Knights & Knaves Alehouse

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:What's the purpose of building tanks and stealth fighters at the taxpayer's expense? Who do we expect to use them against, precisely, and when will they be deployed?

We don't know, of course; future military conflicts are one of those things we just can't define. Asking to define them before we spend the money leads to leaving the nation undefended.

When it's a matter of national security, you spend now and you'll find out whether you need what you've spent the money on later.

Follow my logic?

I follow your false analogy. Future military opponents are quantifiable and reasonably predictable threats because they're motivated by people.

No, if you read closely, what I said was, "it doesn't matter a toss who's the cause of it." I think humans are undoubtedly having an effect, and global factors are undoubtedly having an effect, but which is more to blame than the other doesn't matter.

You might think, but that doesn't make it so. The US government, despite all its warts, doesn't think so either, and neither does China who... despite signing a useless piece of paper, continues to be the #1 polluter of the environment in their race to become industrially significant.

But who's calling for sanctions against China? To my knowledge, no one is and neither are you.

Imagine there's a six-mile-wide meteorite on a possible collision course with the earth. It might hit, and it might not.

Do we:

(a) Sit around arguing about whose fault it is and whether humans caused it?
(b) Demand precise, scientific proof that it'll hit before we take any action to divert it?
or
(c) Prepare to launch some kind of missile to break it up or divert it, even though it might not hit?

Arguing about whether humans are to blame for global warming is equivalent to answer "a". Surely we deal with the threat regardless of its source.

Imagine a giant, invisible ogre going on a clubbing rampage through the streets of Paris, or any number of hypothetical scenarios which make about as much sense as "global warming" science.

In your scenario, no one in their right mind is going to claim humans caused a meteorite to change couse toward Earth, so that's not even an apt analogy... but let's play. A is out. B is simple physics. C would be retarded because you might hit it and cause it to change course and actually hit us where it wouldn't have before.

My point is: you've taken another quantifiable threat scenario and equated it with a scenario that might or might not be fact. Once again, if there is an actual climate change in progress... and that is a possibility... it remains to be seen if we caused and and... more importantly if there's a damn thing we can do about it.

What do you wanna do, Stu? Cut out all industry? I don't know exactly how British politics work, but if American politicians started taking measures that destroy what's left of the American economy, said politicians would be out on their asses at the end of their terms, and new politicians would be elected who took steps favorable to the voters.

Damnedest thing about democracies: it's full of people who show up on election day. I strongly suspect the same thing goes on in the UK.

But the science is intractable. Therefore we cannot and will not prove, to the satisfaction of the global warming skeptics in denial, that it'll really happen.

Let's replace some words here:

But the will of God is intractable. Therefore we cannot and will not prove, to the satisfaction of the atheists in denial, that He really exists.

See the point I was making here months ago?

Going back to my meteorite example, demanding proof that the disaster really will happen before acting is equivalent to answer "b". We deal with the potential threat, even if it might not happen.

Dude, it has to be a credible threat.

For the same reason, we have forces ready to deal with North Korea, even though that situation might not flare up. Because pro-actively preparing for major problems is an intelligent idea.

See?

Yes, where a credible threat is present.

Yeah, this is a familiar tactic. When a minority doesn't like a majority decision, they often make imputations about the motives of the majority.

Take it up with China. They play fast and loose with the treaty by claiming they are meeting the standards in percentage to their high population. That's a fact.

[qutoe]No, sure, the world community has to MAKE it economically desirable before the US will comply. That's abundantly clear.

My own thought is we should impose, for example, a punitive import duty on products sourced from countries that haven't ratified Kyoto. [/quote]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Right, and the next time the UN needs a police force, they shouldn't call on the US, right?

We should also donate funding to US political parties that support our goals, and we should begin to seize US citizens outside their country and detain them without charge or trial.

Perhaps Israel should give lessons on how to do all that... you know, that crappy little terrorist state Britain set up but left the US to fund?

