Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Frank Bemelman on 16 Oct 2006 13:26 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:4533BD89.2DD5727B(a)hotmail.com... > > > John Larkin wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >John Larkin wrote: >> > >> >> It's the countries we saved, specifically France and Britain, that are >> >> the most rabid critics. >> > >> >Nothing to do with the war. >> >> I disagree, When you owe someone a great debt, that you can't repay, >> the easiest course of action is to disparage them. > > What debt ? As in the other having credit. But this kind of 'credit' quickly evaporates. The speed at which it evaporates is under full control of the one holding it. > > >> >We simply have the experience of world affairs to see the faults that >> >need >> >criticism. >> >> Oh please. A thousand years of warfare, brutal colonial empires > > Tell me about this brutality. > > Do please also tell me about how the native American indians were treated. Pea-brain Larkin doesn't realize that his example is all about experience and lessons learned from it. -- Thanks, Frank. (remove 'q' and '.invalid' when replying by email)
From: T Wake on 16 Oct 2006 13:26 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:gno5j2hj8rkbgav7oj5724viekiqu27i2s(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:52:19 -0500, John Fields > <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> Gave us: > >>On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:46:44 +0100, "T Wake" >><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>>news:r8u4j2hmpu3rasu0p0se9mked9nn6g0cjq(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 22:52:33 +0100, "T Wake" >>>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:14oqi297a2fr8b4fgkpbkm0p3nnq61kq12(a)4ax.com... >>>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> --- >>>> Missed this the first time around, sorry... >>>> >>>> The fact is that the UK _always_ has US backup in any of her >>>> military (ad)ventures, should she need it. Tacit, and she knows it. >>>> >>> >>>Only when our interests collide. Which has not been the case for all our >>>"wars." >> >>--- >>Only when our interests _don't_ collide, no? > > > He is quite confused. He is trying to use the word collide as a > synonym for "join" or "meet". No he wasn't. He was attempting to use language in a humorous manner, and play on the interweaving of global politics. It has obviously bypassed you. I will try to avoid it in the future.
From: John Fields on 16 Oct 2006 13:27 On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:59:34 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >news:bnd5j29k8v1onkl299t2a9q6jegh87ilf3(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 14:22:34 +0100, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>You reckon that 'radical Islam' wants to invade the USA ? >> >> --- >> No. They want us to fall apart because of fear and the inability to >> deal with terrorism, then we'd be easy pickings. > >Looks like they are on the way to getting their wishes then. > --- I don't think so. It's a pretty steep learning curve with no easy answers it seems, and since we've never been attacked here before I think we have tended to err on the side of caution in terms of airports and allowing the government extraordinary powers. I do notice, to our credit, that we don't have many suicide bombers doing their dirty work over here. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: David Brown on 16 Oct 2006 13:31 John Larkin wrote: > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:51:15 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>> >>>> You had an implication that they are not as dangerous with a crude >>>> bomb than with a sophisticated bomb. >>> Well, the fact is, they probably aren't. Their weapons are probably fairly >>> crude, and their delivery systems are probably extremely crude and may have >>> to rely on something decidedly low-tech, like sailing it into New York >>> harbor on a 35' yacht out of Cuba or some small, under-the-radar Caribbean >>> island. This would still be very dangerous, don't get me wrong. However, >>> it's inarguably more dangerous to deliver a sophisticated >>> fission-fusion-fission device by a ground-launched missile from their own >>> country. >> You'd have to conceive of a situation where N Korea could benefit from such >> action for it to make sense though. >> >> Since the likely result would be 'wiping N Korea off the map' it really wouldn't >> be very much in their interests to do this ! >> > > If Kim is a crazy as Mao (and he's probably a lot crazier) he may > consider a nuclear exchange acceptable, as Mao apparently did. Both > starved millions of their own people to suit their own purposes. Even > Deng was reportedly once told that a certain policy would cost a > million lives, and replied that a million wasn't all that many. > > John > To a megalomaniac dictator, a million is not that many - it's one that counts. If the risk of retribution from a nuked USA involved no personal risk for Kim, there would be a lot more danger in his nukes. As it stands, they are purely for defence - if the USA attacks first or threatens his life or position of power, then he has nothing (in his mind) to lose by setting of bombs in the USA as revenge.
From: T Wake on 16 Oct 2006 13:36
"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:tth5j2pddc0sfskidvv9pkhm8ourqdf4mc(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:20:23 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>John Fields wrote: >> >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>> >>> >> 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. >>> >>> --- >>> Missed this the first time around, sorry... >>> >>> The fact is that the UK _always_ has US backup in any of her >>> military (ad)ventures, should she need it. Tacit, and she knows it. >> >>Always ? > > --- > AFAIK. Can you cite an example where you asked for help and we > denied you? The Falklands. The US were asked for assistance, so the UK didn't have to stage a task force to the opposite side of the world. The US was caught in the problem of having treaties with both parties (despite the government of Argentina being a anathema to what the US claims to support) and adopted a non-interference stance. Yes, the US allowed its base on Ascension to be used, but Ascension was Crown Property. If the US had come out in support of the UK it is probable that Argentina would have backed down and lives would have been saved. Saying "always" is misleading. Like all nations, the US (quite correctly) puts its own global interests first. If there was a conflict of interests, the UK would not have support. I cant see how it would, or could, be any different. |