Lucky...

So no comment on the RATIONAL ACTOR MODEL processes I posted? I guess avoidance is the soup dejour? RAM has zero relevance with non-governmental organizations. And RAM infers rational processes in the part of leaders of nations; do we have that here? RAM was an errant theory to post, it's as reliable as deterrence theory. All AQ fears is not being able to attack others, they blow themselves up for their cause, they fear nothing. They live to die in Jihad. That's like saying a Japanese Zero pilot, camikazee is affraid to die. You are once again failing to realize what they fear, think about it. They fear not being able to die for Alah in Jihad, the highest honor that can realized by these insurgents. If you want to play tug the sausage, enjoy, but if you have a point to make I'd appreciate that.

It has worked and still works. If you can change enemy behavior in warfare, you can guarantee deterrence measures. We have changed ways they have done business considerably. AQ has not had much sucess lately have they? Not to mention the 4k+ bave us soldiers; I call that success for them. Deterrence is an argument to spend more money. Call me psycho, but I would use a trillion dollars and 4K brave us soldiers to save the lives of thousands . I wouldn't dream of risking lives of thousands of civilians to save a tril and 4 thousand personnel who said they would risk all. People are more important than some few years of discomfort. OK, so the argument: DOES THE US CREATE DETERRENCE BY WAY OF SPENDING MASSIVE AMOUNTS ON THE MILITARY? I still say no, if it costs 4300 troops, 1300+ civilian contractors and $1 trillion ON TOP OF DECADES OF MASSIVE MILITARY SPENDING, and the insurgents are as strong and motivated as they ever have been, then I say deterrence is a joke of a theory. See, in science you conduct an experiment and make observations, the observations I've seen illustrate that these organizations are not deterred by the massive military spending the US does.

OK, and that still doesn't address that posters have claimed that building a massive military creates deterrence. W/o circumventing about how Europe needs to build their own, etc, how is it that deterrence can be created when dealing with rogue nations? How can we assume deterrence is working when after 8 years the resistance is still large, terrorist cells are still popping up? You took a fragment of a sentence. This assertion of yours: Since the attacks, the priority of the pot changed and slowed and nearly halted their the rest of their attacks. So you call IEDs and 4000+ dead American heroes, $1 trillion and you call it that deterrence has been exacted? The resistance is still there fighting, cells are popping up and these insurgent groups are not letting up; where's the deterrence? And you look at US military and contractor deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan not as attacks against the US? Bizzare. I guess Japan's attack on Pearl HArbor wasn't an attack on the US either just because it didn't happen on US soil.

So no comment on the RATIONAL ACTOR MODEL processes I posted? I guess avoidance is the soup dejour? RAM has zero relevance with non-governmental organizations. And RAM infers rational processes in the part of leaders of nations; do we have that here? RAM was an errant theory to post, it's as reliable as deterrence theory. All AQ fears is not being able to attack others, they blow themselves up for their cause, they fear nothing. They live to die in Jihad. That's like saying a Japanese Zero pilot, camikazee is affraid to die.

It was a bad string of occurrences that led to his demise. You make assumptions he could still afford the 400/mo, nothing states that. As long as you understand why liberals / moderates refer to conservatives as incompassionate. Again, you assume he had welth, his business had slipped it stated. He s/b punnished. You make that assumption. No, compassionate healthcare won't cost you, there is no relationship; please illustrate one. That won't accept pre-existing conditions. I know, what a humane thing to do, give the guy HC....ya know, you're right, some people just want to lavish in luxury.

You miss the point, he can't go to a doctor for regular checkups, he has to wait until he's sick and then they pursue you for it. AGAIN, CONSERVATIVES, HOW YOU MAKE A LIBERAL IS YOU TAKE A CONSERVATIVE AND PUT HIM/HER IN A PLACE OF NEED, THEN YOU HAVE A LIBERAL.

Of course it would have to quadruple to make up for lost income, property and other taxes, which would dissuade purchasing.

Hey, this isn't a Libertarian thread

The gov is the savior, corporations fuck the country, the gov bails them out. The gov ran the wars, legitimate and illegitimate, they bailout corps when they go corrupt. The gov is not the problem here.

