bombus

In my opinion Iran is responsible for its current position. Not the West. I agree that "meddling" has taken place, but you keep making excuses for everyone except the US. Isn't that a rather obvious violation of Occam's Razor, if nothing else? Not to mention a common far left tactic.

Let's be honest here, how much do you REALLY know about the history of Iran? The UK and US meddled with Iran throughout the 20th Century and the stance they now have is due entirely to our two countries hostile approach. We have been utter bastards to them.

Well at least you included the world "usually". But boy does this say a lot about your predisposition to prejudge any and all US actions on any issue.

It's not really just the US, it's all the 'Western' countries. But the US is the most powerful and influential so gets most of the flack. The UK is the strongest ally of the US (we are virtually one country in my opinion) and we are often equally guilty.

This seems like a good time to point out one of my favorite positions: That if you are a partisan, your vote doesn't count. All it does is offset a partisan from the other side. If your mind is closed, what's the point in either (a) voting, or (b) debating? Aren't you just setting yourself up to fail 50% of the time?

My mind is very very open. I used to think the world was like I was taught when I was young - the West were the good guys, the Ruskies were the bad guys, capitalism was good, communism bad, Africa is poor because it is, and the west is rich because it deserves to be etc etc etc., but education and experience have shown me that it's really not that simple at all, and in fact we are often the bad guys, and much of our problems are self made, and we inflict problems on the rest of the world.

Seriously, read stuff by a fellow American Susan George (as a start). It's a real eye opener and a mind opener!

But why is it that whenever the US starts something, it justifies another country's retaliatory action, but whenever THEY start something, we're supposed to just sit back and take it?[/

I don't think that's really the case, but I think the reason that it seems like that is because most of our 'problems' that we have with other countries is usually a result of Western interference in the first place - Iran being a most excellent example.

The thing is, weaker countries don't pick fights for the hell of it. There's usually a good reason behind their stance.

Well sure the collapse was a sequential event that occurred after the plane crash, but the buildings did not collapse directly because of the plane impacts.

 

They collapsed directly because of the inferno that resulted that weakened the steel structure.

 

And the point being just because someone designs something with a specific intent doesn't mean the desired result is the outcome. After all I don't recall any tests where the engineers crashed 707s into a test WTC to verify their design, do you?

I can't believe that the designers made a building that would survive a plane impact, but NOT the subsequent fire. Also, I thought it was well known that all the fuel was consumed in the fireball immediately after impact. It wouldn't have hung around burning like paraffin.

Well said. It doesn't really matter if their missile defense system is a joke as long as the defense contractors and certain individuals in government would get billions for it.

Exactly!!

Yeah, you're right. Why build tanks? It's easily thwarted with bigger ammo. Why build planes? They're easily thwarted with a handful of idiots with box knives.

 

Just because it can be thwarted - today anyway - doesn't mean you just give up. Isn't that a little childish?

 

What is it about american technology, R&D, that would suggest to anyone on the face of this earth that we can't master missile defense?

Anti tank weapons were produced to counter tanks, just like plate mail was produced to counter maces, and maces to counter chain mail etc.

The difference here is that we are inventing the counter measure BEFORE the weapon! Thusly the enemy doesn't bother making (or deploying) the weapon in such a way that it can be countered by the defence system. I.e., If you can't lob a missile at them 'cos they have a missile defence shield, deploy your nuke in some other way...

However, I don't actually think any of these countries are a threat unless we try to mess them about. Mmmm, having said that I suppose they WILL be a threat because it's obvious we DO intend to mess them about!!

It's almost like we're speaking backwards. (grin) But I'm guessing you just overlooked my point there, so I'll reiterate it in the hopes that you'll catch it and respond.

Obviously Soviet nukes threatened the west once built, but my point was that the whole Russian threat was STARTED by the West so that the arms manufacturers could make loadsa money. Once the USA had lots of nukes Russia felt so under threat it made lots of nukes too, and so began the arms race...

There is no mystery to how the Pyramids were built! This is a myth. Go to Egypt and ask a guide!

