Coreece 190 #51 April 7, 2009 QuoteWow. There's nothing like quoting my words completely out of context in order to change the meaning from what I actually said. Nope...didn't change the meaning. You are cleary kissing Al Qaeda's ass no matter how you look at it. QuoteIt just indicates that you are not looking at the event objectively. Your looking at it emotionally. One need not agree with someone's actions to recognize excellent planning and execution. Enemies are not defeated by pretending they are weak, incompetent cowards. I never said they were weak or incompetent...just cowards. This was not war strategy...it was a cheap shot and there is nothing noble or brilliant about it.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n23x 0 #52 April 7, 2009 Perhaps you need to look up the word coward. .jim"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #53 April 7, 2009 Quote At the requested of the NIC and the ODNI/NCPC, the assembled group voted on the three most likely/plausible proliferant countries for 2016, i.e., who would make the decision to pursue nuclear weapons: Candidates/votes Taiwan 3 Ukraine 5 Kazakhstan 1 I'm trying to imagine the scenario in which Taiwan pursues a weapons program. Given the hysterics that China goes into every time someone in Taiwan even suggests that they're a separate nation, it seems like the only way Taipei could have nukes is if they sprouted up overnight - a more discreet Cuba, if you will. Failing that, they would need the backing of someone acting just like the Soviets did, trying to project force onto an island just off the opposing country's border. Seems highly unstable, and unlikely to succeed. Similar thoughts wrt to the former soviet republics trying to put their own program in. Russia has shown itself to be a bit feisty of late with its neighbors. I don't think they'd tolerate another nuclear power in their midst and so long as oil pricing can support their military (more 2008 than 2009, so far), they'll act on this desire. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,085 #54 April 7, 2009 >Nobody questions the stones of the military to kick ass. The question is >'will they be sent.' The stones in question belong to the civilians in charge. Yep. And I'd much rather have civilians in charge with brains rather than big stones. Stones get people killed. Brains let you win in the long run. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #55 April 7, 2009 Quote Quote At the requested of the NIC and the ODNI/NCPC, the assembled group voted on the three most likely/plausible proliferant countries for 2016, i.e., who would make the decision to pursue nuclear weapons: Candidates/votes Taiwan 3 Ukraine 5 Kazakhstan 1 I'm trying to imagine the scenario in which Taiwan pursues a weapons program. Taiwan had a nuclear weapons program in the 1970s - used the same model of reactor, supplied by Canada , to generate Pu that India used ... and that eventually provided India with the fissile material for the 1974 "Smiling Buddha" test. They were strongly suspected (my hedge is they did) of having a covert uranium enrichment program as well. I can imagine quite a few scenarios although I would not judge any of them more than 10% probable. The highest probability to push ROC to break the IAEA seals on their Pu would involve use of a nuclear device by *any* state (including some of the "stone throwing" scenarios being proposed here) in East or Northeast Asia. Remember Ali Bhutto's "eat grass" apothegm? Parts of the Egyptian government (Muslim Brotherhood reps) have already mimiced/co-opted that (post-2006), and Egypt got 0 votes as well at that NIC/NCPC mtg. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #56 April 7, 2009 Quote Perhaps you need to look up the word coward. (figures)Yep....still cowards. I'm suprised you can't see that.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n23x 0 #57 April 7, 2009 I'm in no way condoning their actions. I don't think killing innocent civilians is in any way something to be proud of or support. Some random definition of coward that I pulled off teh intarwebs: Quotea person who shows fear or timidity Politely, you seem to be making the assumption that the only antonym of coward is hero, that is to say, if they're not a coward, they must be a hero. But perhaps they're just the agressor (which they were). You're emotionally hurt about it, that's fine. But recognize what you're saying, and realize that it makes you sound stupid. .jim"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #58 April 7, 2009 if you can't see how intentionally killing innocent people is cowardly...then I pitty you.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #59 April 7, 2009 Quote if you can't see how intentionally killing innocent people is cowardly...then I pitty you. If you can't explain it, then you can't see it either. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #60 April 7, 2009 Quoteif you can't see how intentionally killing innocent people is cowardly...then I pitty you. Does this mean accidentally killing innocent people is courageous? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,085 #61 April 7, 2009 >if you can't see how intentionally killing innocent people is cowardly . . . The trolley problem rears its head again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #62 April 7, 2009 QuotePerhaps you need to look up the word coward. .jim Facebook? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n23x 0 #63 April 7, 2009 ?"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #64 April 8, 2009 Quote>Nobody questions the stones of the military to kick ass. The question is >'will they be sent.' The stones in question belong to the civilians in charge. Yep. And I'd much rather have civilians in charge with brains rather than big stones. Stones get people killed. Brains let you win in the long run. A combination of the two is required. Brains (ie. diplomacy, as you mean it) should be first and foremost. If that fails then the CinC needs to be able to pull the trigger rather than whine, appease, or run to the UN. The question is what will happen should that situation arise. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,085 #65 April 8, 2009 > Brains (ie. diplomacy, as you mean it) should be first and foremost. >If that fails then the CinC needs to be able to pull the trigger rather than >whine, appease, or run to the UN. Precisely. We need someone who can think first and fight later, if it comes to that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #66 April 8, 2009 Quote Quote Care to expand on why you think we don't have the "stones" for it? I heard similar things from other naysayers about America after 9/11. That our troops didn't have the guts to take on Al Quaeda & their allies in Afghanistan. As it turned out, they kicked ass & killed Muhammed Atef & captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed & broke up the Al Quaeda training camps. Perhaps they would have finished the job if most of the troops hadn't gotten pulled away into another, optional war, allowing the Taliban & Al Quaeda to regroup. Rumsfeld pulled them out because there weren't enough "high value targets" in Afghanistan. In other words, the Neo-Cons were more worried about image than substance. America clearly has the "stones", as long as they aren't diverted by a cynical bunch of neo-con imperialists who are happy to ignore America's real enemies & drag us through the mud in order to further their own political gains. Nobody questions the stones of the military to kick ass. The question is 'will they be sent.' The stones in question belong to the civilians in charge. I don't think the current administration or Congress has it. . oh, the Obama administration, that wants to step up the resistance against the fuckers who ACTUALLY ATTACKED US??? rather than traipse off into a country that wasn't involved??? Yeah. Obama doesn't have the stones to go after our enemies. That's why he wants to go after Al Quaeda & Osama bin Laden & Ayman al Zawahri in Afghanistan, rather than attack, oh, I don't know. ....Uraguay. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #67 April 8, 2009 QuoteI'm trying to imagine the scenario in which Taiwan pursues a weapons program Won't happen, as the the US won't let it happen. Neither will the US encourage Japan to do so, as the minute Japan would start getting serious about it, China would have every bit of weaponry pointing East. The Chinese trust the Japanese military about as much as the French trusted the Germans after WWI. The 1930's and 1940's have left a very bitter taste which few outside of China can understand... As far as the DPRK is concerned, I believe this is pure political leverage. The more it threatens to bite, the more it can get out of negotiations with other countries... Much like China's relationship with the DPRK is motivated by geopolitical leverage (they have NO political affinities whatsoever, not even close). And by the desire, much like South Korea, not to see millions of piss poor refugees flood across the border if/when the current regime collapses... "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #68 April 10, 2009 QuoteNope...didn't change the meaning. You are cleary kissing Al Qaeda's ass no matter how you look at it. Objective evaluation is not the same as kissing ass.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nelyubin 0 #69 April 14, 2009 QuoteRussia has shown itself to be a bit feisty of late with its neighbors. Yes, we do not love when kill our citizens, on our borders. But in difference from America we do not spoil on all planet. The weapon of mass destruction in Iraq have already found? Ben Ladena in Afghanistan have caught? Only the idiot will search for a black cat in a dark room when it there is not present. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #70 April 14, 2009 Quote Only the idiot will search for a black cat in a dark room when it there is not present. This should be a fortune cookie, written as is. Nice revision of history, Nelyubin. The Soviets raped the earth left and right, and the Russians aren't much better, esp when the price of oil is high. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nelyubin 0 #71 April 15, 2009 QuoteNice revision of history, Nelyubin. The Soviets raped the earth left and right, and the Russians aren't much better, The general phrases. If will not complicate, a concrete example please. Quoteesp when the price of oil is high 1) Russia does not trade in oil of marks Brent and Light Sweet only Urals and Siberian Light. Look a rise in prices at these grades of oil. 2) the Principal cause of the high prices - a political tension in the world which was created by the United States. If to look at the schedule of the oil prices, all has begun that the USA suited disorders in Venezuela... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #72 April 15, 2009 Quote 2) the Principal cause of the high prices - a political tension in the world which was created by the United States. No, the high prices came from demand. The prices coupled with the growing recession finally got lower use in the US, as well as the world. Speculation no doubt contributed. Political tension was not a significant piece of that - tensions are no lower now than they were a year ago. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nelyubin 0 #73 April 15, 2009 The fact, what after events in Venezuela, oil has not been taken and not delivered in the USA (in a stream of four months) on the price of oil has not affected? Operation of the USA " a storm in desert " has not affected? Look please the schedule. Obvious conclusions to make simply. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #74 April 15, 2009 I don't mean to insult in saying this, but I just don't understand what you're saying, so hard to answer. You clearly have some nationalistic zeal. A year ago, Russia was aggressively pushing around others. Now, with the price of oil down and it representing more than half your country's exports, it's much quieter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nelyubin 0 #75 April 15, 2009 QuoteA year ago, Russia was aggressively pushing around others. Now, with the price of oil down and it representing more than half your country's exports, it's much quieter. 1) Please, specify a concrete example. 2) The basis of export of your country is made with production of an agriculture. It does not give me the basis to name your country Banana Republic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
