E
Eeyore
Guest
John Fields wrote:
Graham
It's no direct threat to your way of life.
Graham
T
T Wake
Guest
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:e0b7j2pl48r7j9vuifsthidcpb33ir72oa@4ax.com...
No matter what atrocities the British have carried out in Iraq (and if you
really want to see some look into Malaya and Borneo or even the Boer War),
it doesn't stop the American behaviour being wrong.
You are using a logical fallacy to try and distract. Nothing in Eeyore's
post said he ignored or condoned British actions. There is nothing to stop
some one deploring the behaviour of the Americans _and_ the British in Iraq.
Unless of course you actually do think the US behaviour is acceptable
because the British do it.
news:e0b7j2pl48r7j9vuifsthidcpb33ir72oa@4ax.com...
That makes it OK then.
No matter what atrocities the British have carried out in Iraq (and if you
really want to see some look into Malaya and Borneo or even the Boer War),
it doesn't stop the American behaviour being wrong.
You are using a logical fallacy to try and distract. Nothing in Eeyore's
post said he ignored or condoned British actions. There is nothing to stop
some one deploring the behaviour of the Americans _and_ the British in Iraq.
Unless of course you actually do think the US behaviour is acceptable
because the British do it.
T
T Wake
Guest
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4533BE17.9FE2D8D8@hotmail.com...
news:4533BE17.9FE2D8D8@hotmail.com...
Well, the current trials in the Military Court Centre have some details.
E
Eeyore
Guest
Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Rapid_Reaction_Force
Graham
Early stages still AIUI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Rapid_Reaction_Force
Graham
T
T Wake
Guest
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4533B227.6594D9D7@hotmail.com...
news:4533B227.6594D9D7@hotmail.com...
Everything was caused by the Peloponnesian War.
T
T Wake
Guest
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:0jd7j2tp5qni8292rop7oefcvoj2kf1qu8@4ax.com...
weren't Jewish, gay, black, Romany or any of the other groups.
Carries some massive caveats though. You have made the assumption that this
is the _only_ alternate course of action and it is solely the US
intervention which has prevented it. I am sure you can see the logical
errors with this. There is no reason, for example, to assume the UK would
not have been able to eventually rearm enough to resist the Germans. French
and German resistance may well have made the Nazi hold on Europe untenable.
The war with Russia would still have cost the Germans dearly.
Trying to assume things about history is invariably fraught with error and
assumption.
news:0jd7j2tp5qni8292rop7oefcvoj2kf1qu8@4ax.com...
Yes. Would the world be a more peaceful place today? Maybe. Certainly if you
weren't Jewish, gay, black, Romany or any of the other groups.
Carries some massive caveats though. You have made the assumption that this
is the _only_ alternate course of action and it is solely the US
intervention which has prevented it. I am sure you can see the logical
errors with this. There is no reason, for example, to assume the UK would
not have been able to eventually rearm enough to resist the Germans. French
and German resistance may well have made the Nazi hold on Europe untenable.
The war with Russia would still have cost the Germans dearly.
Trying to assume things about history is invariably fraught with error and
assumption.
T
T Wake
Guest
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:6sb7j250691r7ght5sdvppla4h3uvcmal3@4ax.com...
Has Iraq been liberated from a Radical Islamic Regime? Or has it been
liberated from a Despotism?
news:6sb7j250691r7ght5sdvppla4h3uvcmal3@4ax.com...
Is it OK to liberate people from radical Christian regimes?
Has Iraq been liberated from a Radical Islamic Regime? Or has it been
liberated from a Despotism?
Very lyrical. Worked well in Vietnam didn't it.
J
Jonathan Kirwan
Guest
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:38:14 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
US action) have so much greater power by which they can act. (They
are a very large, very well funded, and highly-catered minority here
and they often pass around internal lists of who to vote for, as
well.)
Jon
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
More so, because they (through political influence over the power of
US action) have so much greater power by which they can act. (They
are a very large, very well funded, and highly-catered minority here
and they often pass around internal lists of who to vote for, as
well.)