As I stated, I look at your data as meaningless for the rare occassions that you post data as you don't cite your source. If you had just looked it up you could post it via looking thru your history. Let's face it, the data is incorrect. I posted mine, a very objective source, you claimed an objecctive source and failed to cite that source. I would love to see your cite, otherwise I dismiss it as factually irrelevant and unfounded.

Of course that's true, I'm just addressing the notion that as gov outlays fall, taxes have risen over the last 28+ years. So the perception by rich people that if everyone was self-sufficient that taxes would fall, which I agree they share, is likely false in application as history hasn't shown that. I agree and that's my point; taxes and gov spending, personal welath, etc have no correlation or if they do they seem to be inverse, which is irrational but true.

http://www.geocities.com/eric731/The_Eric_Papers/rational.htm RATIONAL ACTOR MODEL - “Each assumes that what must be explained is an action, i.e., behavior that reflects purpose or intention. - Each assumes that the actor is a national government - Each assumes that the action is chosen as a calculated solution to a strategic problem. - For each, explanation consists of showing what goal the government was pursuing when it acted and how the action was a reasonable choice given the nation’s objective.” - These assumptions help key in on the foundation of the RAM, which is that the actors are rational. - This model only looks at the individual in charge of the country as the basis of development. - The leader can then be examined for the decisions he makes assuming that he makes rational decisions. ________________________________________________ So do you still assert the RAM for AQ and many ME countries? If you do then you must accept the notion that: - AQ is a nation - ME countries, all of them, as well as any and all nations that might be adverse to the US, are rational - Actors within the nation don't act alone; RAm only looks at leaders So you failed there, love to hear your response to this.

http://instantrimshot.com/ Must you always coattail?

Behavioral pattern changes. Captured explosives, project boxes, arrests ect. Successful attacks vs. failed attack ratio changes. Changes in message traffics. Areas considered dangerous getting downgraded. Overall activity ect. ect. If you claim these findings of explosive devices, etc, you then certainly discount the idea of deterrence. I mean, if deterrence worked then there would be no illegal acts, right?

What is RW? I don't know what that acronym means in context of deterrence theory ... do you mean relative work as an analogy? If so, I don't understand the analogy. /Marg right wing. Right wingers live on this deterrence theory. It might seem logical that it works, but we're talking about maniacal people with issues when we look at DP deterrence. And we're talking about this deterrence theory working against rogue associations as in the in the ME, peopel who do not care about consequence. Youhave to be dealing with peopel that care about consequence before deterrence can even start to become a factor, yet RWers will swear by it. Thanks for the clarification ... altho' oh my ... as a proponent of deterrence theory, by that explanation I'm a right winger. 'Old-school' deterrence theory (DT) in international relations (IR) -- as opposed to criminal justice -- did work on the rational actor model, i.e., the aggressor state is expected to behave rationally and consider consequence. There are folks who still argue that, e.g., Martha Crenshaw/Stanford (& she's not affiliated with Hoover Inst either). Much of more recent DT recognizes strategic culture (e.g., the work of Jack Snyder/RAND & Jeannie Johnson/Utah), norms (Richard price/Univ British Columbia), and a whole lot of other stuff. /Marg Terrific, so you're saying the deterrence model is going to work on Al Qaeda? I wrote: And we're talking about this deterrence theory working against rogue associations as in the in the ME, peopel who do not care about consequence. So again, you declare it does work? The results just don't pan out. Let's examine the Rational Actor Model: Rational actor model The rational actor model is based on rational choice theory. The model adopts the state as the primary unit of analysis, and inter-state relations (or international relations) as the context for analysis. The state is seen as a monolithic unitary actor, capable of making rational decisions based on preference ranking and value maximisation. According to the rational actor model, a rational decision making process is used by a state. This process includes: Goal setting and ranking. Consideration of options. Assessment of consequences. Value-maximisation. The rational actor model has been subject to criticism. The model tends to neglect a range of political variables, of which Michael Clarke includes: "political decisions, non-political decisions, bureaucratic procedures, continuations of previous policy, and sheer accident." Yea, so Al Quadea falls into this how? We're all real impressed with your 'name dropping' and are completely impressed, but it just doesn't work in this case. Hell, many ME countries you cannot apply this to, rogue groups as I mentioned you definatelt cannot. It is not Margs fault you cannot understand what she just posted or that you cannot even find a fault in it. So your attempt to distract by going off on some tangent will not work. Just admit she is far smarter than you are and say yes ma'am. Then don't do it again. Remember it is not name dropping to cite someone else's work in order that you are not accused of being a thief of ideas. Do you even understand what plagiarism is? And it's not my fault you cannot understand that deterrence doesn't apply to AQ, the very organization that perpetuated 911. That is what we're talking about, right? Rogue countries and organizations being affraid of us via massive military spending. So you're saying AQ falls under this: According to the rational actor model, a rational decision making process is used by a state. AQ is a state? OK, I wonder who really doesn't understand? And I don't but the Rational Actor Model anyway, it's a utopian standard that has been deeply criticized, esp when dealing with 3rd world countries; it assumes everyone ponders consequence. If AQ is a state I have tangented, if noit you have. Just admit that you are cheerleading and far over your head. She can cite it, the problem is that it doesn't apply; AQ is not a state JUST FOR STARTERS, not to mention all the criticisms of the so-called Rational Actor Model.