In Bjorn Lomborg's book : "The Skeptical Environmentalist", he makes the statement that loss of natural habitat is a minor cause of extinctions. Two examples are given of places where massive natural habitat loss occurred with very little in the ways of extinction of species.

1. Puerto Rico.

2. Atlantic coast of Brazil.

 

Yet in environmentalist literature, habitat loss is almost invariably described as a major cause of extinctions.

 

Does anyone have any unambiguous examples of cases where habitat loss has caused substantial extinctions? Please try to use examples where other causes are unlikely.

Bjorn Lomborg is either very stupid, or he has been misinterpreted. Habitat loss is the most major threat to species, apart from maybe introduced species. Perhaps he means total extinctions from Earth as opposed to local extinctions? But many a mickle makes a muckle, and we've only been around for 40,000 years which is a blink of an eye in geological time. Once habitat is lost species reliant on it go extinct. We haven't yet lost certain species because of huge conservation efforts, not because habitat loss is not much of factor!

Multiplying a number by -1, if you try to imagine it visually, reflects the number about the 0 on the number line.

As you'll know if you've done some geometry, reflecting something about the same point twice, leaves it as it is.

Great explanation. Now I geddit!

I see this as all much ado about nothing. Short of a MIRACL, missile defense is a flawed strategy. This is because missile defense systems are easily defeated by a combination of decoys and Multiple-Independent Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs)

Well said Bascule. It's just about $$$$. It ALWAYS is ultimately.

Regarding the Soviet Union, isn't it a rather serious piece of semantical parsing to say that they never threatened "the west"? Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Yuoslavia, East Germany, Albania, Bulgaria... none of these countries WANTED to be ruled by the iron fist of the Soviet Union. They did so at the point of a gun.

 

More to the point, why would the Soviets put nuclear missiles in Cuba if their intent was not to "threaten the west"? Sure you can claim that it was in response to missiles Europeans placed that threatened the Soviet Union, but even so don't you still have to acknowledge that those missiles "threatened the west"? Wasn't that the whole point of having them there?

 

The point is that you can make a case that the Soviets were just responding to US aggression if you like (I don't agree, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion), but you cannot make a legitimate case that they were only innocent pawns in a vast corporate conspiracy. Certainly the military-industrial complex was a factor. But the Soviets knew what they were doing, and history can hold them responsible for their choices too.

 

The world is gray. Not black-and-white. Gray.

This depends on how you look at the 'Grand Narrative'. To the Soviets, the capitalists (Imperialists) got France, Italy, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, West Germany etc and formed NATO. The Soviets got Poland, Checkoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania etc and formed the Warsaw Pact. To the soviets the capitalist countries were subject to the Imperialists as much as we felt the Eastern European countries were subject to the Communists.

Re: who started the cold war. Just one small fact that says a lot. In the early 1950s the US had around 1,000 nukes. The Soviet Union had 1.

The Cuban missile crisis was actually done in response to US missiles in Turkey and the following discussions saw the Soviets 'remove' their missiles from Cuba in return for the US removing its missiles from Turkey.

My point about the defence shield not working is that if it works that well simple ways around it will be found, like smuggling nukes on to container ships or on the back of trucks! Defece shields are only really any use against countries like Russia. They are no use against 'terrorist' attacks. So, why bother with them to protect us against this supposed threat from Iran?

Don't believe the hype!

Like I said, if the US were serious about protecting vs attacks from 'rogue states' they'd involve Russia in the defence shield.

Of course he was. What's wrong with being an extremist?

 

Anyway, you have it backwards on Chinese ICBMs. They're not just starting to "develop them now"; they've had the capability since the 1960s.

Yeah, but they couldn't lob 'em far enough to threaten the US methinks.

They collapsed as a result of the fires not the plane impacts.

All part of the same thing. As has been said, jet planes can't fly without fuel.