Since the US has been quite happy to impose those sanctions on maverick nations that fly in the face of world opinion before, that should be seen as quite reasonable over there.

With the exception being the UK and most other nations don't have the political will or military resources to pull such stunts and get away with it, so we all know it will never happen. Ok, so that's out.

EDIT: Damn, Semaj composed much faster than did I, and now has ruined my post here. Damn you, damn you all to hellllllll!

/OT Coffee Break

PapersAndPaychecks wrote: My own thought is we should impose, for example, a punitive import duty on products sourced from countries that haven't ratified Kyoto.

You don't buy our products anyway, so what good would that do?

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:We should also donate funding to US political parties that support our goals

Sorry, the U.S. government's already been purchased by China. Walmart brokered the deal.

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:we should begin to seize US citizens outside their country and detain them without charge or trial.

If you have evidence that they are plotting significant acts of terror against your family, neighbors, high-rise structures and/or embassies, then I'd expect nothing less. Also, FWIW, as much as I disagree with the tactic myself (and I do, strongly, especially the whole incommunicado bit. I mean, even if you're not a U.S. citizen and you're accused of a crime on U.S. soil, then the humanity of the situation should allow you some type of counsel, even if the letter of the law doesn't), the U.S. isn't rounding up "furiners" wholesale "just because". That's a hair-thin, mono-filament silver-lining 'round that cloud, but it's the best that I've got.

PapersAndPaychecks wrote: Imagine there's a six-mile-wide meteorite on a possible collision course with the earth. It might hit, and it might not.

There is, and it will. It's just a matter of when. Note though, that if it's a meteorite, then it has already landed and we're dead, but I pick nits.

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:Do we:

(c) Prepare to launch some kind of missile to break it up or divert it, even though it might not hit?

It's mostly accepted that trying to hit such an object with BIG BOMBS would be a bad thing. Even if you did hit, you'd likely just create 2, 3, 4 or more potentially world-ending (as we know it anyway) rocks.

/End OT Coffee Break

I'd prefer the example of nuclear weapons. North Korea and Iran may or may not have real nuclear weapon programs going. If they do, then very likely that they would be a threat to the world (neither country being known for its rationality). So, we don't mind the expense of spending at least $10,000,000,000 per month to try and stop something that may or may not be happening and may or may not be a threat to us.

I'd say that there's ample precedent for siphoning tax dollars away from Joe Taxpayer to pay for unconfirmed threats.

There are excellent reasons for the U.S. to go bonkers gangbusters in pursuing alternatives to fossil fuels, none of which are directly related to global warming or the Kyoto Protocol. Nearly all of them strictly economic, and not likely to pay real dividends in our lifetimes. That doesn't mean that we don't try to divert a good chunk of the 10 billion dollars per month to try and prevent these maybes from being realities used against us.

SemajTheSilent wrote:Future military opponents are quantifiable and reasonably predictable threats because they're motivated by people.

Think about what you just said there.

SemajTheSilent wrote:You might think, but that doesn't make it so. The US government, despite all its warts, doesn't think so either

No, sure, I accept that. The US government doesn't think so, it's only the other 174 governments that do.

SemajTheSilent wrote:But who's calling for sanctions against China? To my knowledge, no one is and neither are you.

China's complying with the treaty, mate, along with the other 173 countries.

SemajTheSilent wrote:What do you wanna do, Stu? Cut out all industry? I don't know exactly how British politics work, but if American politicians started taking measures that destroy what's left of the American economy, said politicians would be out on their asses at the end of their terms, and new politicians would be elected who took steps favorable to the voters.

Well this is the thing. US imports have a competitive advantage because US companies don't have to pay the costs associated with Kyoto compliance; from the British point of view, an import duty to compensate is the simplest way of levelling the playing field. So yeah, I'd kind of expect our politicians to do something about that.

Not that they will; British politicians are crap!