Jon
T
T Wake
Guest
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:c2a7j2h4rcipr1og3h146fbmukanvvvh0u@4ax.com...
news:c2a7j2h4rcipr1og3h146fbmukanvvvh0u@4ax.com...
Well we have two, and have had ARRC for about 15 years. Why?
E
Eeyore
Guest
T Wake wrote:
Graham
St Albans even !"Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote
Eeyore wrote:
Jamie wrote:
Eeyore 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.
We simply have the experience of world affairs to see the faults that
need criticism.
You might stop to think which 2 European countries had most to do with
early N America whilst your at it.
Graham
and what part did the UK play in this? was it something
to do with a Boston Tea party? and the red coats landing
on our shores?
Who do you think created Boston and why does it have the name of an
English town?
Graham
we were just being nice to you, so that we could make our big move!
Yeah, New York, Washington, New Jersey, New Bedford, Salisbury, Richmond,
Rockingham, Southport, Fairfax, York, Lancaster, Newark, Hempstead,
Southampton, Bristol, Hartford, Warwick, Worcester (etc) weren't enough. You
had to name Boston "Boston" as well...
Graham
T
T Wake
Guest
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:bee5j2djr7rmchavamidtcl99ad7vfvjjd@4ax.com...
the US anything, the UK government does and the UK government does not
disparage the US.
Shame that your statement is falsified, it was a good one.
firestorms, brutal war in Asia and central america, Carpet bombing whole
swathes of the jungle mixed in with 50 years of interference and, generally,
making the situation worse.... that makes the US an expert in what, exactly?
French eyes. If anything, the US is _more_ popular in the UK than most other
countries.
news:bee5j2djr7rmchavamidtcl99ad7vfvjjd@4ax.com...
Odd that the debt is about to have it's final payment. Eeyore does not owe
the US anything, the UK government does and the UK government does not
disparage the US.
Shame that your statement is falsified, it was a good one.
Less than 300 years of existence, total war that transformed cities into
firestorms, brutal war in Asia and central america, Carpet bombing whole
swathes of the jungle mixed in with 50 years of interference and, generally,
making the situation worse.... that makes the US an expert in what, exactly?
The strawman is still a strawman. The US is unpopular in more than UK and
French eyes. If anything, the US is _more_ popular in the UK than most other
countries.
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:42:13 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
processes are still causal, and a chaotic system can still be managed,
pushed and made to move in some direction. It's just that the time
scale of predictability shortens the more nonlinear and chaotic a
system is.
WWII shook up the entire world, and many of its effcts are still
fairly obvious. The Boer War and the Peloponnesian war changes our
world, but the causalities are too churned up now to be as obvious.
As to why the US acts as the world's cop, WWII is pretty much still
the answer. That could change with some pushing, which nobody seems up
to so far.
John
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
Yes. History is a chaotic butterfly-effect process. Of course, chaotic
processes are still causal, and a chaotic system can still be managed,
pushed and made to move in some direction. It's just that the time
scale of predictability shortens the more nonlinear and chaotic a
system is.
WWII shook up the entire world, and many of its effcts are still
fairly obvious. The Boer War and the Peloponnesian war changes our
world, but the causalities are too churned up now to be as obvious.
As to why the US acts as the world's cop, WWII is pretty much still
the answer. That could change with some pushing, which nobody seems up
to so far.
John
J
Jonathan Kirwan
Guest
On Mon, 16 Oct 06 10:49:40 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
Larkin has seen my link at least once. He just won't bother reading
it.
Perhaps John Fields cannot accept or rationally process information
that objectively disagrees with his preconceived notions about "US
goodness." It's kind of religious, I imagine. Like ascribing all the
good things in the world to God and all the bad things to Satan. It's
not testable. It just is.
John's idea of the overarching quality of US action seems to be that
while he agrees it isn't perfect, at least under this administration
he always seems to imagine that it is a better way than other ways.
Even when better evidence should reasonably make him question that.
