billvon 2,993
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Quote
"Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.” Lord Palmerston, 19th Century British Prime Minister.
"Nations have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies. Only permanent interests." Attributed to French President Charles de Gaulle
Has anyone ever benefited from allying themselves with surrender monkeys?
But despite what a PM from the 1800s may have said, Britain does maintain permanent friendship with some, most notably the US. Only the strong and the foolish can pursue a on again, off again policy, and the strong don't stay strong forever.
Hopefully you maintain a better policy with your own friends, Kallend.
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuote
"Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.” Lord Palmerston, 19th Century British Prime Minister.
"Nations have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies. Only permanent interests." Attributed to French President Charles de Gaulle
Has anyone ever benefited from allying themselves with surrender monkeys?
Yes, the US benefitted greatly from being allied with France during WW1. France provided the bulk of the blood, guts and weapons while Wilson called the shots after the war was won.
Like the US and the USSR in the 20th Century, maybe?Quote
But despite what a PM from the 1800s may have said, Britain does maintain permanent friendship with some, most notably the US. Only the strong and the foolish can pursue a on again, off again policy, and the strong don't stay strong forever.
Quote
Hopefully you maintain a better policy with your own friends, Kallend.
Last time I checked, I was NOT a nation.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Darius11 12
QuoteQuoteI...don’t even see this conflict as any thing more then a land dispute.
So your failure to understand the situation subjects us to pages upon pages of YOUR OPINON presented as fact?
That explains a lot-thanks.
I think your barley two-sentence response, which did not even attempted to argue a point or fact that you view as false or accurate made my point. Thanks.
At least now you have the answer to you other observation.
QuoteThis has been up for awhile yet certain posters who were oh so active in Dreamdancer's thread are conspicuously absent here.
If your still wondering why some posters just skip some posters threads your response is why.
Because it takes time and energy to write a response that is accurate and based on facts. Unfortunately a waist of energy on you and others like your self.
I think a lot of us have just given up on trying explain anything to people who are not looking for reasons they just want sheep who agree with them regardless of the facts.
I don;t know why i get sucked in. I have to remind my self having to much hope in people is just as stupied as having none.
Lesson learned.
Don't argue with Coffe tables.
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain
Amazon 7
Quote>They have before.
Yes. You OK with them doing that again?
Are you good with adding another one to this list????
Wars ranked by total deaths
Rank..War...................... Years .......................Deaths......Deaths per Day.....Deaths per Population
1 ...... American Civil War..............1861–1865.....625,000....599 ...............1.988% (1860)
2 ...... World War II......................1941–1945 .....405,399....416 ...............0.307% (1940)
3 ...... World War I.......................1917–1918 ......116,516 ...279 ...............0.110% (1920)
4 ......Vietnam War......................1964–1973 .......58,151 .....26 ...............0.03% (1970)
5 ...... Korean War........................1950–1953 .......36,516 .....45 ...............0.02% (1950)
6 ...... Revolutionary War...............1775–1783 .......25,000 .....11 ...............0.899% (1780)
7 ......War of 1812.......................1812–1815 ........20,000 ....31 ...............0.345% (1810)
8 ......Mexican–American War........1846–1848.........13,283 ....29 ...............0.057% (1850)
9 ......War on terror......................2001–present.......5,491 ......2 ...............0.002% (2010)
10 ......Philippine–American War....1899–1913 ..........4,196 ......1 ...............0.006% (1900)
billvon 2,993
>Are you good with adding another one to this list????
No.
You OK with them doing that again? (boarding US vessels)
No.
You OK with them doing that again? (boarding US vessels)
Quote
Yes, the US benefitted greatly from being allied with France during WW1. France provided the bulk of the blood, guts and weapons while Wilson called the shots after the war was won.
This being the war where we could easily have entered on the side of the Kaiser instead.
That's precisely what I mean. The US can't afford to ditch its allies on a whim anymore. It needs to be building or maintaining its long term relationships. Israel is one of them.
Quote
Last time I checked, I was NOT a nation.
Both act emotionally, don't like being dropped like a bad hat. The difference is that nations tend to remember slights longer, as you have millions of individual memories.
Amazon 7
Quote>Are you good with adding another one to this list????
No.
You OK with them doing that again? (boarding US vessels)
How many rockets have we launced at Haeju or Kausong this year????
I forget.. gettin old ya know but I don't think they have a declared blockade.
billvon 2,993
>>You OK with them doing that again? (boarding US vessels)
>How many rockets . . .
Interesting that you can't answer even that simple question. Is that the result of a bit of internal confusion on the morality of this?
>How many rockets . . .
