New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 4 Aug 2006 18:13 John Woodgate wrote: > In message <44D3A7A2.8AFB84D3(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, dated Fri, 4 Aug > 2006, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> writes > > >John Woodgate wrote: > > > >> In message <44D390B7.75A4B9D1(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, dated Fri, 4 Aug > >> 2006, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> writes > >> > >> >The UN plan didn't give Israel all the territory. > >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1947. > >> >png > >> > >> That was never going to work, was it. Three bits, two joined by a narrow > >> corridor and the third completely separate. And huge long borders with, > >> at least, unfriendly people, if not actively hostile. > >> > >> A real 'horse designed by a committee'. > > > >Presumably done by taking into account the local population distribution. Seems > >you can't win. It was a British plan btw ! > > This is VERY relevant to the present situation. The UN 'solution' was > clearly unworkable. So have been the long succession of 'solutions' > since then. What C Rice said is completely correct - that yet another > unworkable 'solution' is unacceptable. Can't disagree with that. No point in something that'll fall apart at the first opportunity. > An 'immediate cease-fire' is just a sound bite; everyone with even a > glimmer of intelligence knows that it would just give Hisbollah the > opportunity to re-group and re-supply. A cease fire is a necessary first step though. > The only long-term stable solution is a strong, democratic Lebanese > government, with a loyal armed service strong enough to disarm and > disband Hisbollah and deter Syria and Iran, who are Lebanon's real > enemies. Israel won't attack Lebanon if not provoked. Why should it? It > has nothing to gain by doing so. It doesn't attack Jordan or Egypt. I'm also totally for a strong Lebanese military who can properly control their own territory. Lebanon simply historically never had one though. In the interim I'm sure it'll have to be a UN mandated force that does that job. Graham
From: John Fields on 4 Aug 2006 18:18 On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 20:36:22 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 05:50:13 +0100, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Full of American food, vehicles, fuel, and ammo. Britain imported 70% >> >> of its food just before the war, and had no substantial domestic >> >> source of avaition fuel. Texas saved England, and England prefers not >> >> to remember. >> > >> >We also remember we had to pay the bill. It didn't come free as you seem to >> >infer. >> >> The lives were free. You're welcome, even if you're not thankful. > >Of course we're thankful for your assistance. We were *both* at war though. It's >not as if the US volunteered for it ! British, Commonwealth and the soldiers, >airmen and sailors of other European countries died too you know ! Russian >casualties were especially high. --- True. And Chinese: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: John Fields on 4 Aug 2006 18:38 On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 21:42:11 +0200, "Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanq(a)xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote: >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht >news:3b57d2dc0pue0e65eqg504b9d9ljfig8ci(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 03:55:24 +0100, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>John Fields wrote: >> >>>> --- >>>> It will. Any society which worships death is bound to die. Either >>>> through suicide or "death by cop". >>> >>>Islam doesn't worship death. You misunderstanding is a classic example of >>>how >>>the USA gets it wrong, by being over-simplistic about every issue. >> >> --- >> See, that's part of what I mean by "America Bashing." >> >> I may be wrong about Islam's (or its practitioners') apparent >> penchant for death, (although, reduced to its simplest terms, I >> doubt it) but then you take _my_ error and try to make it seem like >> it applies it to the entire country as if _I_ was all of America, >> and then tag it with your own simplisic oversimplification of the >> situation in order to try to make it seem like we're a nation of >> misguided fools and all we have to do is listen to the likes of you >> and everything will be all right. > >Okay, so you're telling the US is not a nations of fools, and that >you are just one of the fools that exist in every nation. --- I don't see how you came to that conclusion, but if it pleases you to think that, Frank, then go for it. --- >Sounds fair enough. Actually, I never thought of the USA as a >nation of fools, at least not until that nation voted for >Bush for the *2ND* time. I mean, his first election can be >called an honest mistake, but how can a nation continue to >follow such an insane leader with such dangerous ideas? That >is *very* hard to understand. --- You have to understand, Frank, that we live in a country where what we do actually _matters_, so I understand why you might be chagrined by the fact that Bush's actions are totally different from what you might consider to be in your best interests. As far as the "Nation of Fools" thing goes, even you must be aware that the entire populace didn't vote for Bush. As a matter of fact, only a miniscule percentage of it did, the electors who cast their vote for him. http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2004/allocation.html A lousy system if ever I saw one, and I see no reason why presidential (in fact, _all_) elections couldn't be carried out on-line where the result would truly be popular. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: John Fields on 4 Aug 2006 18:44 On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 20:57:05 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 03:55:24 +0100, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >John Fields wrote: >> >> >> --- >> >> It will. Any society which worships death is bound to die. Either >> >> through suicide or "death by cop". >> > >> >Islam doesn't worship death. You misunderstanding is a classic example of how >> >the USA gets it wrong, by being over-simplistic about every issue. >> >> --- >> See, that's part of what I mean by "America Bashing." >> >> I may be wrong about Islam's (or its practitioners') apparent >> penchant for death, (although, reduced to its simplest terms, I >> doubt it) but then you take _my_ error and try to make it seem like >> it applies it to the entire country as if _I_ was all of America, > >My experience here and elsewhere suggests that Americans are for the most part >either poorly educated about or simply indifferent to matters outside their own >borders and consequently have some pretty odd ideas about what goes on there and >how / why it does so. I do know that an educated minority is somewhat better >informed but unclear as what percentage it represents. > > >> and then tag it with your own simplisic oversimplification of the >> situation in order to try to make it seem like we're a nation of >> misguided fools and all we have to do is listen to the likes of you >> and everything will be all right. > >You could learn something you know ! --- We _all_ could... -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 4 Aug 2006 18:46
Eeyore wrote: > > John Woodgate wrote: > >> In message <44D3A7A2.8AFB84D3(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, dated Fri, 4 Aug >> 2006, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> writes >> >>> John Woodgate wrote: >>> >>>> In message <44D390B7.75A4B9D1(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, dated Fri, 4 Aug >>>> 2006, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> writes >>>> >>>>> The UN plan didn't give Israel all the territory. >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1947. >>>>> png >>>> That was never going to work, was it. Three bits, two joined by a narrow >>>> corridor and the third completely separate. And huge long borders with, >>>> at least, unfriendly people, if not actively hostile. >>>> >>>> A real 'horse designed by a committee'. >>> Presumably done by taking into account the local population distribution. Seems >>> you can't win. It was a British plan btw ! >> This is VERY relevant to the present situation. The UN 'solution' was >> clearly unworkable. So have been the long succession of 'solutions' >> since then. What C Rice said is completely correct - that yet another >> unworkable 'solution' is unacceptable. > > Can't disagree with that. No point in something that'll fall apart at the first > opportunity. > > >> An 'immediate cease-fire' is just a sound bite; everyone with even a >> glimmer of intelligence knows that it would just give Hisbollah the >> opportunity to re-group and re-supply. > > A cease fire is a necessary first step though. > > >> The only long-term stable solution is a strong, democratic Lebanese >> government, with a loyal armed service strong enough to disarm and >> disband Hisbollah and deter Syria and Iran, who are Lebanon's real >> enemies. Israel won't attack Lebanon if not provoked. Why should it? It >> has nothing to gain by doing so. It doesn't attack Jordan or Egypt. > > I'm also totally for a strong Lebanese military who can properly control their own > territory. Lebanon simply historically never had one though. In the interim I'm sure > it'll have to be a UN mandated force that does that job. And it will have to be one with enough teeth and muscle to fire on the Israelis as well as Hezbollah. Dirk |