It has worked and still works. If you can change enemy behavior in warfare, you can guarantee deterrence measures. We have changed ways they have done business considerably. AQ has not had much sucess lately have they? Not to mention the 4k+ bave us soldiers; I call that success for them. Deterrence is an argument to spend more money.

Wait, let's back up. You or someone here that you agree with claimed that building a massive military will create deterrence. I allege it won't and that some rogue countries and rogue militant groups will not be swayed by this massive military. THAT'S THE ISSUE HERE. The evidence shows that I'm right here, can you claim that there are no ME countries that ignore our massive military? Are there rogue groups that ignore our massive military? It might work, but it isn't guaranteed to work, that was my point. And it usually won't work in every instance, sometimes it rarely works. So we were talking deterrence from the stance before war breaks out, as with terrorists, they will bomb thigs in total defiance of this ridiculous deterrence theory. I dunno, don't you consider IED's a bit of disobedience? I do. Yes, AQ has had success, just not here. Furthermore, us spending 1 trillion in 8 years is success.

What is RW? I don't know what that acronym means in context of deterrence theory ... do you mean relative work as an analogy? If so, I don't understand the analogy. /Marg right wing. Right wingers live on this deterrence theory. It might seem logical that it works, but we're talking about maniacal people with issues when we look at DP deterrence. And we're talking about this deterrence theory working against rogue associations as in the in the ME, peopel who do not care about consequence. Youhave to be dealing with peopel that care about consequence before deterrence can even start to become a factor, yet RWers will swear by it. Thanks for the clarification ... altho' oh my ... as a proponent of deterrence theory, by that explanation I'm a right winger. 'Old-school' deterrence theory (DT) in international relations (IR) -- as opposed to criminal justice -- did work on the rational actor model, i.e., the aggressor state is expected to behave rationally and consider consequence. There are folks who still argue that, e.g., Martha Crenshaw/Stanford (& she's not affiliated with Hoover Inst either). Much of more recent DT recognizes strategic culture (e.g., the work of Jack Snyder/RAND & Jeannie Johnson/Utah), norms (Richard price/Univ British Columbia), and a whole lot of other stuff. /Marg Terrific, so you're saying the deterrence model is going to work on Al Qaeda? I wrote: And we're talking about this deterrence theory working against rogue associations as in the in the ME, peopel who do not care about consequence. So again, you declare it does work? The results just don't pan out. Let's examine the Rational Actor Model: Rational actor model The rational actor model is based on rational choice theory. The model adopts the state as the primary unit of analysis, and inter-state relations (or international relations) as the context for analysis. The state is seen as a monolithic unitary actor, capable of making rational decisions based on preference ranking and value maximisation. According to the rational actor model, a rational decision making process is used by a state. This process includes: Goal setting and ranking. Consideration of options. Assessment of consequences. Value-maximisation. The rational actor model has been subject to criticism. The model tends to neglect a range of political variables, of which Michael Clarke includes: "political decisions, non-political decisions, bureaucratic procedures, continuations of previous policy, and sheer accident." Yea, so Al Quadea falls into this how? We're all real impressed with your 'name dropping' and are completely impressed, but it just doesn't work in this case. Hell, many ME countries you cannot apply this to, rogue groups as I mentioned you definatelt cannot.

