Sir, your abysmal ignorance astounds me. That is "Raccoon" Squat!
My ignorance may be abysmal, but it is also vincible. Thank you for the pedagogical input; I go forth armed with new knowledge.
Naahh. No one "owes" anything. France supported us in the Revolution for its own reasons that had nothing to do with altruism. The assumption that there is some kind of international scoreboard would lead to an impossible tangle of obligations if it were true. The past is done, and whether a nation supports another is rooted in an assessment of the present situation. France and many other nations regard our war in Iraq as misguided, at best. Without commenting on whether they are correct, I certainly think they have the right to make their own call on it.
The United States has refused to endorse the Kyoto agreement. Do we owe it to anyone to do so, especially since the present management vigorously disagrees with it?
Another example, the majority of historians credit the Russians' effort in World War II as the PRIMARY, but not only, reason the Allies pulled out the victory. Do we "owe" Russia anything for it? Or do they "owe" us anything for providing expertise in guiding them toward democracy after the collapse of communism? (FYI, a group of economists gave them requested advice in the early 90s)
Bob
Yup. France & England were in fights all over the globe. France gave just enough help to keep a sizeable British force tied up for a number of years in the American colonies. ;-) My Navy ROTC professor thought the French probably didn't want to win the naval battle of Yorktown but the tactics were just too good to pass up. (English ship had to sail out of the harbor one at a time, only a few guns pointing forward, into a semi-circle of French ships with all broadside guns ready & waiting. )
-- Mark
Yeah, we were even when we helped _them_ with their revolution. Everything since then has been all us mopping up their mess.
The Kyoto agreement is nothing but an international welfare scheme. Unless you think that it will _actually_ cause industrialized nations to substantially, immediately decrease emissions, that is. It'll just result in industrialized countries "buying pollution credits from" undeveloped countries. Translation: does squat for pollution and would force us to give yet more money to countries who hate us.
Sorry, but Kyoto doesn't do what the treehuggers pretend it would. ...and I've planted close to 10,000 trees in my lifetime...
Dave Hinz
THANK YOU!!!! Keep up the good work!!
-- Mark
Dave Hinz wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@individual.net:
So, to restate Bob's point, nations should do what is in their perceived best interest, led by 'their current management'.
The details of Kyoto, whatever they are, aside.
May the management be wise.
Patriarch
Well, you know, everyone likes a nice piece of Ash sometimes. And walnut, maple, oak, spruce, pine, fir, and cherry but they didn't take. Problem with cherry is that you only get one shot at it.
Dave "20 acres of treefarm takes a while to prune every year, though..." Hinz
Right. Giving money to people who hate us is never in our best interest. So, I agree with management.
If the criticism is about his handling of Kyoto, then it's central to the point rather than aside.
Indeed. Or at least more wise than the other option was.
This is the old "enlightened self interest" model in a new guise. It assumes an unreasonable degree of enlightenment IMO.
Fri, Dec 10, 2004, 2:32pm (EST+5) snipped-for-privacy@wi.rr.com (Bob=A0Schmall) laments: Unsuccessfully, as always. ;-)
But, I'm sure your mother loves you.
JOAT Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind dont matter, and those who matter dont mind.
- Dr Seuss
Fri, Dec 10, 2004, 2:34pm (EST+5) snipped-for-privacy@wi.rr.com (Bob=A0Schmall) pontificates: My ignorance may be abysmal, but it is also vincible. Thank you for the pedagogical input; I go forth armed with new knowledge.
You done good Grasshopper.
JOAT Remember: Nova is Avon, spelled backwards.
"Crossing the T"
"J. Clarke" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news3.newsguy.com:
(Treading in deeper, when I should probably know better...)
What model would you suggest?
Surely _not_ that we select _even_less_intelligent leadership?
Patriarch
One which does not depend on every player believing that his "best interest" is coincident with the "best interest" of the society as a whole.
No, that we adopt a different model that is less dependent on good will.
Yup, like the Battle of Jutland. (IIRC)
-- Mark
ROTFL!
-- Mark
I know that this is off topic in an already off topic thread but I used to love that game that involved crossing the T - which might have been called something as simple as "Battleship".
You know, the one where you lost masts and sails by engaging in an unfortunate encounter.
We played that and then we played "Waterloo" and then we played "Battle of Jutland - and then we went to Vietnam.
'Course, I don't really think that Milton Bradley killed people - I thought that John Wayne killed people.
The Arts are a wonderful thing.
Regards, Tom.
"People funny. Life a funny thing." Sonny Liston
Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.) tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
OT post of the month.
exactly what the thread deserved
Regards, Tom.
"People funny. Life a funny thing." Sonny Liston
Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.) tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
HomeOwnersHub website 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.