SemajTheSilent wrote:Dude, it has to be a credible threat.

...and in your opinion, it isn't, so the other 173 countries are all wrong and they'll just have to re-think?

SemajTheSilent wrote:AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Right, and the next time the UN needs a police force, they shouldn't call on the US, right?

Wow, that was relevant.

SemajTheSilent wrote:Perhaps Israel should give lessons on how to do all that... you know, that crappy little terrorist state Britain set up but left the US to fund?

Another point that's absolutely central to the topic at hand.

SemajTheSilent wrote:With the exception being the UK and most other nations don't have the political will or military resources to pull such stunts and get away with it, so we all know it will never happen. Ok, so that's out.

Military resources are relevant how? For when the Commander In Chimp thunders from his pulpit: "If you impose an import tax on US goods we'll carpet-bomb your asses?"

Does Bush understand the term "nuclear deterrent", do you think? I mean, he probably can't spell it and he certainly can't pronounce it, but I'd hope even Bush can grasp the concept...

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:Think about what you just said there.

Ok, what do you want me to think there? I know what I meant when I wrote it.

No, sure, I accept that. The US government doesn't think so, it's only the other 174 governments that do.

How many of those signatories would benefit from a US economy further crippled?

China's complying with the treaty, mate, along with the other 173 countries.

Oh bull. China jiggles the numbers in proportion to their excessive population and claims its meeting the 2012 standards. But hey... they're also thinking of lifting the limitations on childbearing... that in tandem with being the number one worst polluter of the environment should make for interesting headlines.

Well this is the thing. US imports have a competitive advantage because US companies don't have to pay the costs associated with Kyoto compliance; from the British point of view, an import duty to compensate is the simplest way of levelling the playing field. So yeah, I'd kind of expect our politicians to do something about that.

If we had a ball-cutting fad kick in to help alleviate the world population crisis, would you be mad at me if you fell for it and I didn't? I've never reproduced (to my knowledge), but haven't you?

Further, would you insist that I be legally castrated for the good of humanity? Er... don't answer that... but I'm sure you see the point.

Not that they will; British politicians are crap!

Trade ya.

...and in your opinion, it isn't, so the other 173 countries are all wrong and they'll just have to re-think?

I think just because 173 nations signed a piece of paper doesn't make a theory right, but you can also refer to my comment on this above.

Wow, that was relevant.

You bet, and it's a point every likes to dance around. Everyone likes to crap on the US until its time for some boots to hit the ground or some money to be passed around or someone needs new tanks. Right now, Poland is wanting US military aid in return for us parking that useless missle shield in their territory. Lastly, the next time you think about biting the hand, etc... sing this verse:

Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,
Über alles in der Welt,
Wenn es stets zu Schutz und Trutze
Brüderlich zusammenhält,
Von der Maas bis an die Memel,
Von der Etsch bis an den Belt -
Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,
Über alles in der Welt.

You could have been learning that in grammar school.

Another point that's absolutely central to the topic at hand.

And again relevant. Had the Brit government not handed over something that wasn't theirs to a group of psychotic terrorists who had no legitimate claim to it, thus exciting the crazies here in the US to give massive amounts of aid to said terrorists, Bush et al wouldn't feel the need to continuously meddle in Middle Eastern affairs and the whole region would be much more stable.

Military resources are relevant how?

Military resources enforce political policy either actively or passively... but that's not needed, because...

For when the Commander In Chimp thunders from his pulpit: "If you impose an import tax on US goods we'll carpet-bomb your asses?"

Does Bush understand the term "nuclear deterrent", do you think? I mean, he probably can't spell it and he certainly can't pronounce it, but I'd hope even Bush can grasp the concept...

You've heard of Godwinizing a thread? I'm calling a new one, and it's called "Marshallizing" a thread. Marshallizing occurs when a non-US citizen has to resort to poking fun at George Bush's rather heavy brow and obvious lack of intelligence in order to score points in a debate.

Back on topic:

Stuart, there's not going to be any embargo against the US over the Kyoto treaty... that's pie-in-the-sky unrealistic fantasy. I wouldn't care if Rachel Carson jumped up out of her grave and endorsed the Kyoto Accords... let alone 174 nations. Most nations also belong to the UN, and I don't need to tell you what an ineffectual goat rodeo that waste of money turned out to be.

An international embargo against the US would be an economic disaster for the world market... no one would go for it. Those 174 signatures were made with the same seriousness that college girls take chastity vows, and the same sniggering was probably made during the process. At best many of those signatories were probably hoping the US Senate was retarded enough to ratify Gore's signature.

Any economist with his wits about him (and I'm neither) realizes such an embargo would send the US economy down in flames and Americans wouldn't be able to afford those Belgian diamonds I saw for sale this morning in Warren, Arkansas.

But hey... I welcome an international embargo... know why? It would force the American population back into a sense of self-reliance. We couldn't afford to buy the cheap Chinese rubbish at Wal-Mart, or bone-in-the-nose hut dwellers in Borneo wouldn't be buying our obnoxious rap CDs. We'd have to reinvent our own economy and aim it directly at ourselves, and that could only be good.

So you rally for the cause, and the next time you flip through that 1e PHB, remember where it was printed. You could start your own little personal embargo right there.

If china is meeting Kyoto prootcals, why can't they even meet their own envrionmental guidelines for air polution?

Of 47 major eastern cities not one city's atmospheric pollution met the Level 1 standard and more than 60% of the cities failed to meet the state Level 2 standards. Of the 338 cities monitored, only 112 cities reached the Level 2 standard and 137 exceeded the Level 3 standard, meaning they are severely polluted.
(these figures are from Chinese state controlled news sources)

the cause- the use of outdated energy resources which rely primarily on coal and a sharp increase in car pollution and industrial pollution.

Are Kyoto protocols being met by china because they have no requirments?

SemajTheSilent wrote:Ok, what do you want me to think there? I know what I meant when I wrote it.

I want you to think about the idea that foreign wars are in some sense predictable.

SemajTheSilent wrote:How many of those signatories would benefit from a US economy further crippled?

None. Compliance with Kyoto costs money and enforcing it on the US would hurt.

But we're talking about a matter of defence of the realm, mate.

SemajTheSilent wrote:Oh bull. China jiggles the numbers in proportion to their excessive population and claims its meeting the 2012 standards. But hey... they're also thinking of lifting the limitations on childbearing... that in tandem with being the number one worst polluter of the environment should make for interesting headlines.

Every nation's jiggling the numbers, that's pretty much inevitable given the costs. There's only one that's totally flouting them.

SemajTheSilent wrote:If we had a ball-cutting fad kick in to help alleviate the world population crisis, would you be mad at me if you fell for it and I didn't? I've never reproduced (to my knowledge), but haven't you?

Further, would you insist that I be legally castrated for the good of humanity? Er... don't answer that... but I'm sure you see the point.

Reducing your carbon emissions is on the same level as physical castration?

SemajTheSilent wrote:Trade ya.

Ah. Err, um. Oh god. Get rid of Brown... but get Bush instead.

It is an evil choice you offer, sir!

SemajTheSilent wrote:You bet, and it's a point every likes to dance around. Everyone likes to crap on the US until its time for some boots to hit the ground or some money to be passed around or someone needs new tanks.

... at which point the British boots hit the ground too, sunshine.

SemajTheSilent wrote:Lastly, the next time you think about biting the hand, etc... sing this verse:

Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,
Über alles in der Welt,
Wenn es stets zu Schutz und Trutze
Brüderlich zusammenhält,
Von der Maas bis an die Memel,
Von der Etsch bis an den Belt -
Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,
Über alles in der Welt.

You could have been learning that in grammar school.

