dorbie 0 #26 July 11, 2007 Quote>I already know you agree with the resident troll's partisan position . . . Of course! It's not that internet arguments are pointless, it's that I am biased and unfair; that's the real issue here. Good luck in changing the future of nuclear proliferation with your next few posts. never said I would, you're the joker who lamely fell back on calling a forum you moderate a joke to defend a troll when I asked him to take his incessant partisan troll to another thread. There's only so many times you can appreciate the same post made a thousand times regardless of the topic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,145 #27 July 11, 2007 Quote Quote >I already know you agree with the resident troll's partisan position . . . Of course! It's not that internet arguments are pointless, it's that I am biased and unfair; that's the real issue here. Good luck in changing the future of nuclear proliferation with your next few posts. never said I would, you're the joker who lamely fell back on calling a forum you moderate a joke to defend a troll when I asked him to take his incessant partisan troll to another thread. There's only so many times you can appreciate the same post made a thousand times regardless of the topic. For a person who claims not to like trolls, you sure do a wonderful job of feeding them.A pretty good case can be made that your OP was just a troll.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #28 July 11, 2007 Nonsense, my OP raised a serious issue as the UN calls a speed up a slow down. And when I called you on your trolling the moderator rushed to support you by attacking the forum he camps in moderating. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #29 July 11, 2007 Are you opposed to nuclear proliferation? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #30 July 11, 2007 I don't get the POT reference." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #31 July 11, 2007 Well, if a US department requests a 20% budget increase, and they are instead approved a 15% budget increase (over last year)..... Politicians will call it a funding "cut" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #32 July 11, 2007 You wont get that answer. Let the non sequitur games continue... "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #33 July 11, 2007 QuoteA pretty good case can be made that your OP was just a troll. Oh really? Let's hear it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,145 #34 July 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteA pretty good case can be made that your OP was just a troll. Oh really? Let's hear it. The OP was bait thrown out to start an argument. Like just about every original post in Speakers Corner, including "I want my jet".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,145 #35 July 11, 2007 QuoteI don't get the POT reference. www.cartoonstock.com/directory/p/pot_calling_the_kettle_black.asp... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,145 #36 July 11, 2007 QuoteAre you opposed to nuclear proliferation? That horse has already left the stable. I am against the attitude that "it's OK for my side to have nukes, but not for people I don't like". I'd call that gross hypocrisy. The USA has a FAR FAR worse record of aggression against other nations than does Iran.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #37 July 11, 2007 Quote Quote Quote A pretty good case can be made that your OP was just a troll. Oh really? Let's hear it. The OP was bait thrown out to start an argument. Like just about every original post in Speakers Corner, including "I want my jet". That's just stupid.Do really think all thread titles (intended to stimulate discussion) are nothing more than troll bait? What really floors me about some people is, on the one hand, they will fill in some pretty big gaps (we're talking chasms) to reach some pretty inane conclusions (that support their particular worldview), and then turn around and try to discount the most reasonable of arguments (that don't support that worldview). It's as if they are so caught up in defending the own ideology, that they're incapable of having an honest discussion. Some might even use the word "pathological" to describe such behavior. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #38 July 11, 2007 Quote Quote Are you opposed to nuclear proliferation? That horse has already left the stable. I am against the attitude that "it's OK for my side to have nukes, but not for people I don't like". I'd call that gross hypocrisy. The USA has a FAR FAR worse record of aggression against other nations than does Iran. Nice dodge. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #39 July 11, 2007 Quote I am against the attitude that "it's OK for my side to have nukes, but not for people I don't like". I'd call that gross hypocrisy. The USA has a FAR FAR worse record of aggression against other nations than does Iran. Yet you're content to keep the money you earn in excess of your living needs and spend it on frivilous matters like planes and rockets. Shouldn't you be giving it to the less fortunate? The larger the nuclear family, the less power the US has. On that subject, when's the last time the US said a nation didn't deserve to exist? Not a government, a nation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #40 July 11, 2007 Maybe he should go live there, and see how much his thinking will lete him thrive in there. "According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,145 #41 July 11, 2007 QuoteQuote I am against the attitude that "it's OK for my side to have nukes, but not for people I don't like". I'd call that gross hypocrisy. The USA has a FAR FAR worse record of aggression against other nations than does Iran. Yet you're content to keep the money you earn in excess of your living needs and spend it on frivilous matters like planes and rockets. Shouldn't you be giving it to the less fortunate? Try as I might, I can't fathom what that has to do with nukes.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #42 July 12, 2007 Quote Try as I might, I can't fathom what that has to do with nukes. POT! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 609 #43 July 12, 2007 QuoteThe larger the nuclear family, the less power the US has. Not everyone thinks that is a bad thing. Much of the world sees the US as abusing its power and diluting it would probably be beneficial. I sit somewhere in the middle here. I don't trust US politicians and I don't trust Iranians. I feel that the US has more potential to "harm" and probably more will to do so in the interests of protecting it status as world super-power. I would not like to see Iran have nukes - but I do have a problem with the US screaming about nuclear proliferation when they have the largest arsenel. What is wrong with other moderate countries having nukes (most of the EU, Australia and New Zealand for example) - they are all so called friendly democracies?Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #44 July 12, 2007 Time to pinch your nose and get over this silly notion of hypocrisy. This is nuclear geopolitics, not a dispute between siblings over candy. The outcome is likely to be a nuke equipped Iran. As for the rest, several EU nations have nukes (including some delivery systems sold by the USA) the rest wouldn't take them if you offered, and that goes for Australia and NZ, they even object to visiting US warships that might have them on board, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #45 July 12, 2007 Quote I would not like to see Iran have nukes - but I do have a problem with the US screaming about nuclear proliferation when they have the largest arsenel. What is wrong with other moderate countries having nukes (most of the EU, Australia and New Zealand for example) - they are all so called friendly democracies? Most of the EU does have nukes, or enjoyed the nuclear umbrella of the US/UK/France to avoid having to bother with them. I do wonder how members of the EU would react, both publicly and privately, if Germany decided to pursue development. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #46 July 12, 2007 Non sequiturs, ad hominems...I have a complex question: If use of the latter increases, will the rate of the former be slowed down?Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #47 July 12, 2007 QuoteI do wonder how members of the EU would react, both publicly and privately, if Germany decided to pursue development. France and Belgium would be nervous. More so. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,145 #48 July 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteI do wonder how members of the EU would react, both publicly and privately, if Germany decided to pursue development. France and Belgium would be nervous. More so. Germany has a pretty bad record of aggression in the last century. Iran does not.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #49 July 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteI do wonder how members of the EU would react, both publicly and privately, if Germany decided to pursue development. France and Belgium would be nervous. More so. Germany has a pretty bad record of aggression in the last century. Iran does not. Are you saying that Iran is planning to invade France and Belgium? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,145 #50 July 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI do wonder how members of the EU would react, both publicly and privately, if Germany decided to pursue development. France and Belgium would be nervous. More so. Germany has a pretty bad record of aggression in the last century. Iran does not. Are you saying that Iran is planning to invade France and Belgium? I didn't mention France or Belgium at all. Iran does NOT have a record of aggression against its neighbors. In fact based on history (as opposed to rhetoric), Iran seems to be the least aggressive of all the nuclear and potentially nuclear powers. Let's not forget that the US engineered the overthrow of the elected Iranian government in 1953. We are hardly in a position of having the moral high ground here.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