Interesting that you can't answer even that simple question. Is that the result of a bit of internal confusion on the morality of this?
Amazon 7
Nope.. Just playing the game as you have perfected
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuote
Yes, the US benefitted greatly from being allied with France during WW1. France provided the bulk of the blood, guts and weapons while Wilson called the shots after the war was won.
This being the war where we could easily have entered on the side of the Kaiser instead.
.
Nope. Once the Germans declared unrestricted submarine warfare in 1915 there there was no chance of that. Also lots of Americans had already joined up with the Canadians, French or British before 1917.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuote>They have before.
Yes. You OK with them doing that again?
Are you good with adding another one to this list????
Wars ranked by total deaths
Rank..War...................... Years .......................Deaths......Deaths per Day.....Deaths per Population
1 ...... American Civil War..............1861–1865.....625,000....599 ...............1.988% (1860)
2 ...... World War II......................1941–1945 .....405,399....416 ...............0.307% (1940)
3 ...... World War I.......................1917–1918 ......116,516 ...279 ...............0.110% (1920)
4 ......Vietnam War......................1964–1973 .......58,151 .....26 ...............0.03% (1970)
5 ...... Korean War........................1950–1953 .......36,516 .....45 ...............0.02% (1950)
6 ...... Revolutionary War...............1775–1783 .......25,000 .....11 ...............0.899% (1780)
7 ......War of 1812.......................1812–1815 ........20,000 ....31 ...............0.345% (1810)
8 ......Mexican–American War........1846–1848.........13,283 ....29 ...............0.057% (1850)
9 ......War on terror......................2001–present.......5,491 ......2 ...............0.002% (2010)
10 ......Philippine–American War....1899–1913 ..........4,196 ......1 ...............0.006% (1900)
A curiously American-centric view of the wars. WWI produced millions of deaths, and WWII tens of millions of deaths. The USA got off lightly.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon 2,993
>>Interesting that you can't answer even that simple question.
>Nope.
OK then. So you want others treated differently than we are. Funny how angry you get when republicans do just that.
>Nope.
OK then. So you want others treated differently than we are. Funny how angry you get when republicans do just that.
Kennedy 0
Quote>>You OK with them doing that again? (boarding US vessels)
>How many rockets . . .
Interesting that you can't answer even that simple question. Is that the result of a bit of internal confusion on the morality of this?
Are you realy going to equate an aggressive Navy attempting to control another country's Navy vessel in international waters with a country enforcing an international blockade on civilian ships that are bringing unserached goods to an area controled by terrorists?
Do you see a difference here that might contribute to someone thinking your analogy was not, well, analogous?
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Amazon 7
Quote>>Interesting that you can't answer even that simple question.
>Nope.
OK then. So you want others treated differently than we are. Funny how angry you get when republicans do just that.
Bill Bill Bill....
sundevil777 102
Quote>>Interesting that you can't answer even that simple question.
>Nope.
OK then. So you want others treated differently than we are. Funny how angry you get when republicans do just that.
Your analogies are crappy and worthless - they come down to saying that being at war, especially when you are not as powerful as the other side, really sucks. Your command of the obvious is incredible, but does not support the argument you try to make.
Is a blockade imposed during a war an unusual action?
Is your problem that it is Israel imposing that blockade. Perhaps you think you consider them to be the aggressor, so they are not to be allowed to do what any other country would do during a war (if they can).
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
billvon 2,993
>Are you realy going to equate an aggressive Navy attempting to control
>another country's Navy vessel in international waters with a country
>enforcing an international blockade on civilian ships that are bringing
>unserached goods to an area controled by terrorists?
No, I'm not. I am asking if the same basic right (the right to board a ship in international waters) exists for all or only for the US and our allies. From comments in this and the other thread:
"there is nothing illegal about intercepting a ship in international waters."
"Even a red cross ship or equivalent of the other side should expect to be boarded and inspected."
So my question was not "aren't these two cases exactly the same?" My question (which Jeanie artfully refused to answer) was "does a North Korean patrol boat have the right to stop and board a US military transport?"
>another country's Navy vessel in international waters with a country
>enforcing an international blockade on civilian ships that are bringing
>unserached goods to an area controled by terrorists?
No, I'm not. I am asking if the same basic right (the right to board a ship in international waters) exists for all or only for the US and our allies. From comments in this and the other thread:
"there is nothing illegal about intercepting a ship in international waters."
"Even a red cross ship or equivalent of the other side should expect to be boarded and inspected."