We could. Good job we won the Battle of Britain eighteen months before the US did any fighting, otherwise we would've been in serious trouble.

Incidentally, if it weren't for us you'd be speaking French and saluting the emperor. Or the kaiser.

SemajTheSilent wrote:And again relevant. Had the Brit government not handed over something that wasn't theirs to a group of psychotic terrorists who had no legitimate claim to it, thus exciting the crazies here in the US to give massive amounts of aid to said terrorists, Bush et al wouldn't feel the need to continuously meddle in Middle Eastern affairs and the whole region would be much more stable.

Oh, sure, we're to blame for Israel as well as Pakistan and in fact most of the current political shape of the world. Fact is, whatever nation you happen to be from, we shaped it.

Welcome to Earth: A British planet.

When you've quite finished blaming the UK for the present political mess, we'd like to take credit for the language you're presently speaking, the colonisation of america, the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution, machine tools, the representative democracy, capitalism, the corporation, the separation of church and state, the computer, the telephone, the tank, the plane, the locomotive, and the concept of a bill of rights that your government is presently wiping its ass with.

Welcome to Earth: a British planet. Don't complain about our mistakes when you're up to your elbows in the good stuff we gave you.

SemajTheSilent wrote:You've heard of Godwinizing a thread? I'm calling a new one, and it's called "Marshallizing" a thread. Marshallizing occurs when a non-US citizen has to resort to poking fun at George Bush's rather heavy brow and obvious lack of intelligence in order to score points in a debate.

Sorry. I failed my saving throw -v- temptation. In my defence, Bush is hilarious.

SemajTheSilent wrote:Stuart, there's not going to be any embargo against the US over the Kyoto treaty... that's pie-in-the-sky unrealistic fantasy.

Yeah, and here we come to the nub of US foreign policy.

"We're doing this, and what are you gonna do to stop us, huh?"

Those are the facts. So why the veneer of dodgy pseudoscience or the innuendos about people's motives or the arguments about whose fault climate change is?

Just come out and say it.

SemajTheSilent wrote:But hey... I welcome an international embargo... know why? It would force the American population back into a sense of self-reliance. We couldn't afford to buy the cheap Chinese rubbish at Wal-Mart, or bone-in-the-nose hut dwellers in Borneo wouldn't be buying our obnoxious rap CDs. We'd have to reinvent our own economy and aim it directly at ourselves, and that could only be good.

Well past that, unfortunately, mate. The US is where the UK is: dependent on cheap foreign imports--of skills as well as labour and goods. Like us, you don't have enough carpenters and electricians and plumbers and motor mechanics and all those skilled people who actually make shit that's useful but you've got a massive pool of kids with honours degrees in media studies and a sense of entitlement to a well-paid office job with no heavy lifting, four thousand calories worth of burgers and fries a day and a car the size of Bournemouth.

SemajTheSilent wrote:So you rally for the cause, and the next time you flip through that 1e PHB, remember where it was printed. You could start your own little personal embargo right there.

Yup, it's all-American, that!

What's the name of the language it's printed in? Who gets credit for the printing press? Who carved that nation out of a howling wilderness? But it's all-American.

For those of you playing at home, here's the skinny on Kyoto:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

Here's the part I found interesting:

As of November 2007, 175 parties have ratified the protocol. Of these, 36 developed countries (plus the EU as a party in its own right) are required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the levels specified for each of them in the treaty (representing over 61.6% of emissions from Annex I countries), with three more countries intending to participate. One hundred and thirty-seven (137) developing countries have ratified the protocol, including Brazil, China and India, but have no obligation beyond monitoring and reporting emissions.

To me, that's like 175 players showing up for a pro poker tournament, but only 36 of them having the required entry fee... while the other 137 say "well, let me play and if I raise the entry fee then I'll pay it in."

Also note that three of the hangers-on: India, Brazil, and China are pollution infested holes that make Los Angeles look like heaven.

