Jihad needs scientists

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:i60aj2hre318dnmojrm2pje9jkpck9o7gg@4ax.com...

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 05:57:25 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:14:47 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:50:08 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

American Christian fundamentalists are as dangerous if not more so than
their
Muslim counterparts.

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.)


And you think the Mother Jones crowd doesn't have their own lists? You
seem to imply that there's something wrong with political organizing
among people you don't agree with. Stalin thought that, too.


John, I've never seen a list for liberals to vote towards. Not ever.

Now you have:

http://www.emilyslist.org/

I don't know anything about this organization except what they say about
themselves on their website. However, realize that an organization does not
need to have non-profit status to use a .org website. Many do, but if I
wanted to pay for a .org domain, I could. I couldn't find anything about
non-profit status in the About... page--which is something that non-profits
like to trumpet about themselves.

Eric Lucas

 

[John Fields]

On 16 Oct 2006 11:22:16 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic@aon.at>
wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

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.


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.

/BAH



Whom would you believe more, when talking/discussing about
marriage-relationships?
A three time divorcee, or a man who never had a wedlock, just with some
standard relation(partner in lifes)-ships (just so much that he knows
what a women is... but with no wedlock experience).

---
And your point would be???


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

In article <eh2f18$8qk_003@s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:

In article <FdZYg.9$45.140@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <vc97j2t5u0ugeni9jnqks988b3db7aounl@4ax.com>, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes:
On Mon, 16 Oct 06 09:53:59 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <45322D41.6B0FA0F9@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Its interesting that the other "non wins" you mention are from
almost
200
years ago. We have lost more recent wars as well. We can compare
this
to
Vietnam, I suppose.

Which was a French mess and a continuation of WWII.

It had ZILCH to do with WW2.

Graham

How could *anything* that happened after WWII have zilch to do with
WWII?

So WW2 is responsible for *everything* ????????

Did you think that a political climate that culiminated with
WWII went away when people quit fighting?

It certainly changed. Communism was a lot different in philosophy and
tactics from facism.

Oh, of course. The point, though, is that war doesn't end when some
formal documents are signed, it really ends when stability is
restored. In the case of a great war, where a lot of the existing
international structure is destroyed, restoring stability can take a very
long time. And WWI (yes, I mean WWI, WWII was just a continuation
after a short breather) was such a cataclismic event that its effects
are still lingering.


Thank you. We aren't taught this in US schools. It took me
a while to accept that Viet Nam was a part of WWII that
wasn't finished in deference to France. I guess there
was such a big mess to clean up in Europe, these kinds of
matters were put at the bottom of things to do when there
is more time and money.

Of course. When you read about the situation in Europe in the first
few years after the war, you realize that it couldn't have worked
otherwise.

I'm still trying to figure out how people keep track of
all these kinds of details when they're having things
we call summit meetings.

Well, we hope they keep track...

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <eh30er$n6o$1@news-int.gatech.edu>,
david.bostwick@chemistry.gatech.edu (David Bostwick) wrote:

In article <eh2q77$c28$1@leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
In article <odi8j25ttpiuu9t6tbg4jne9cdut88qmin@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:38:14 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



Lloyd Parker wrote:

JoeBloe <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

All of Islam (read the moslems) believe that all others that are not
moslem are "infidels" and that killing them is not, nor should not be
a crime.

You are lying.

I suspect it's what he learnt at Church.

American Christian fundamentalists are as dangerous if not more so than
their
Muslim counterparts.


Yeah, all those Southern Baptist suicide bombers.

John


McVeigh was a part of the radical Christian right. The IRA was Catholic
fighting Protestants (and Protestants fought back).

And the guy who killed the Amish kids was what?

You're letting your biases cloud your reason. Fundamentalist Christians
aren't the radicals you try to equate them with. If you really believe
that, you're woefully or willfully ignorant.

Are you also willing to include left-wing "fundamentalists" with every killer
who is anti-religion or unreligious?

By definition, left-wingers aren't fundamentalist anything.

Can I lump Ted and Barney in with anyone
who kills just because he wants to?

If you'll tell me whom they murdered and why.

There's probably a killer out there who
believes most of what you do, but I don't think you're a danger to anyone.

People kill because they are evil. They may use a belief to hide behind or
to
rally followers, or they may really believe what they say. If you want to
say
that everyone who believes X is bad because an evil person says he believes
X,
your're going to have a lot of labels to make.



True; my post was in response to those lumping all Moslems in as such.

