >>> baseless. >> >>> Then you come in with "If it is not a "war" then it is a "police action" >>> and doesn't have any constitutional constraints" which I don't see as >>> relevant to this sub-thread. >> >>> Are you saying the War of Independence was a police action? (It may well >>> have been from the UK point of view.) Are you saying the same about the >>> Civil War? Is all conflict either war or police action? >> >> Where military action that looks like a war is concerned that seems to >> be the case for lack of more detailed accepted definitions. >> >>> As I said, I am confused where you comment fits in to the current debate? >> >>> If, as I now suspect you are suggesting that the War on Terror is a >>> police action and as such the constitutional limits on war do not apply, >>> then we agree. >> >> Taking a historical context, yes, that definition fits, and I >> personally have no objection to calling it that. > >Ok. > >
From: Lloyd Parker on 17 Jan 2007 04:42 In article <eol5fk$8ss_007(a)s906.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <91109$45abaa9c$49ecfc6$17678(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> In article <45AB91C2.CF5D0E83(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>T Wake wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>What else can you treat terrorists as, other than criminals? They are not >>>>>"soldiers" fighting for an opposing power. >>>> >>>>Certainly the way Guantanamo is run suggests that too. Soldiers should be >>>>treated according to the Geneva Convention(s). >>> >>> >>> This isn't a Geneva convention styled war. >> >>His stupidity keeps boiling to the surface. > >There happen to be a lot of people who think that, if the US >plays by Geneva convention rules, the Islamic extremists will. No, but it's like law enforcement. The criminals don't have to play by any rules, but the police do. >Since this is a fallacy and the denigration of all US attempts to >deal with this global threat is based on this fallacy, there >is going to have to be extremely big messes before their minds >are changed. For you to dismiss this as stupidity make you worse >than them because you are, in your own way, ignoring the real >problem, too. > >/BAH
From: T Wake on 17 Jan 2007 10:15
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message news:eolcgj$gr7$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu... > In article <KuWdnQS7OMC4oDDYRVnyvAA(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>news:6bdf6$45ad29e5$49ecfad$28734(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>>T Wake wrote: >>> >>>> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>> news:a4fbd$45ad19d6$49ecff1$28333(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>>> >><snip> >>>>>You surprise me with this question. Please read the sequence again. >>>> >>>> >>>> I am still lost. >>>> >>>> I read it as BAH asking if any Constitutional Scholars have thought >>>> about >>>> a war that can't be nation against nation and I mentioned the US has >>>> gone >>>> through the "war" of Independence and the Civil "war" - suggesting >>>> (maybe >>>> obliquely) that this implies they will have. >>> >>> I think we call it the US Civil War because it had the obvious >>> trappings of a war. But one has to look at how it happened and >>> the politics of it. >>> >>> Northern, official US troops under the command of the president, >>> approached Fort Sumpter in order to take over the command. The >>> military who held it fired on the official USA army, claiming >>> allegiance to The Confederate States of America (officially a >>> rogue alliance.) >>> >>> To declare war would have meant recognition of the Confederacy >>> as being a bonafide independent nation. AFAIK no war was declared >>> and indeed the "Civil War" (just as the Korean one) was a police >>> action. >> >>Which is why the "war on terror" should not be called a war. Has any one >>declared "terror" as a bona fide independant nation? >> >>> The Revolutionary war was, similarly, from the British standpoint, >>> a police action. Once again because the crown didn't want to give >>> independent nation status to the colonies. >>> >>> A "Declaration of Independence" is meaningless until it has some >>> teeth in it. So it was Brit against Brit. It was said at the time >>> that England had never lost a war, and that in this case it was >>> the sons of Englishmen who had won, so the English still hadn't >>> lost a war. >> >>Again, none of this is at odds with what I said. While it is easy to >>debate >>the use of the word war and it's correct context (remember, I am the one >>saying the global [insert terms] against terror should not be called a >>"War" >>on terror), I think it is incorrect to say the people who framed the US >>Constitution and its subsequent ammendments were unaware of an armed >>conflict which could occur without it being a war between nations. >> > > Bush at one time tried calling it "the struggle against extremism". But > then > he couldn't call himself a "wartime" president I guess. "Struggle-time > president"? > Struggling President would work for me..... :-) |