Additionally keep in mind that all three are highly populated areas generating large amounts of that dreaded CO2 stuff everyone's screaming about. It doesn't all come out of factory stacks, you know.

Of those three, IIRC only China has anything approaching a main player industry... the remaining 136 are essentially attempting dictate terms to the industrial powers that provide them with goods, medicine, fuel, etc.

That's one good reason for the US Senate to tell Clinton and Gore to shove the Accords.

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:I want you to think about the idea that foreign wars are in some sense predictable.

Right, they're predictable in the sense of they can be seen coming... GW, OTOH, isn't.

None. Compliance with Kyoto costs money and enforcing it on the US would hurt.

Please. What are those 136 underdeveloped nations losing?

Every nation's jiggling the numbers, that's pretty much inevitable given the costs. There's only one that's totally flouting them.

Does that include the UK and the EU?

And if you mean the US is "flouting them"... you can't flout what you didn't ratify. It's simply not binding. You're wanting to bind us by coercion to something we didn't accept.

Reducing your carbon emissions is on the same level as physical castration?

Oh I think you get my point on that.

... at which point the British boots hit the ground too, sunshine.

Uh... yeah, so do the Poles and the Pakistanis... but like the Brits, the numbers are more token than anything else.

We could. Good job we won the Battle of Britain eighteen months before the US did any fighting, otherwise we would've been in serious trouble.

I doubt it. Hitler was never really in favor of Operation Sealion. He was more in favor of hoping the UK would just give up and bow out... which you would have done through starvation had it not been for those yank destroyers and freighters.

Incidentally, if it weren't for us you'd be speaking French and saluting the emperor. Or the kaiser.

Yeeeeaaaahhhhh... you're gonna have to clue me in on those.

Oh, sure, we're to blame for Israel as well as Pakistan and in fact most of the current political shape of the world. Fact is, whatever nation you happen to be from, we shaped it.

Welcome to Earth: A British planet.

When you've quite finished blaming the UK for the present political mess, we'd like to take credit for the language you're presently speaking, the colonisation of america, the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution, machine tools, the representative democracy, capitalism, the corporation, the separation of church and state, the computer, the telephone, the tank, the plane, the locomotive, and the concept of a bill of rights that your government is presently wiping its ass with.

Welcome to Earth: a British planet. Don't complain about our mistakes when you're up to your elbows in the good stuff we gave you.

Oh good, then let the UK bear the brunt of the carbon footprints from all its former colonies... ya'll taught them to wear pants and read the Bible.

Incidentally, from that list of claims... which reads like something written here during Black History month:

- Machine tools were invented by Jacques de Vaucanson
- Representative democracy started in Athens
- Corporations started in Rome, though if you're claiming the present menace, then thanks
- You have no seperation of church and state. We barely do. You do not.
- The first modern computer was the Zuse Z3, invented in Germany in 1941
- The invention of the telephone is disputed. Front runners are Italian, American, and German... though Bell gets the credit.
- The Germans invented the tank in 1911, but it's the Brits who built them and deployed them for troop escort because your boys were getting shot down like stray mutts.
- Sir George Cayley built model airplanes in 1803...but Jean-Marie Le Bris made the first flight in 1856... puled by a horse.

But you are most certainly correct about the Bill of Rights... Parliament and George III created the Bill of Rights through their hamhanded tactics and by generally being British. From all of us, we'd like to thank you for that.

Now that the "but I'm British" fit is out of the way...

In my defence, Bush is hilarious.

Yeah, I've got to grant you that one.

Yeah, and here we come to the nub of US foreign policy.

"We're doing this, and what are you gonna do to stop us, huh?"

The nub of any nation's policy is self-interest. A nation that cooperates with another nation does so because it can't fully achieve its interests on its own. That's not just an American thingie... don't be mad just because we're blatant about it and can enforce it.

Those are the facts. So why the veneer of dodgy pseudoscience or the innuendos about people's motives or the arguments about whose fault climate change is?