 

[Daniel Mandic]

Eeyore wrote:

Tell me about this brutality.

You are that one 'tick' better behaved.

E.g. Hong Kong, South Africa -started the end of Apartheid
I am sure you are still strongly present in Hong Kong and in many other
former British Colonies.

Commonwealth is better, IMHO.

Do please also tell me about how the native American indians were
treated.

Yeah!

Graham

Best regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh2jst$8qk_001@s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <1161090357.909390.53800@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <eh01a0$ape$1@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

Actually we sold him weapons,

What percentage of all Iraq's purchases were from the US
government?

What, if it's only 50% that makes it OK?

You dodged answering the question. What percentage? Be specific.

we sold him the materials to make chemical
weapons.

Which materials?

The precursor chemicals.

Specify. I suspect you don't want to make that list because
I could buy most of them at the drug store.

I doubt if you would find any of the reactive starting materials for CW
like phosphorous chloride, fluoride, oxychloride, thionyl chloride or
any of the other more complex intermediates like trimethyl phosphite
(some of which have legitimate use in plastics and insecticides) on any
drug store shelf.

I have my chemistry book, also known as the recipe book. Now specify
the ingredients needed to make those dishes you've just listed.

They were ingredients.

These days even legitimate industrial users of
organophosphorous compounds are vetted.

But the poster wasn't talking about these days. He was talking
about 25 years ago.

Yes, 25 years ago there was less vetting. Now there is more.

Your point?

The US even sold Iraq helicopters and heavy vehicles on a don't ask
don't tell basis. As did the UK, Germany and even Israel... see for
example the WSU website (and links).

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Exports of obvious CW precursors from US companies (and in theory their
overseas subsiduaries) were eventually blocked in March 1984 according
to the WSU article. That sounds about right to me.

And why did those ingredients get on the US' restriction list?

Well do you mean after Saddam stopped being America's great ally in the
region?

Exports of dual use and nuclear technology were still being approved
much later (although the US & UK governments tried damn hard to hide
it).

Define what "nuclear technology" is. I don't know what people
mean by this. I know what they want me to think.

Check out the infamous Matrix-Churchill show trial and the UK
government whitewash that followed its collapse.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/15/newsid_2544000/2
544355.stm

I ain't going to go look for that. I thought the guy was accusing
the United _States_ for handing free weapons and components over
to Iraq--not United Kingdom.

Matrix Churchill was an example (remember the supergun which was mentioned
previously?) of how the UK/US (allies on the war in Iraq remember, the UK is
the most vocal european supporter of US policies) have a dual standard at
times.

If you think the fact the example was a UK company means the US were guilt
free I suggest you look at:

"In June, 1982, President Reagan decided that the United States could not
afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran. President Reagan decided that
the United States would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq
from losing the war with Iran. President Reagan formalized this policy by
issuing a National Security Decision Directive ("NSDD") to this effect in
June, 1982," said the "Teicher Affidavit," submitted on 31 January 1995 by
former NSC official Howard Teicher to the U.S. District Court, Southern
District of Florida.

and

Much of what Iraq received from the US, however, were not arms per se, but
so-called dual-use technology- mainframe computers, armored ambulances,
helicopters, chemicals, and the like, with potential civilian uses as well
as military applications. It is now known that a vast network of companies,
based in the U.S. and elsewhere, fed Iraq's warring capabilities right up
until August 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait

[Both properly referenced on Wikipedia -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war].

Or are you trying to get people to believe that everything the
UK did was also the US' fault?

Strawman based on a misconception that the UK dislikes the US.

Rumsfield went over there and embraced him and told him he was our
friend.

What was the context of this visit?

A promotional sales tour to help the Iraqis to win the Iran-Iraq war.

Win? I don't think so. In those days, most deals had to do with
keeping strengths equal with the Communists' (mostly fUSSR) satellites.

See above.

Now, what percentage of Iraq imports were from US companies?

Well in 1988 it was 5.44% of the arms imports (*). Not sure about other
products.

Is that an acceptable percentage?

Europeans have hidden assumptions about US companies and how they
function because their environment is based on their socailist
govnerments controlling production.

Pure nonsense. Spend less time reading crazy books and try to visit Europe.

This is not how business
works in the US. Europeans have this subtle assumption and
don't seem to be able to realize that companies in the US
never first ask if they can manufacture a foo before they
build the plant.

Strawman.



