Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 16 Oct 2006 13:37 "Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message news:jul5j2tkh6tg8nptqgn390urkanmgjbng9(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:24:51 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:4532B1D6.86F08520(a)hotmail.com... >>> >>> T Wake wrote: >>> >>>> MAD only works when the parties are sane >>> >>> LOL ! What a brilliant concept. >> >>It was good while it lasted. At least with the US and USSR being governed >>by >>reasonably sane people, the prospect of nuking another country was almost >>zero. Now, people are suggesting the US will go to war with a country >>which >>will have no way of properly defending itself without resorting to nukes. >>If >>NK does detonate any type of nuclear weapon against America, will the US >>restrain its response? Will the American public allow the nations military >>to continue to fight a conventional war? If I thought the US would invade, >>I >>would hope they would. (If that makes any sense). > > Actually, President Bush has explicitly kept the "nuclear option" on > the table -- particularly, their tactical use. Sad really, isn't it. I was hoping I would be able to see my great grandchildren. But it gets less likely.
From: David Brown on 16 Oct 2006 13:46 John Larkin wrote: > On Mon, 16 Oct 06 10:03:33 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <2925j2dlsd2jau4crqchld5e7filit9481(a)4ax.com>, >> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> 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) >> I don't think Kim is crazy. I think he has to prove that he >> is as big a god as his father. Being on equal footing (IOW >> having and wielding nuclear bombs) with the rest of the >> world powers is necessary to keep his god image up. We >> are dealing with a different kind of religious fanaticsim, I >> think. >> > > Anybody who would beat, torture, and starve to death millions of his > own subjects qualifies for my definition of crazy. Your standards may > vary. > What about leaders that beat, torture and kill hundreds of other country's subjects, and reserve the right to do so to their own subjects? Given that virtually all experts agree that torture has almost no value in obtaining useful information or intelligence, its only use is for revenge or as a deterrent. Is there a line drawn somewhere saying a little torture is okay? Anyway, there is a big difference between being evil, ruthless, sadistic, or otherwise inhumane, and being crazy. I attribute a lot of the trouble the USA has with dealing with terrorism and other unpleasant behaviour to a tendency to assume that anyone who doesn't see the USA and the American way of life as the pinnacle of civilisation as "crazy", rather than trying to understand their point of view. >>> 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. >> Western civilization puts value on human life; this is one >> of the things that people, known as our enemies, want to change. > > Some cultures worship death. Yuk. > > John >
From: lucasea on 16 Oct 2006 13:50 "Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message news:eh01m2$ape$3(a)leto.cc.emory.edu... > In article <urm2j2tqt1hnds3q9pgtfvdtd85k7k7894(a)4ax.com>, > John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >>You seem to forget one tiny little detail, and that's that we didn't >>go after Saddam Hussein for the WTC, we went after him because of >>his defiance of the UN, > > So it was up to the UN to deal with it. Or, at the very least, to *ask* for our help. How arrogant of us to invade another sovereign nation, and then say "we were just doing it for the UN", when they explicitly didn't want us to. >>his refusal to comply with their sanctions >>and inspections, and our belief that he was either developing, or in >>possession of, WMD. >> > > Which we were wrong about. And in fact, we knew we were wrong about *before* we invaded. It ultimately made Colin Powell resign. Eric Lucas
From: John Fields on 16 Oct 2006 14:10 On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:26:35 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote >> >> >> >> >> Why do you think that the first goal of the US is to be liked by everyone? >> >> > >> >> >That's a strawman. Our goal should be not to be hated by everyone. >> >> >> >> That is wrong. Our goal should be to know what is in the >> >> best interest of the nation and its people. Reacting to >> >> threats to national security with growls instead of swift >> >> and lethal bites is a sign of weakness; this becomes an open >> >> invitation to anybody who would like to take over the real >> >> estate. >> > >> >You reckon that 'radical Islam' wants to invade the USA ? >> >> --- >> No. They want us to fall apart because of fear > >And you think that can be taken seriously ? --- It's beyond me why you think that radical Islam isn't a threat and can be ignored. --- >> and the inability to deal with terrorism, > >Your efforts so far in that respect haven't acheived much for sure ! --- Well, we haven't had any more buildings knocked down or any suicide bombers on the streets, or any airplanes blown out of the sky, or anything blown up over here, recently, so whatever we're doing seems to be working. --- >> then we'd be easy pickings. > >Pickings ? What *do* you mean ? --- Please... I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain the nuances of the American English Language to you. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 16 Oct 2006 14:21
aOn Mon, 16 Oct 2006 08:41:27 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 05:02:13 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan ><jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > >>On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:42:19 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 01:00:18 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan >>><jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:03:54 +0100, "T Wake" >>>><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>><snip> >>>>>> Originally, to defend Europe, Japan, Korea, Taiwan. I think it's time >>>>>> to pull out of the European bases and let them pay for their own >>>>>> defense, now that they don't need much of it. >>>>> >>>>>I agree. I cant see the US military being too happy at it. Forward staging >>>>>bases are pretty useful. >>>> >>>>Europeans are already beginning to work out the details of a European, >>>>as opposed to individual country, military with soldiers who swear >>>>allegiance to the united countries and not the country they come from. >>>>Yes? >>>> >>>>With the US behaving the way it is, I'd wonder if the Europeans would >>>>bite at the chance to field an independent force sufficiently funded >>>>to balance US behavior and provide the necessary 'encouragements' so >>>>the US negotiates no longer as an unopposed bully. >>> >>>But if it takes a multi-country concensus to act, they won't be >>>fielded in time to do much useful. You can't "balance US behavior" if >>>it takes a year of debating before deployment. >> >>I'm mostly just curious. I understand they already have many >>thousands of highly trained Euro-troups in the form of a rapid >>deployment force, right now. The figures slip my mind, but "rapid" is >>part of it. And the allegiance isn't to any country, as I recall. > >They're only a rapid deployment force if they get depolyed rapidly. I >bet Spanish troops will remain under actual control of Spain, and not >be deployed if Spain were to object to, say, action against a Muslim >country or group. And I didn't just make up "Spain" as a random >example. I didn't know the exact state, but something I'd read a year ago gave me the impression that an agreement had already been forged and that there actually was a small force already flying under a Euro-wide 'flag' of sorts. Graham has made me wonder just how real it is. The article I read pointed out that the soldiers explicitly were under a Euro command and that if they were ordered _into_ their own country for some reason, that they must have already sworn to uphold the Euro command and not obey those in command in their own home country. This is something, it was explained at the time I was reading this, that could not have happened years back. But youth in Europe (it was explained and I have _no_ personal knowledge here) are already living under a common passport system and travel to nearby countries a lot. They often speak in a pidgeon mixture of languages and don't exactly think of themselves quite as beholden to one country or another as their parents and grandparents would. Something perhaps akin to what took place in the US between the formation of the US and now, where there are still a lot of people who hold their allegiance to their state but where most people hold another and often higher allegiance to the entire country. I gather that is evolving now in Europe, making this kind of military more and more a possibility. Keep in mind that Europe managed to change over to the Euro with an impressive transition -- almost literally overnight. And just hammering out what symbols would be on the money was a nightmare, I'm sure, of historical grievances. Yet they worked it out and they deserve a measure of respect for what they have achieved under what I'm sure must have been great political difficulties not just in the case of money, but so many other areas. >>It's a start. I have no idea where it will go. But I suspect that US >>behavior is going to help break down political barriers in Europe so >>that it will grow more quickly than otherwise. > >Fine by me, and most Americans, I think. But whether such a force >comes to be, and is not paralyzed by politics, remains to be seen. Indeed. I'm curious, though, how that is playing out. >Even then, the role it might be obliged to play outside of Europe is >yet another issue... maybe "none" is the answer, leaving the USA as >the rest-of-the-world's-cop. Could be. >>So I'm curious how some Europeans see this developing. > >Me too. Very. Jon |