Jon
wrote:
I think I've posted the PDF link at least twice and I'm pretty sure
Larkin has seen my link at least once. He just won't bother reading
it.
Perhaps John Fields cannot accept or rationally process information
that objectively disagrees with his preconceived notions about "US
goodness." It's kind of religious, I imagine. Like ascribing all the
good things in the world to God and all the bad things to Satan. It's
not testable. It just is.
John's idea of the overarching quality of US action seems to be that
while he agrees it isn't perfect, at least under this administration
he always seems to imagine that it is a better way than other ways.
Even when better evidence should reasonably make him question that.
Jon
E
Eeyore
Guest
John Fields wrote:
still.
Check out the 5,980,000 hits at
http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=american+atrocities
Graham
Sure, in the short time you've been a nation you've been working at it harder
still.
Check out the 5,980,000 hits at
http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=american+atrocities
Graham
T
T Wake
Guest
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:0ue5j2h6h8lrp3e6dlhs19hh6pli9opmko@4ax.com...
There are no "universal human rights" as such a concept would be
unenforceable. For example if the right to life is a universal human right,
the US has violated this every time it's soldiers kill some one. As soon as
there is an "acceptable" casualty rate the universal right is lost for
everyone.
If there is a "universal right" which allows the US to intervene in a
country which is acting in a manner in which it disagrees, that right _must_
also allow other countries to intervene if the US acts in a manner in which
they disagree. This is obviously not the case so that can't be enforceable.
I am fairly sure there are no "universal rights" human or otherwise.
As to the second issue, should the US intervene? I think an important thing
is that the US, if it wishes to intervene for "good reasons" gets the
support of the international community to avoid looking like it is
profiteering. For me personally, the _most_ important thing is consistency
in actions. If Country X is subject to regime change because of [INSERT
LEADER] then the US should treat all similar countries in a similar way.
Dealing and trading with oppressive regimes while attacking others is
inconsistent and undermines any "just cause" argument.
Invading a country because the ruler is killing lots of people, then killing
lots of people undermines the "just cause" argument.
Intervention in sovereign states is not a straight forward matter. Did the
US invade Cambodia to protect people from the Killing Fields? Did the US
intervene in Argentina or Chile? Where are the US soldiers in Sierra Leone?
Etc.
Or is it the case that the US cherry pick the times they will act and the
times they wont, when they do act it is "just cause" when the don't it is
the "international community" at fault.
What criteria should the US use to determine which countries they will
"save" and which they wont?
news:0ue5j2h6h8lrp3e6dlhs19hh6pli9opmko@4ax.com...
Well, a good question and one that is very difficult to answer.
There are no "universal human rights" as such a concept would be
unenforceable. For example if the right to life is a universal human right,
the US has violated this every time it's soldiers kill some one. As soon as
there is an "acceptable" casualty rate the universal right is lost for
everyone.
If there is a "universal right" which allows the US to intervene in a
country which is acting in a manner in which it disagrees, that right _must_
also allow other countries to intervene if the US acts in a manner in which
they disagree. This is obviously not the case so that can't be enforceable.
I am fairly sure there are no "universal rights" human or otherwise.
As to the second issue, should the US intervene? I think an important thing
is that the US, if it wishes to intervene for "good reasons" gets the
support of the international community to avoid looking like it is
profiteering. For me personally, the _most_ important thing is consistency
in actions. If Country X is subject to regime change because of [INSERT
LEADER] then the US should treat all similar countries in a similar way.
Dealing and trading with oppressive regimes while attacking others is
inconsistent and undermines any "just cause" argument.
Invading a country because the ruler is killing lots of people, then killing
lots of people undermines the "just cause" argument.
Intervention in sovereign states is not a straight forward matter. Did the
US invade Cambodia to protect people from the Killing Fields? Did the US
intervene in Argentina or Chile? Where are the US soldiers in Sierra Leone?
Etc.
Or is it the case that the US cherry pick the times they will act and the
times they wont, when they do act it is "just cause" when the don't it is
the "international community" at fault.