==
(*) Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)
SIPRI makes the following comment of the methodology of this table: "The
SIPRI data on arms transfers refer to actual deliveries of major
conventional weapons. To permit comparison between the data on such
deliveries of different weapons and identification of general trends, SIPRI
uses a trend-indicator value. The SIPRI values are therefore only an
indicator of the volume of international arms transfers and not of the
actual financial values of such transfers."

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4534D840.74FF3116@hotmail.com...

|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote:

Check out the infamous Matrix-Churchill show trial and the UK
government whitewash that followed its collapse.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/15/newsid_2544000/2544355.stm

That was truly outrageous with the government attempting to suppress
evidence !

Not the first, and certainly not the last time.

 

[T Wake]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:fcv9j2hm2lc0663t8ck4n38tqurcjl4l0o@4ax.com...

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 04:09:40 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:



What the Dems really need is proof that Bush is Satan.

Which is inconsistant with their belief that he's dumb.

Is that the only way you can discuss issues, by putting words in peoples'
mouths, and lumping Democrats all together as one organism in order to set
up a strawman?

You lumped the Dems as a group, not me. Was that you, "What the Dems
really..."; it gets hard to tell.

If you had snipped less you would have seen it was Eeyore.

You are for sure the strawman man.

Well, it is interesting that some people fall back on strawmen and
obfuscation type comments.

 

[T Wake]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:%4YYg.14723$vJ2.14308@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:Fd-dnRQAmrcYlKnYRVnyiQ@pipex.net...

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message news:65s7j2l1evion61o96itfes4sjgabjh499@4ax.com...
On a radio program this morning, the subject being gender roles and
specifically transgender issues, a couple of biologists agreed that
Darwin's description of sex roles was totally wrong.

They may well be, I am not a biologist. I know very little in the way of
scientific theory survives for ever. Darwin's theories were in place long
before modern advances so not changing them would be strange.

Certainly a lot of the details of Darwin's theories have been subject to
question and modification over the years. What has not changed is the
basic idea of evolution.

Very true. There is a conflict of terminology and if the people on the radio
show were talking about "Darwin's theories" specifically they are a bit
behind the curve. Modern evolutionary theory has progressed beyond the
specifics Darwin described.

As you say, the underlying theory remains.

It is amazing that, after 150 years of collecting data and trying to fill
in those details, everything we have learned does bear out his basic
ideas.

You cant beat a good theory

And in a book I'm reading about string theory, it seems out that there
are about 10^500 different possible universes, and as few as one may
support life, so some theorists are invoking Intelligent Design to
explain why the particular constants were chosen which allow us to
exist.

The normal ID-like version of the many worlds theory holds that the
universe _must_ be the way it is because we exist. If it was any
different we wouldn't exist and the question would be meaningless. As you
can see, this carries none of the normal scientific method with it so
(IMHO obviously) it is fundamentally flawed.

I've never been especially uncomfortable with the "anthropic principle".

Same here. I am slightly biased though because I think string theory is a
dead end anyway

However, I think a better way to look at it is that all of those 10^500
universes probably do exist in parallel. We just happen to be in one of
the ones (the few? who knows--it's a bit hard to enumerate googol^5
universes, to know how many have characteristics hospitable to life) that
have constants appropriate for the formation of life, and therefore we're
here to talk/write about it.

Yep, as will all things StringTheoryEsque it has more interpretations than
it can really deal with. Saying that this "universe" is the only one of the
10^500 possible is not science, it is an unsupported assumption based on a
predetermined belief.

Intelligent design is a dead end as far as science goes because it
defeats the quest for knowledge. Comparing a scientific theory to
creationism (or ID or what ever you want to call it) is a basic fallacy.

One of the ways the Religious Right sells ID/Creationism is by calling it
a "theory". However, it fails to meet several of the fundamental
characteristics of a theory. It fails to make predictions, it is not
falsifiable...or even testable.

I am amazed there can even be debate about ID being science. It shocks me
that people are so willing to allow this to creep into society, undermining
centuries of enlightenment and opening the flood gates for insanity. There
is nothing in ID to say that Christianity is the correct option, the flying
spaghetti monster is equally valid.

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:05:46 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:100aj2tujd38kum9omn0ni4tcbd22cfdbe@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 03:47:19 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message
news:igi8j2tmonmnsklrgqsh5dds73npt22g6m@4ax.com...
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:50:08 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:


American Christian fundamentalists are as dangerous if not more so than
their
Muslim counterparts.

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.)

And you think the Mother Jones crowd doesn't have their own lists? You
seem to imply that there's something wrong with political organizing
among people you don't agree with. Stalin thought that, too.