China does in fact have ICBMs. The Federation of American Scientists has a page on them here:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/icbm/index.html

 

You can dismiss that source if you wish (though I wouldn't, as it's a generally-accepted expert and objective source on military matters), but I would point out that China also launched a man into orbit in 2003, you may recall. Orbital launch vehicles are similar in capability to ICBMs (in fact ICBMs are arguably an "easier" feat of engineering).

 

Just FYI, I'm ignoring the rest of your post not because I'm denigrating your point of view (which you're perfectly entitled to), but because I prefer to let extremists have all the rope they want. Just more fun that way, and it preserves the respectful nature of discourse. I give you credit for defending your position on Putin, and I respect an extremist who defends his opinion and attempts to be reasonable. When one looks at the same evidence as everyone else but simply comes to a different point of view, that has to be respected. Good luck with that.

Actually you are right, and China do have the technology to develop ICBMs, but it did take them years to get them, and (unless things have recently changed) they can't yet threaten the US mainland (That's what I was getting confused with). Iran have little hope of developing ICBMs in the next 35 years. The thing is, they can be delivered on the back of a truck or in a container ship (as was mentioned above). ICBMs are not really needed with nukes!

It's funny that you think me an extremist just 'cos I give an alternative point of view. Was Gallileo an extremist?

I think it is fairly clear that Putin KNOWS the missile shield would make a negligible difference in a conflict between Russia and the US. The issue is one of strategic balance, and he makes a good point.

I think the thing is, it WOULD make a difference if Russia did nothing. In order to neutralize its effect, Russia would have to make more nukes, or at the very least, target more nukes towards it.

I believe this is exactly what the US Govt. wants, so it can them say, 'Hey, we need more nukes too' or ' we need an even bigger and better defence shield' and it goes on ad infinitum, making the arms industries untold riches! I sincerely hope I am proved wrong.

The twin towers were specifically designed to withstand impact from planes as it was an identified risk long before 9/11. Whatever the flaws in this paper, it seems strange to me that the towers collapsed as a result of plane impacts. I suppose the designers may have cut corners (like in The Towering Inferno!).

Bombus, bombus, bombus....

 

 

 

A rant against the military-industrial complex doesn't answer the question. I happen to agree that it's out of control. However, that doesn't bear on the question of whether this particular project is good or bad.

Well, good or bad must surely include whether it's really needed.

The argument is it doesn't work, then? Ok, that's not really in dispute. Eventually it will work. Also, you mean Iran, right?

It will never work, as nukes can be delivered by boat! yes, I did mean Iran, sorry 'bout that.

MAD was really our only defense during the Cold War, and it worked then, that's true. But then we were talking about one nation whose leaders were rational human beings. (And even then we came close a few times, like the Cuban Missle Crisis) Now we're talking about several nations whose leaders do not act rationally and frequently talk about martyrdom.

Firstly, the whole Soviet threat was made up. The Soviets never intended to invade the West, they just wanted to 'hold their own'. The threat was made up to make money for the arms industry, which had become huge as a result of WW2. Secondly, the idea that Iranian leaders are mad mullahs hell bent on matyrdom is PROPAGANDA! Most of the things the Iranian president is supposed to have said is twisted by translators to mean something quite different to that actually said. Thirdly. if one actually wants 'mad mullahs' in power the US is going the right way about it.

I have no idea what you're basing that on, so I can't really respond to it beyond saying it seems like obviously something you couldn't reasonably say... Anyway, you don't need an ICBM to reach Israel.

China does not even have ICBMs. They are very hard to make. It's true that Israel could be threatened anyway, but Iran are not going to nuke Israel as they'd get fried and they know it. Agsin, it's all propaganda. You just fall for it every time!

Putin is a thug. 85% of his top advisors are military (Gorbachev had 15%). He funds gangs of youth nationalists to violently break up protests. He tries to bully and dominate an empire that no longer exists. Why don't you look up his popularity in the former Soviet Bloc but outside Russia?