What is RW? I don't know what that acronym means in context of deterrence theory ... do you mean relative work as an analogy? If so, I don't understand the analogy. /Marg right wing. Right wingers live on this deterrence theory. It might seem logical that it works, but we're talking about maniacal people with issues when we look at DP deterrence. And we're talking about this deterrence theory working against rogue associations as in the in the ME, peopel who do not care about consequence. Youhave to be dealing with peopel that care about consequence before deterrence can even start to become a factor, yet RWers will swear by it.

Did Clinton? Look at what he did with the economy. Did Reagan? He was a war coward ala GWB, Reagan had an eye problem with his physical; he couldn't see fighting so he persuaded his way to a military base in LA to make training movies. The only pres in a while to have military protocol is GHWB, maybe Carter. Just because he took over the hosue of our last dictator doesn't mean he felt comfotable around him. More baseless rhetoric? Yea, look at the last 2 elections. Outcry? Laughing at something isn't outcry. Not sure if I laugh more at Limbaugh being a racist against McNabb, making fun of MJ Fox's Parkinson's or the druggy denouncing druggies. You live in a bubble if you think anyone notices him but his cult called "Dittos." Limbaugh has done a masterful job of leading those who don't weigh things out. And when liberals have talk radio/tv shows they bring in contrary views, the GOPers won't do that. Who's trying to shut down the Limbaughs? Geez, you guys are really deluded by your own paranoia.

If class disparity were shrinking I would agree, but since it's rapidly growing I disagree. Show me your data. So let's see your citation. What part of "IRS stats" threw you off? It's on their website. All I know is the part that requires you to do research. If you looked at the numbers off their website, why not post the link? I posted 2 links, I guess we're back to: You won't mind if I dismiss your opinions as irrelevant. If you don't postteh link, we'll know you made these numbers up. My data was of a University's data.

Deterrence gives people a reason not to attack. That costs money. Lots of countrys have been attacked without provoking anyone. Oh, deterrence theory. It doesn't work in the states in regard to murder and teh death penalty and it doesn't work with countries as in the ME. Deterrence is the RW baby, they can justify executing the occcassional innocent person in the justice system and they can justify spending the country's gold due to it. As we can see, deterrence has worked well: 911, 93 WTC bombing, Beirut barracks, USS Cole, etc, etc, etc... try again.

Go ask the city fathers of Carthage how that worked out for them. Are you talking this? http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm Nope, sure wasn't - nice assumption that because I don't agree with you that I'm some sort of bible thumper. Fits nicely with all the OTHER false assumptions you've made in this thread, though. "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it" - Santayana. Did you miss the Romans? And how about the doom that lurks with the debt? Iraq / Afghanistan Wars = 1 trillion. Viet Nam costs, Korea, etc. Not to mention spending 8 times that of #2, what about the mess that that has created? Even at spending inordinate amounts of money, we still got attacked and no we've broke ourselves because of it. We've over-militarized and ruined our country because of it, so will other nations learn from that? I bet so.

this is true. even thatcher didn't have the balls to mess around with or sell off any bits of our nhs (after all we'd fought a world war to get it) Is that so? Didn't know that. The Whig Party died out as the Republicans gave the people what they wanted and the Dems hung around, barely. Republicans were elected as president for 44 of the next 52 years, then they corrupted. WHat a send-off if it's true, GWB being the last Repub president! Kinda brings all together. We had the Repub senator defect a few months ago, saying this wasn't the same party he joined decades ago. They need to check themselves.

Go ask the city fathers of Carthage how that worked out for them. Are you talking this? http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm There's a good reference for all occassions, 1600 years old.