Yeah, but the fundamental difference is that a religious organization,
which
gets special tax breaks because of the special protected position that
religion holds in the Constitution, is supposed to stay out of the
business
of governing the country. Mother Jones, and the liberal organizations
associated therewith enjoy no such special protection. Any church that
dabbles in politics by telling their congregation how to vote should have
their tax-exempt status revoked.

There are plenty of tax-exempt nonprofits on both sides, or rather all
sides.

The ones I'm objecting to are the religious ones, and they're almost
invariably aligned with the right.

Particularly so when you factor in the charitable dollars involved, by
the way.

Also, I've done a little research on the subject just recently. The
IRS gives 501(c)3 status to churches without their having to even
apply for it. It's an a priori assumption, by dint of just being a
church, at all. Also, churches, unlike other 501(c)3 orgs, do not
have to file Form 990s with the IRS describing their contributions.
There is _no_ requirement for passing along any of that information to
the government by churches.

They _can_ file for 501(c)3. They _can_ file Form 990s. But they
don't have to do any of that. (In other words, they are a great way
to hide activities and launder money, if that is the way you are
bent.)

More, I also did some research on how our own state's ability to
control land use changed after Clinton signed the RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
PROTECTION ACT in 2000. Turns out that churches now enjoy simply
unfettered construction. Our state no longer can require much of any
conformance. It is still permitted to require engineering sense, of
course, in construction plans. But it can no longer control land use
by churches. I assume this is the same circumstance pretty much
elsewhere in the US, now.

The below link is _not_ an anti-religious link by any stretch -- it is
pro, in fact. But:
http://religiousbroadcasting.lib.virginia.edu/pro_orgs.html
"Religious broadcasting in the U.S. now exists on a vastly larger
scale than in any other nation. In fact, it exists on a scale beyond
the recognition of most Americans. Further, religious broadcasting
continues to experience a period of sustained growth."

If you are interested in just how many dollars are involved here, last
time I looked at summaries, there was some 73 billion US dollars in
charitable contributions in 1993 to religious organizations throughout
the US. (This was about 66 billion US dollars in 1990. You can check
some of these numbers for yourself:
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju59929.000/hju59929_0.HTM
.... and there are other sites to check more on this.)

It turns out that much of that money is going into church construction
and other capital projects around the US, not into operational
expenses or "good works." The above link points this up.

Just keep it in mind when you consider what is going on here and the
magnitude of it.

The effects are manifest. You would have to keep your head stuck in
the ground like an ostrich not to see it playing out.

They are prohibited by law from engaging in politics, and
that's reasonably well enforced.

Not in churches, they're not. As a musician in a group that happens to play
for church services a lot, I've been to services of quite a few
denominations...and many of them preach politics from the pulpit, to the
extent of telling their congregation for whom they should vote. That is a
big problem, in my book.

Bingo. Sometimes, I think John really told the truth -- he just does
electronic design and little else. I'm not complaining -- more power
to him. But it also means he may also have his head in the sand, too.
Once in a while, it would do some good to take a look around.

They are not prohibited from doing
good works, even governmant-funded good works.

Agreed, nor should they be.

Yup.

Jon

 

[T Wake]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:qdk8j29a18e3jpjv10oqht1vkhv1ecdv13@4ax.com...

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 23:36:51 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


Intelligent design is a dead end as far as science goes because it defeats
the quest for knowledge. Comparing a scientific theory to creationism (or
ID
or what ever you want to call it) is a basic fallacy. From a logical
position, ID/Creationism can be used to dismantle Monotheistic religions
on
exactly the same principle they try to dismantle (for example)
evolutionary
theory.


Why so?

Why so what? Why is ID dead end science? Or Why Can ID dismantle
Monotheistic faiths?

If some supersmart kid in another spacetime designed this
universe as a science project, wouldn't we still want to figure out
how it works?

Yes, it may well be the case that this has happened. Science does not deal
with things like this. If you want to believe a genius kid in a parallel
dimension created our universe, feel free to do so. Who created the kid? How
can we falsify the existence of the kid? When we get to hard questions (are
quarks fundamental for example) the answer becomes "if the kid wants it that
way."

How can we ever hope to know what, if any, laws the kid is subject to? What
if the kid decides tomorrow to change the fine structure constant by three
orders of magnitude? What stops him?

ID provides _no_ real answers and generally ends up with a "because" or a
simple "it is so."

This is not any form of science I have been taught to recognise.

If the origin of the universe is unknown, and maybe
unknowable, feeling that it was designed on purpose does no harm to
scientific inquiry.

Generally speaking any belief system does no harm to scientific exploration
in that manner. The problem comes in when the belief tries to answer
scientific questions.

Why is the electron fundamental? Because God said so. What makes XYZ happen?
God.

Pretty much a dead end.

Yet despite this many, many, scientists (including Darwin) have held strong
religious beliefs. Forcing ID into the science lab does a disservice to both
science and religion.

It might even lead to insights in basic physics;

I very much doubt it. More the opposite.

Lord knows we need some.

Well, we need insights in advanced physics now. We have the basics pretty
much nailed down.

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 17 Oct 06 11:50:44 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Pushing in certain areas is not the best way to prevent future
messes. I've found that the only way for people to learn how
not make new messes is to have them clean up the ones they
already made.

Excellent. Care to assign cleanup duties in the Middle East and
Africa?

John

 

[T Wake]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:vu58j21f6hb0iqpldbtqpitd9121iugt4q@4ax.com...

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 23:53:43 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Larkin wrote:

On a radio program this morning, the subject being gender roles and
specifically transgender issues, a couple of biologists agreed that
Darwin's description of sex roles was totally wrong.

What *was* Darwin's description ?

Graham

Basicly that males are agressive and demonstrative and that females
are coy and passive, the peacock model. He didn't study enough
species, I guess.

Bit of a generalisation. Darwin's description (IIRC my school lessons) was
more along the lines of the energy expenditure required to mate and bring up
offspring. Darwin's theories covered more than Animal life. He wrote about
sexual reproduction in a variety of species. IIRC the animal mating bits
were about the male having more resources to expend in the courtship phase
as there were less required for child development, birth and upbringing.

That said, the biologists were arguing about an old topic. There are more
relevant, recent, theories about sexual reproduction - always an oddity
because of the resource expenditure required.

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45345ACA.EEEF787A@hotmail.com...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

Any church that
dabbles in politics by telling their congregation how to vote should have
their tax-exempt status revoked.

So what's stopping ppl ?

The church makes sure no one votes for that legislation.

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh2d3d$8ss_002@s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <eh01t4$ape$6@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <egt5d4$8u0_001@s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <LQ8Yg.11488$vJ2.5165@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:egqcsa$8qk_001@s961.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <45306AD8.B490EBFB@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
The rest of the world loathes the USA. They didn't used to.

This is wrong.

Yes, it absolutely *is* wrong for the rest of the world to hate the USA.
We
do a lot of good for the world. We really should stop behaving in such
a
way that makes other countries forget the good that we do.


You've had to work hard to
get to that position.

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.

That's what Hitler thought too.

Of course. The decision to be made then was it the world would
be under a Germanic rule. There were a set of countries who
disagreed and were willing to physically fight to the death
to preserve their living style. The world is having a similar
conflict now. It seems that you are willing to let others
die to preserve your living style.

Interesting turn around. I am willing to die to protect my living style.
This means not changing the way I live. Soldiers killing Arabs while new
laws removing previously held freedoms is _not_ protecting my style of
living.

It seems you are the one supporting sending soldiers to a foreign land to
die, while at the same time willing to dismantle parts of your living style
simply to stay alive.

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:45:03 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
<jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 08:50:18 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:38:17 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:i9n8j29atodlsous5hl3bpuk1avrj0s9a4@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 03:39:16 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Nicely written.

Thanks.

Ever heard of a dinky, crappy little liberal arts college called Kent
State?

I'm not sure how you intend that to be applied, of course, since you
don't say what you are thinking here.

Sorry if that sounded snotty--no hidden agenda, just the obvious example of
troops being ordered into a situation and attacking their own people.

Somehow it never occurred to me to throw rocks at armed National Guard
troops.

And by that comment do you mean to justify the application of deadly
force and the taking of lives in this particular circumstance? Just
curious.

Of course not. But if you do really, really stupid things, you can get
hurt, no different from poking a pit bull with a stick. As I said, I
wouldn't throw rocks at people with guns; I don't fancy being in the
right, and dead.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:56:01 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:0su9j2tbgmi1lk9probji10efek75h3uf1@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:38:17 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:i9n8j29atodlsous5hl3bpuk1avrj0s9a4@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 03:39:16 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Nicely written.

Thanks.

Ever heard of a dinky, crappy little liberal arts college called Kent
State?