Putin may be acting like a thug, but far less than US presidents do in Central and South America, in Iraq, and in Africa. You just never hear about it 'cos your spoon fed CNN or Fox news all day. Putin has had to act like a thug against the 'Russian Mafia', the Oligarchs, Terrorists, and of course the ever present CIA, who are very very active in Russia and Eastern Europe. It's not pretty, but it's required. Putin also stands up against the multinationals, unlike the weak, impotent western leaders.

Um, no. Term limits exist to preserve democracy, by preventing one person from becoming too powerful. Without them you get stuff like a 100 year old segregationist in the U.S. Senate in the year 2003, just because he's been solidifying his power for 60 years and nobody can possibly unseat him.

Democracy is rule by the majority. If the majority of a country wants a person to stay in power, who has the right to say no? I understand the purpose of the US rules, but anything that prevents the people making a choice is a limit on democracy.

You have no beef with oppressive theocracies that talk casually and often about holy war and genocide? Um, really?

Again, you listen to and believe the propaganda. It's the USA that is guilty of being an oppressive theocracy, and has committed genocide, and talks of 'forever wars'. Anyway, it's the people of Iran I'm talking about really, not their current government.

Oh really? Would that be admiration of the fact that he's accused of being in bed with corrupt corporations, has poorly handled the war on terror, or that he's currently threatening to run for re-election even though the Russian constitution forbids him from doing so?

 

Gosh. Kinda sounds like the anti-BUSH refrain to me. Are you sure you're being consistent there, Bombus?

Putin effectively confiscated those corrupt corporations so that the profits now go into the Russian economy rather than billionaire's pockets. The Beslan incident was a no-win situation. The terrorists could not be reasoned with and would have killed everyone. As far as running for re-election, if the people want him they should have the right to amend the consititution, else it is not democracy! The reason the US puts a maximum term on US Presidents is to limit democracy. In the US if a president has already served two terms they gotta go, even if the public wants them to stay - that ain't really democracy.

I'm not really anti-Bush. He's just a brainless front-man for the real rulers of the world.

But to get back on subject, this is about $$$. It always is. If not, why doesn't the US offer to collaborate with Russia on the project?

Iran are no threat to the West unless we make them enemies. I have no beef with Iranians myself, and Iran is far more stable than Pakistan.

Why is nobody complaining about Brazil's attempt to get nukes?

Don't believe the hype!

This is about money for the US defense industry

The cold war was the most lucrative war ever, and produced no direct US deaths, and the USA defense companies (who rule the USA) miss it. They've tried Iraq as a replacement, but it's so costly in lives the US public are turning against it so they need to re-start the cold war and fast.

As a defence system against North Korean nukes it wouldn't work, as they'd have to launch the interceptor missiles BEFORE the North Korean ones! As a defese against non-existent Iraqi weapons its also badly placed.

Iraq would also NEVER threaten the USA with nukes as they know they'd be destroyed utterly if they tried. They just want nukes to protect themselves from US aggression. They will NEVER have the capacity to build ICBMs anyway.

The whole thing is a big lie, as usual.

Oh, and as for Putin's supposed clamp down on freedom, just look at what's been happening in the US with the Patriot Act and in the UK! This is all mostly western spin as well, triggered by Putin's 'confiscation' of the billion dollar industries that were bleeding Russia dry. Putin's popularity in Russia FAR exceeds Bush's, and I'm quite an admirer myself!

For information on this you should read these articles (in order) that prove that recent global warming is due not to co2 levels, but solar radiation:

 

http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2007/05/maximums-and-minimums.html

http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2007/05/statistical-proof-of-sun-caused-global.html

http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2007/05/statistical-proof-of-sun-caused-global_04.html

Total and utter nonsense. I went to a Spatial Planning workshop meeting last week to help the Welsh Assembly Government plan for the future with regard to the environment. It included a lecture by a very clever chap from the Environment Agency who demolished the argument that the current increase in temperature is due to changes in solar activity.

It's nonsense and not supported by the science. The evidence that it's caused by man is overwhelming and supported by the vast majority of the climate scientists.

