Sayonara

I don't think you've read the article or the report it relates to. Possibly not even the whole thread. To reiterate: From my point of view, fancy orbital weapons are the worst case scenario. The first phase of this is to be conducted using conventional systems that are already in place. The budget issue is a fickle beast. What does the US do when its economy needs propping up? Drive the furnaces harder, maybe have a bit of a war. Perhaps the administration and stock exchange will move so fast these weapons and tactics will never come about. But the actual threat here is the attitude towards non-Americanianoids and the egocentric self-belief that generated the report in the first place.

Remind me why the office of president, unlike other political offices, has a veritable army of advisors attached to it.

Remind me why the office of president, unlike other political offices, has a veritable army of advisors attached to it.

Yes, for exactly the same reasons stated by Callipygous.

Yes, for exactly the same reasons stated by Callipygous.

It's not important what _13eoWuLF__ thinks of Bush's beliefs. What's important is that Bush has made decisions for your entire country - and even the world - based on his system of beliefs, rather than what is actually in the best interests of your society. Call me a wacky liberal pinko, but I don't think being a religious figurehead is any part of the president's mandate. His responsibilities are to the welfare, advancement and defence of your society, and he should not be sneaking in personal mandates under the guise of religious conviction (or, more worringly, because of religious conviction). This man is at the helm of one of the most powerful, resource-hungry and destructive nations on the planet. What does he do with this power? Try to amend the basis of your society so that people whose life style he doesn't agree with can't play with his (and in many cases, their) religion's toys. I'm sure you can see why this sort of thing from the politically elected (read: not divinely chosen) leader of a supernation makes people bitter.

It's not important what _13eoWuLF__ thinks of Bush's beliefs. What's important is that Bush has made decisions for your entire country - and even the world - based on his system of beliefs, rather than what is actually in the best interests of your society. Call me a wacky liberal pinko, but I don't think being a religious figurehead is any part of the president's mandate. His responsibilities are to the welfare, advancement and defence of your society, and he should not be sneaking in personal mandates under the guise of religious conviction (or, more worringly, because of religious conviction). This man is at the helm of one of the most powerful, resource-hungry and destructive nations on the planet. What does he do with this power? Try to amend the basis of your society so that people whose life style he doesn't agree with can't play with his (and in many cases, their) religion's toys. I'm sure you can see why this sort of thing from the politically elected (read: not divinely chosen) leader of a supernation makes people bitter.

Never before has anyone been able to target and destroy a unit or facility anywhere on the planet within minutes of receiving their orders. Actually the collapse of our naval supremacy came from within, with the development of the Dreadnought. It was this that spurred other nations on to advance their naval technology and close the gap. So maybe there is a moral in there. Not right now, but the point of this thread is that the US military has expressed the desire and/or intention to make themselves capable of firing on arbitrary targets for whatever reasons they can come up with. Putting anything up there that might in any way be used (eve if it's misuse) against them (or even looking like you're about to) could be seen by them as a hostile act. You've already seen footage of shoot first, ask later; I can be sure of that. It's not my concern that they will have an Iron Claw that never goes away again; it's my concern that they will have one at all, for any period of time. The Spanish weren't capable of firing the rods of god platform at any target in the Americas or surrounding oceans by simply pressing a button. Really, historical comparisons of this sort are pointless. It's like saying that the Roman Empire was logically impossible because stone age man never conquered the world, whereas the Roman Empire could and did develop because their resource system, communications and weaponry were far more advanced.

Never before has anyone been able to target and destroy a unit or facility anywhere on the planet within minutes of receiving their orders. Actually the collapse of our naval supremacy came from within, with the development of the Dreadnought. It was this that spurred other nations on to advance their naval technology and close the gap. So maybe there is a moral in there. Not right now, but the point of this thread is that the US military has expressed the desire and/or intention to make themselves capable of firing on arbitrary targets for whatever reasons they can come up with. Putting anything up there that might in any way be used (eve if it's misuse) against them (or even looking like you're about to) could be seen by them as a hostile act. You've already seen footage of shoot first, ask later; I can be sure of that. It's not my concern that they will have an Iron Claw that never goes away again; it's my concern that they will have one at all, for any period of time. The Spanish weren't capable of firing the rods of god platform at any target in the Americas or surrounding oceans by simply pressing a button. Really, historical comparisons of this sort are pointless. It's like saying that the Roman Empire was logically impossible because stone age man never conquered the world, whereas the Roman Empire could and did develop because their resource system, communications and weaponry were far more advanced.

Since you are the one who drew the comparison between atinymonkey calling the USA a rogue nation, and other people calling NK a rogue nation, I fail to see how that shows atm is illustrating an equivalence between the two. I can see you doing it, but not him. Also, calling two things by the same name does not make them the same thing. For instance you could call me a renegade, but it doesn't mean I shot my commanding officer and rode off on a Harley.

Since you are the one who drew the comparison between atinymonkey calling the USA a rogue nation, and other people calling NK a rogue nation, I fail to see how that shows atm is illustrating an equivalence between the two. I can see you doing it, but not him. Also, calling two things by the same name does not make them the same thing. For instance you could call me a renegade, but it doesn't mean I shot my commanding officer and rode off on a Harley.

Now with 40% more zing!

Now with 40% more zing!

Did you try asking them why they thought the Welsh were inferior? I would bet they have never even considered that.

Did you try asking them why they thought the Welsh were inferior? I would bet they have never even considered that.

Don't start a new topic in the middle of someone else's active thread. This is a good question for our Religion and Philosophy forum - discussion of Buddhism is strangely lacking over there.

Don't start a new topic in the middle of someone else's active thread. This is a good question for our Religion and Philosophy forum - discussion of Buddhism is strangely lacking over there.

I know this is nothing to do with the thread as such, but the above simply does not follow.

I know this is nothing to do with the thread as such, but the above simply does not follow.

This is how I see it: The shadow cast by light source L from shape ABC is not the triangle BCX, it is the volume ABCX. BCX is simply the intersection of ABCX and an unrelated surface. Sorry about the crude diagram.

This is how I see it: The shadow cast by light source L from shape ABC is not the triangle BCX, it is the volume ABCX. BCX is simply the intersection of ABCX and an unrelated surface. Sorry about the crude diagram.

While I am sure they must exist, I have never met anyone who believed themselves superior to the Welsh. There are possibly a lot more people who see our society as being superior to the society in Wales (as an example), but that at least is quantifiable. Generally people who actually think they are - as an individual - superior to an entire society aren't worth talking to. That attitude has been nearly dead for along time. The only people who still cling to it are those who have most to lose by its disappearance, i.e. extremely rich land owners.

While I am sure they must exist, I have never met anyone who believed themselves superior to the Welsh. There are possibly a lot more people who see our society as being superior to the society in Wales (as an example), but that at least is quantifiable. Generally people who actually think they are - as an individual - superior to an entire society aren't worth talking to. That attitude has been nearly dead for along time. The only people who still cling to it are those who have most to lose by its disappearance, i.e. extremely rich land owners.