I'm not sure how you intend that to be applied, of course, since you
don't say what you are thinking here.

Sorry if that sounded snotty--no hidden agenda, just the obvious example
of
troops being ordered into a situation and attacking their own people.

Somehow it never occurred to me to throw rocks at armed National Guard
troops.

Agreed, but those were pretty extreme times.

I was in college at exactly those times. The vast majority of the
protesters were partying twits.

John

 

[T Wake]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:qri8j2d5v1aqj917e5sm8k3gm7ecakm6sl@4ax.com...

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 23:39:25 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


Sorry, I didn't realise any countries had upped and moved to the US
lately.
You are talking about migrations of population which rarely (in modern
times
at least) has anything to do with a love of the new country.

Also, you are presenting a strawman based on the very unrepresentative
population samples. To make matters worse it largely supports the claim
because the people left behind in those countries will continue to dislike
the US and feed of each other even more.

Excellent. We really only want the good ones.

Yes. It is good. Sadly they are not all the best skilled so it does not
provide the benefits you allude to here.

As I said, the majority of the countries in the world have a low opinion
of
the America an entity.


Sorry, I didn't realize that countries could have opinions; I thought
only people had opinions.

Good point and fair cop. Although the debate was about America as an entity
so there is still some validity in the terminology used. I am not trying to
say "everyone in Azerbaijan hates America" or anything along those lines. It
is simply the case that the "general opinions" as made available by popular
media, news and political debate is that the populations of most countries
have a low opinion of the US as an entity (not of Americans per se) and of
US actions on a global scale.

This is strange as the US does so much good. People can either accept the
low opinion and ask why this skewed perspective exists or dismiss it and
carry on as normal.

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh2iep$8qk_001@s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <eh066g$fqo$2@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <pev4j2pkd0bj3da8vjm44121b4tohhc1l8@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 23:38:27 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
null@example.net> wrote:

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 17:07:30 -0500, John Fields wrote:

snip

It's a unilateral invasion, ordered by one man to satisfy a personal
vendetta, and 650,000 people have died as a result of his criminal
insanity.

---
You got a good source for that 650k? I picked it up blindly from
the Ass, but snapped to it and just a little while ago asked him for
a source. Maybe you've got one?
---

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health as published in the
British
medical journal Lancet.

From the news reports I heard,

Read the report before you critique their methods. News reports very rarely
explain statistical methods properly.

they got this data by going
from house to house asking each member how many of their relatives
and friends were killed. Do you not see the flaw in the sum of
the numbers reported by all these interviewees?

Yes, do you know what statistical analysis takes place to flatten out this
flaw? Are you implyng _all_ market research is pointless? I am sure there
are some major businesses which may disagree.

If this method was used, do you not see how insultingly (to you,
if you believe their report) biased this number is?

This is another astonishing example of abject stupidity: 1.)
for those people who issued the report believing that this
was a good number and 2.) for their readers to
believe this is a good estimate and 3) for the way the
US media reported this.

You need to look into how statistics of any sort are calculated and
manipulated then read through the report procedures to see if you can find
fault. The key issue is this is a peer reviewed article, it is safe to
assume both right and left wing people have gone over the methodology.

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eh2ef2$8qk_001@s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <vc97j2t5u0ugeni9jnqks988b3db7aounl@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 06 09:53:59 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <45322D41.6B0FA0F9@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Its interesting that the other "non wins" you mention are from
almost
200
years ago. We have lost more recent wars as well. We can compare
this
to
Vietnam, I suppose.

Which was a French mess and a continuation of WWII.

It had ZILCH to do with WW2.

Graham

How could *anything* that happened after WWII have zilch to do with
WWII?

So WW2 is responsible for *everything* ????????

Did you think that a political climate that culiminated with
WWII went away when people quit fighting?

It certainly changed. Communism was a lot different in philosophy and
tactics from facism.

Which Communism? From the little I've studied, Russia's seems
to be the same peasant economy without one individual ruler
who inherited the job.

China's (from reading and observation) seems to have been the
only method to restore the country's resources and survival.
China was being run by the Ottoman's equivalent of Janissaries.

The Janissaries were Ottoman. They were the Ottoman empires standing army.
China was run by a bureaucracy under a King.

Pre-Communism China was a successful country. It suffered at the hands of
the UK, US and then the Japanese to such an extent communism got a massive
foothold.

This seems to be a key to the cessation of a political and
economic empire.

I don't know. I'm still trying to figure all of this out.

/BAH