What criteria should the US use to determine which countries they will
"save" and which they wont?
T
T Wake
Guest
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:c9f7j29angn5jc6li74qmd6mck0r451lp3@4ax.com...
news:c9f7j29angn5jc6li74qmd6mck0r451lp3@4ax.com...
The header field would say X-GENIUS: YesOn Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:52:26 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:rvc5j2dlfhbk4lpo0ec1324af8p2o2v9hi@4ax.com...
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 11:03:52 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
You never responded to my question about your alignment with global
cartels.
As your attitude and posting signal you are indeed so aligned, I will
assume
your lack of response means yes.
---
Not necessarily.
Ok
I don't generally read your posts since you seem to be nominally
sensible and reading _all_ the posts in this thread is tiresome.
Fair one.
Also, sometimes I read a post and disagree with it, but just don't
want to be bothered with answering it and starting another long
harangue.
Again, fair comment.
The situation remains though. You asked a question which was nothing but a
logicall fallacy.
---
You're utterly mad.
---
From Gershwin's "They all laughed":
..."They all laughed at Christopher Columbus
When he said the world was round
They all laughed when Edison recorded sound
They all laughed at Wilbur and his brother
When they said that man could fly
They told Marconi
Wireless was a phony
It's the same old cry"...
Yet they also tell people who are mad they are mad. For every Wright
brother
there are millions of idiots and nutcases around the world. The odds are
stacked against genius.
---
And yet...
And yet I have never seen a genius post on USENET.
---
How would you know?
T
T Wake
Guest
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
newszQYg.375$T_1.365@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
news
zQYg.375$T_1.365@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...Christianity.
T
T Wake
Guest
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4533DC9F.62760F0E@hotmail.com...
The problem is, some people in this debate think that saying "The Brits did
[INSERT HISTORY SNIP]" so you cant criticise the US for doing it. This is
madness. It is like going to court for assault and saying "you cant jail me
that guy over there beat some one up fifty years ago."
news:4533DC9F.62760F0E@hotmail.com...
Well less gas and less Jews, more Boers though...
The problem is, some people in this debate think that saying "The Brits did
[INSERT HISTORY SNIP]" so you cant criticise the US for doing it. This is
madness. It is like going to court for assault and saying "you cant jail me
that guy over there beat some one up fifty years ago."
T
T Wake
Guest
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4533E3B7.FC5B649F@hotmail.com...
news:4533E3B7.FC5B649F@hotmail.com...
Must have been scraping the barrel there....T Wake wrote:
"Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote
Eeyore wrote:
Jamie wrote:
Eeyore 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.
We simply have the experience of world affairs to see the faults that
need criticism.
You might stop to think which 2 European countries had most to do
with
early N America whilst your at it.
Graham
and what part did the UK play in this? was it something
to do with a Boston Tea party? and the red coats landing
on our shores?
Who do you think created Boston and why does it have the name of an
English town?
Graham
we were just being nice to you, so that we could make our big move!
Yeah, New York, Washington, New Jersey, New Bedford, Salisbury, Richmond,
Rockingham, Southport, Fairfax, York, Lancaster, Newark, Hempstead,
Southampton, Bristol, Hartford, Warwick, Worcester (etc) weren't enough.
You
had to name Boston "Boston" as well...
St Albans even !
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:37:10 +0200, "Frank Bemelman"
<f.bemelmanq@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:
out? Fighting on the Palestinian side? Attacking our base in Ramstein?
Or maybe do something useful, like stop the killing in Darfur?
How would europe *use* a combined, independent military force?
feelings and pride.
John
<f.bemelmanq@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:
What would that specifically involve? Invading Iraq and pushing us
out? Fighting on the Palestinian side? Attacking our base in Ramstein?
Or maybe do something useful, like stop the killing in Darfur?
How would europe *use* a combined, independent military force?
Yes, it's "arrogance" that's the real provocation. It's all about
feelings and pride.
John