Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 11 Oct 2006 17:44 On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:40:30 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Typical European attitude. Now you expect the USA to clean up >> China's and fUSSR's messes. >> >> What would you do if we simply said no more; deal with your own >> mess. > >You're quite mad. --- Really? Who else could do it? You guys? You'd tremble at the prospect of it unless you had the US to back you up, and you have the temerity to believe that we'd defend you if you were wrong? Think again. We learned from you that truth is paramount, and we'll keep you lashed to the mast no matter what the sirens make you say. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: T Wake on 11 Oct 2006 17:52 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:14oqi297a2fr8b4fgkpbkm0p3nnq61kq12(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:40:30 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Typical European attitude. Now you expect the USA to clean up >>> China's and fUSSR's messes. >>> >>> What would you do if we simply said no more; deal with your own >>> mess. >> >>You're quite mad. > > --- > Really? > > Who else could do it? Makes the assumption the Eeyore agreed there was a mess which needed dealing with in the first place. This may be false. > You guys? > > You'd tremble at the prospect of it unless you had the US to back > you up, and you have the temerity to believe that we'd defend you if > you were wrong? Really? Is this an unspported assertion in order that you may score some points against Eeyore? I can certainly think of occasions where the UK has _not_ had US back up in military operations. That said, our military is about 1/10th the size of the US military so expecting the same is a fallacy all on its own.
From: John Fields on 11 Oct 2006 17:54 On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:47:11 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >That 'alliance' - it wasn't an alliance in fact - didn't last long anyway. >> >> --- >> Trying to split hairs again? >> >> It most certainly was an alliance, since they signed a trade agree >> ment and a non-aggression pact: > >So what ? > > >> 19/08/1939 Germany and USSR sign a trade treaty. >> >> 23/08/1939 Germany and the USSR sign a non-aggression pact in >> Moscow. > >A non-aggression pact *is not* an alliance ! Don't you know what the words mean ? --- OK, maybe you're right. From your viewpoint, how would a non-aggression pact signal a non-alliance? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: T Wake on 11 Oct 2006 17:56 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:4npqi2hhd83egurvhg5det5b8me4l3ka68(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:47:11 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>John Fields wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >That 'alliance' - it wasn't an alliance in fact - didn't last long >>> >anyway. >>> >>> --- >>> Trying to split hairs again? >>> >>> It most certainly was an alliance, since they signed a trade agree >>> ment and a non-aggression pact: >> >>So what ? >> >> >>> 19/08/1939 Germany and USSR sign a trade treaty. >>> >>> 23/08/1939 Germany and the USSR sign a non-aggression pact in >>> Moscow. >> >>A non-aggression pact *is not* an alliance ! Don't you know what the words >>mean ? > > --- > OK, maybe you're right. From your viewpoint, how would a > non-aggression pact signal a non-alliance? A better, more relevant, question would be in which circumstances is a non-aggression pact the _same_ as an alliance? Your question returns to the black and white argument. There is nothing to say having alliances do not include non-aggression pacts. The difficulty comes in assuming a non-aggression pact is the same as an alliance.
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 11 Oct 2006 18:32
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:22:05 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <gJednXxCJ6zYSrbYRVnyvg(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> >It strikes me that pretty much all the middle eastern countries are >> >capitalist in nature. >> >> Then why do people have to pay government officials under the >> table to get something done quicker? > >You think it doesn't happen here too ? > >In India they have a formal term for it. It's called 'rush money'. It pays for >someone to expedite a process. I was just checking the UK Passport Agency. They >do the same. For an extra payment you can have your passport application >prioritised. Some years ago, I was in a business where I was involved at relatively high levels of management. I remember our marketing director with a budget for a trade show in Chicago. I was looking over it and there was a bunch of what amounted to "slush money" in it. Turns out, she had had a lot of experience doing trade shows for Speedo before joining us. So she spent some time informing my naive views of the world. Turns out, to get your truck to an unloading dock, you need to pay someone under the table. Or else, your truck never gets there. To get your trade show stuff unloaded, you need some more money. To get it set up, more still. And this has nothing to do with the direct labor. This is about paying people who control who gets what and in what order, under the table money in order to get what most of us would consider 'fair' treatment. Chicago, she said, is a "city that works." If you have some money to grease the wheels. I admit. Our other city budgets rarely included quite as much for such payoffs, like they did for Chicago. But it's a capitalist city in a capitalist country. Jon |