The closest is Searle's Chinese Room. Searle argues at the same time that there's some sort of bidirectional causality between an epiphenominal process arising from our biological brains (an idea he calls "biological naturalism") while at the same time arguing it's impossible for computers to do the same thing.

I am familiar with the Chinese box argument - and don't agree with it at all. I think the whole proposition is wrong IMHO. But there we are...

enrose tried to use Godel's Incompleteness Theorem to prove that consciousness is non-computable (by a universal computer).

 

His proof was thoroughly debunked by Stanford mathematician Solomon Fefferman (also a neutral monist like Penrose):

 

http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v2/psyche-2-07-feferman.html

However, I read the above and just can't concentrate long enough to understand it. I think I'm probably too stupid. Is it possible to explain this with glove puppets!?

I just returned from the UK ( where I was born & went to school & college ) after attending a funeral for a close relative . I was staggered by the cost of living there , the congestion , the traffic & the hassle of daily living ( downtown congestion pay to park parking , queues at every check out counter & other obsolete practices ) -- all despite the incredible natural beauty of the country . It cost a pound at least to buy what a dollar buys here & real estate costs are thru the roof . If anything it is an indictment of relentless population growth ( 600 /sq mile ) compared to here ( around 35 sq mile ) .Brown vs Blair ?? They are not the basic problem .

Well, it's unrestrained capitalism really. All the controls have gone so things like the transport system, for example, is in chaos with all different modes of transport competing with each other. Also, you can't very well subsidise a private company 'cos all your doing is subsidising shareholders to make more money! Capitalism works (in the short term) but it needs controls, just like roads need traffic lights and rules...

ah, but, the common oppinion is that gordon brown is responsable for breaking the nhs, inheritance tax, etc etc.

 

one thing labour (gordon brown?) definately did that definately sucked was introduce loans rather than grants, after saying that they wouldn't.

You are right on both counts. However, it is plain maths that if you expand the student population massively (up to 50%) it has to be payed for somewhere, and if he'd put up taxes people would have complained more.

However, I actually disagree with making university education more of a common choice. So long as those that need/want to go to university can do whatever their background I think its fine. The expansion of university education just leads to stupid degrees - I have seen offered a BSc in Estate Agency and get this Traditional Chinese Medicine! (NEWI in Wrexham, North Wales if you don't believe me!). What's the point of having a degree in, say, plumbing - either you're a trained plumber or your not, you don't need an ACADEMIC qualification to plumb!! But that's another story...

No need, and note I didn't say I supported the Tories. The pension crisis was 'not' Tory spin, this Guardian article sums it up...

 

 

 

I appreciate what he was trying to do, but it was very faulty reasoning and it's increasingly hard to get a subsidized company pension let alone a decent state pension, and clearly this will get worse with population and life expectancy on the increase. Now, I admit this really doesn't all ride on Gordon Brown, but the matter remains, that these factors were considered, and therefore why I'm a little perplexed with the whole pension fiasco.

 

The situation my parents are in now, will be nothing compared to when somebody my age seeks retirement.

It may well have had consequences, although there are other issues that have occurred regarding the global economy which have had more of an impact. I'm sure Gordon Brown didn't anticipate that corporations would be so mean (more fool him) - but people should really be pressing the issue with the employers NOT the Government. What ever happened to strikes!

The taxation on small businesses is a joke IMO, and don't even get me started on pensions...a topic that's really hit home, as my Mum is recently retired and my Dad can't retire. The UK is awaiting a change, whether the Tories will deliver is questionable.

People so easily forget the Tory years.

Let me remind you...

4 million unemployed

2 recessions

Thousands of small businesses going bust

Thousands of people losing their homes

Destruction of a perfectly viable coal industry

Closed wards in hospitals because the NHS had so little funding

Riots in Brixton and Toxteth

The IRA still active with no hope of peace, and bombs in mainland UK.

Nelson mandela being branded a Terrorist!

Black Wednesday

Interest rates at 15%

Schools not being able to afford books (I was in school at the time!)

Never again!!

If the Tories are the answer it was a very stupid question!