So my question was not "aren't these two cases exactly the same?" My question (which Jeanie artfully refused to answer) was "does a North Korean patrol boat have the right to stop and board a US military transport?"
falxori 0
Quote"does a North Korean patrol boat have the right to stop and board a US military transport?"
if the scenario is the same (i,e a well known blockade in a state of war, with sufficient warning given and ignored), then from a legal point of view, it would be legal according to international law.
would it be smart? probably not.
"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."
billvon 2,993
>Your analogies are crappy and worthless . . .
It's funny how the analogies that people can't answer without revealing something they don't want to reveal are "crappy and worthless." If they were really crappy and worthless, you wouldn't be spending so much energy trying to evade them.
>Is a blockade imposed during a war an unusual action?
Not that unusual, no.
North Korea is at war with South Korea, so a North Korean ship boarding a US military ship headed to South Korea would not be that unusual either, eh?
>Is your problem that it is Israel imposing that blockade.
Nope. They have every right to do so - within their own lands and waters. The problem arises when they try to do so outside the area they control.
It's funny how the analogies that people can't answer without revealing something they don't want to reveal are "crappy and worthless." If they were really crappy and worthless, you wouldn't be spending so much energy trying to evade them.
>Is a blockade imposed during a war an unusual action?
Not that unusual, no.
North Korea is at war with South Korea, so a North Korean ship boarding a US military ship headed to South Korea would not be that unusual either, eh?
>Is your problem that it is Israel imposing that blockade.
Nope. They have every right to do so - within their own lands and waters. The problem arises when they try to do so outside the area they control.
I was not generalizing.
Kennedy 0
Your analogy is, to use his word, crappy. You are equating dissimilar situations. That's like if I ask you do you think shooting someone is acceptable. You can't answer that without additional information that distinguishes right from wrong (or legal from illegal).
A convicted felon walks into a bank, announces a stick up and shoots a person who tries to run away. Not ok, right?
Across town, an officer is called to a pistol whipping in progress. On arrival he sees a convicted felon holding a gun beating a smaller man who is unconscious. The officer announces his presences and shouts for everyone to stop. The felon screams I'm gonna kill you raises the fun toward the officer. The officer shoots the felon. Acceptable, justified, right?
So which is it Bill, is it ok to shoot someone or not? Can't you answer a simple question?
Pretty unreasonable, isn't it? And it's exactly what you are doing.
A convicted felon walks into a bank, announces a stick up and shoots a person who tries to run away. Not ok, right?
Across town, an officer is called to a pistol whipping in progress. On arrival he sees a convicted felon holding a gun beating a smaller man who is unconscious. The officer announces his presences and shouts for everyone to stop. The felon screams I'm gonna kill you raises the fun toward the officer. The officer shoots the felon. Acceptable, justified, right?
So which is it Bill, is it ok to shoot someone or not? Can't you answer a simple question?
Pretty unreasonable, isn't it? And it's exactly what you are doing.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
billvon 2,993
>So which is it Bill, is it ok to shoot someone or not?
Yes, it is OK to kill someone to prevent a murder. Now, do you have a general right to kill someone because you think they MIGHT murder someone in the future, or because you feel that society will be better off without them, or because you're stealing someone's car and they come after you with a knife? No.
I'll use an analogy that is a little more explicit. Is it legal to take your airplane and buzz a concert, flying 20 feet off the deck? No. Is it OK? 99.9% of the time, no. However, if the only place you can safely land an aircraft with a dead engine is just beyond the concert, and you can do so without unduly risking lives on the ground, then sometimes it is OK. The FAR's say this explicitly:
"In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency."
That does not mean that it is legal, in general, to buzz a concert at 20 feet - just as it is not legal in general to shoot someone or to board a ship in international waters and kill passengers.
Yes, it is OK to kill someone to prevent a murder. Now, do you have a general right to kill someone because you think they MIGHT murder someone in the future, or because you feel that society will be better off without them, or because you're stealing someone's car and they come after you with a knife? No.
I'll use an analogy that is a little more explicit. Is it legal to take your airplane and buzz a concert, flying 20 feet off the deck? No. Is it OK? 99.9% of the time, no. However, if the only place you can safely land an aircraft with a dead engine is just beyond the concert, and you can do so without unduly risking lives on the ground, then sometimes it is OK. The FAR's say this explicitly:
"In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency."
That does not mean that it is legal, in general, to buzz a concert at 20 feet - just as it is not legal in general to shoot someone or to board a ship in international waters and kill passengers.
Quote>Your analogies are crappy and worthless . . .
It's funny how the analogies that people can't answer without revealing something they don't want to reveal are "crappy and worthless." If they were really crappy and worthless, you wouldn't be spending so much energy trying to evade them.
and sometimes the analogies just suck.
Yes. You OK with them doing that again?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites