O/T: Up Yours

Page 2 of 11  
Mark & Juanita wrote:

That last sentence gives me a headache trying to figure out what it might possibly mean? Can you give any hints?
One of the problems might be the use of words in ways that their basic meaning doesn't support. An example would be your equating "unilaterally disarming" with "suspend development of missile defense systems and new weapon systems". You must not have any idea of exactly what unilateral disarmament means.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Patrick Karl wrote:

Let me type this out more simply:
1. We have no position from which to negotiate with Saudi Arabia to get them to produce more oil. i.e., if they say "no", we have no position of strength from which to say, "OK, then we will do x, y, or z" such as developing our own reserves because the Saudis know that the enviros here would rather see people freeze to death than have a caribou have to skirt an oil derrick in ANWR.
2. This forms a good analog for the same kinds of things the left wants to do to our defense posture. For example, Obama talks a good game about "tough diplomacy" (whatever the @#%$ that means) and talking to our enemies with "tough negotiations". But, when the person on the other side of the table says, "No, we still want to see you infidels killed and Israel pushed into the sea, and by the way, we have xx nuclear missiles, so don't you dare do anything to us", if we have nothing from which to respond -- for example, "your xx missiles are meaningless because they can be destroyed before they leave your territories", we have no position from which to bargain.
3. Obama has already stated his desire to place us in the same position defensively as we currently stand regarding energy. He has pledged to stop developing anti-missile defenses. Yes, this is unilateral disarmament on our part -- your words below not withstanding. It is our country removing a part of its ability to defend itself without any equivalent concessions from other countries. It may not be the "unilateral disarmament" that you equate only to the US destroying its own nuclear arsenal without others doing the same, but the words are being used correctly. He has further stated the desire to stop development of all new weapon systems. This is not going to provide a position of strength from which to negotiate in the future.

See above. What do *you* think unilateral disarmament means? Would particularly like to see your definition in light of the idea that we would, unilaterally, stop development of the ability to defend ourselves from missile attack. Please explain how this is not unilateral disarmament

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

While agreeing with part of your position, this is not the whole truth and therefore it is (in my opinion) totally and absolutely false. You are advocating that we spend ourselves to death the same way we forced the Soviet Union to its death - spend and spend on useless (in the end) technology and weapons.
For instance, we may eventually be able to shoot down a few missiles lobbed in our direction, but what would be needed is a guarantee that none come through such a missile defense system. I think that history has proven that offensive strategies always win over defensive ones (castles, Maginot line, Atlantic Wall). If too many missiles would come at the same time, or a single missile would come from the "wrong" direction, we'd be cooked at the attacked site, and will have to resortto retaliatory strikes. Are we ready for such sacrifices on our own soil and on theirs?
Some kind of early warning system would be fine with me. Also, as far as monitoring and manning such installation(s), that can be done in cooperation with others (Russians, Chinese) so we let them know that they should be concerned about terrorist attacks as well. But the operative mentality has to be one of brutality, with disregard for civilian casualties, just like they don't care about that in attacking us.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
in

Unilateral disarmament is to give up (disarm) what one already has. It is not the same thing as eschewing expansion of one's arms.
Personally, I favor the development of new weapons of the sort we may need to use.

Or just sent into an American port on board a cargo ship.
That is why Iran must not be allowed to build an atomic bomb. Missile defense, no matter how effective, would never be sufficient. Preventing them from obtaining a bomb is necessary.
That is why fissile material world-wide needs to be secured and kept secure. Sadly, people in politics, the press and the media who even know what fissile material is, are few and far between, much rarer than those who voice strong opinions on the subject.
For instance, recall that the Bush administration 'warned' us that if Iraq were to obtain sufficient fissile, they could build an atomic bomb in as little as n months (typical values of n ranged from 6 to 12) .
Why didn't anybody ask them the obvious question: "Why so long?". If *I* had sufficient fissile material I could build an atom bomb in less than 6 months. Obtaining the fissile material is the only technologically difficult part of making an atomic bomb.
Plainly they were choosing their time frame based on what would seem credible to the ignorant, and few people pointed that out.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

"Useless"? The Soviet Union didn't think so. That's why they objected so strenuously to our development of a ballistic-missile defense system: because they knew that it *would* work. They were developing one of their own.
"Useless"? Contemporary Russian leadership doesn't think so either. That's why they object so strenuously to our placement of missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic.
"Useless"? Anybody who's been paying any attention to the testing the Navy has conducted recently *knows* that's not so.

Nonsense. A defense system doesn't have to be 100% effective, or even close to that, to serve as an effective deterrent. If it's accurate enough to preserve our ability to retaliate, it's sufficient for that purpose. And obviously any defense system that stops even *one* missile is better than having none at all.

And that is an improvement over having no defensive system at all, exactly how?

Probably not -- which is the most obvious reason of all for building and deploying a defensive system. DUH!

But not a system that might actually, you know, *stop* one of those incoming missiles.
Whose side are you on, anyway?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

So you're saying that because armor doesn't always work police and soldiers should not be provided with it?
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

You have a rich and vivid fantasy life. To whit:
1) The threat of those weapons caused *The Soviets* to spend themselves into oblivion. There is no one who has remotely the same capability to threaten us such that we'd have to do the same thing.
2) The overwhelming expenses incurred by the US are NOT military. They are the non-Constitutional entitlement do-gooding that fouls our Federal budget and agenda.

Sheer nonsense. Do you fail to wear your seatbelt because there are some kinds of accidents where it does not save your life.

As opposed to what? Doing nothing and hoping they never attack anyway? Do you keep your house door unlocked as proof of your good will and thereby keep robbers out?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

How about maybe developing our own oil fields and reserves? A few nuclear reactors might be helpful as well. Had Bubba Clinton not prohibited drilling in ANWR in 1994, saying that it would take 10 years before anything resulted anyway, we would now be getting 1 million barrels a day from that field.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But the Saudis have just stated that supply and demand are in equilibrium. You don't believe your friends <grin>?
Conservation should be first and renewable energy second. Developing coal strategies third (with CO2 retention to prevent accumulation of greenhouse gases), nuclear fourth (with a strategy for making use of nuclear waste), and developing new oil and gas fifth.
Just my opinion.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Han" wrote

Supply and demand have NOTHING to do with the current price of oil, instead put the blame squarely where it lies ... greed, by hedge funds and other speculators, using manipulation made possible by regulatory differences between global stock markets.
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/wall-street-blame-runaway-energy/story.aspx?guid=%7B789899AB%2DFD58%2D4110%2D9C54%2D7A42B8D50907%7D
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Swingman" wrote:

The real problem is the weakness of the USD.
The price of oil is tied to the USD.
Just another benefit of our adventures around the world.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This guy called it on the nose almost two years ago:
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id 812
"detention centers instead of soup kitchens" Read it and weep!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I agree with most, but I always cackle when these guys list $4 trillion (or mroe) in losses to foreign trade because of NAFTA. Sure, we've lost mroe than we've gain to Mexico, and probably to Canada. But most of that money went to the Pacific Rim, which is not part of the North American Free Trade Agreement, or, at least, wasn't the last time I looked. Christ alone knows what our lunatic Prez is claiming this week.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Some pundits speculate that it was the underlying cause for getting rid of Sadam; he wanted to switch to the Euro. The same bunch thinks that the sabre-rattling with Iran is all about that too.
If oil no longer holds up the USD, the US economy collapses.
It's always the same: Follow the money!
The huge tax breaks for the rich is just another transfer of wealth before the corps starts to rot.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

So what, we're going to warehouse an increasing volume of CO2 forever?

Calculate the volume required to store the CO2 from using coal and the volume required to store the waste from nuclear plants that produce the same amount of power and tell us which makes more sense.

--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Use it to insulate the nuclear waste dumps instead. The rest can be used to fertilize the trees that hold the Spotted Owl.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't know what all the fuss is about. Spotted Owl has hardly any meat on them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

yabbut, like the roadrunner, what's there is excellent and worth any amount of expense and trouble.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Best get your ACME credit card out.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's pretty much what Spencer Tracy said about Katherine Hepburn.
I didn't believe him, either.
My favorite Spotted Owl sentiments are:
"I love the Spotted Owl - Boiled, Broiled, Fried..." (T Shirt)
"Spotted Owl - The Other White Meat." (A variation of which may turn up in the presidential race)
"Spotted Owl - It's What's For Dinner."
Tom Watson tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet www.home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.