No veneer needed. Anthropogenic "global warming" as a theory is crap. When radical change is proposed, it's logical to ask "Quo Bono?"

Just come out and say it.

Been saying exactly what I think for this entire thread.

Well past that, unfortunately, mate. The US is where the UK is: dependent on cheap foreign imports--of skills as well as labour and goods. Like us, you don't have enough carpenters and electricians and plumbers and motor mechanics and all those skilled people who actually make shit that's useful but you've got a massive pool of kids with honours degrees in media studies and a sense of entitlement to a well-paid office job with no heavy lifting, four thousand calories worth of burgers and fries a day and a car the size of Bournemouth.

Except that the US still has ample resources for economic renaissance. It wouldn't be pretty, but we could conceivably do it. The UK's problem is that it had not so much resources and created an empire in order to fuel the lifestyle you've all enjoyed for the past century or so... and now the chickens are coming home to roost.

Yup, it's all-American, that!

What's the name of the language it's printed in?

American English.

Who gets credit for the printing press?

The Chinese, followed by the Germans.

Who carved that nation out of a howling wilderness?

People who were sick of the British.

SemajTheSilent wrote:Right, they're predictable in the sense of they can be seen coming... GW, OTOH, isn't.

Well, not by those with their heads in the sand, at least.

SemajTheSilent wrote:Please. What are those 136 underdeveloped nations losing?

Money. They buy things. Well, they buy those things we haven't just handed them on a silver platter; and they buy them in a global economy affected by Kyoto.

SemajTheSilent wrote:Does that include the UK and the EU?

Of course it does!

SemajTheSilent wrote:And if you mean the US is "flouting them"... you can't flout what you didn't ratify. It's simply not binding. You're wanting to bind us by coercion to something we didn't accept.

Yes I am.

When one nation flouts the will of the rest, we take steps to bring it into compliance. Like in North Korea, or Iraq, or longer ago in South Africa--it's a well-established precedent. They don't ratify and don't accept, so we use trade sanctions to bring them into line.

That's perfectly normal international politics and the US does it to other nations all the time.

SemajTheSilent wrote:Uh... yeah, so do the Poles and the Pakistanis... but like the Brits, the numbers are more token than anything else.

Do you doubt that the UK could've taken Iraq? Fact is, any G5 nation -v- practically anyone else is a foregone conclusion. Even France could've done it if they'd wanted. The only question was who should supply how many forces, and it was a US initiative, so the US got to supply the lion's share.

We spent about the same per taxpayer on the actual invasion phase as the US did.

SemajTheSilent wrote:I doubt it. Hitler was never really in favor of Operation Sealion. He was more in favor of hoping the UK would just give up and bow out... which you would have done through starvation had it not been for those yank destroyers and freighters.

I seriously doubt that. When has a blockade ever starved a nation into submission?

SemajTheSilent wrote:Yeeeeaaaahhhhh... you're gonna have to clue me in on those.

Oh, right, educated in the US.

SemajTheSilent wrote:Oh good, then let the UK bear the brunt of the carbon footprints from all its former colonies... ya'll taught them to wear pants and read the Bible.

Taught you too well, I think. I read today that 45% of the US population still believes in intelligent design.

SemajTheSilent wrote:- Machine tools were invented by Jacques de Vaucanson

That was the lathe, mate. A particular kind of machine tool. Machine tools in general arose from the industrial revolution that started in... ?

SemajTheSilent wrote:- Representative democracy started in Athens

That's participatory democracy. The idea of a House of Lords and a House of Commons--on which the Senate and Congress are modelled--is British.

SemajTheSilent wrote:- Corporations started in Rome, though if you're claiming the present menace, then thanks

Oh, arguably there were corporations since Og and Thog the cavemen got together to hunt a gazelle. The legal structure of corporations as entities with shareholders in a capitalist society is British.

SemajTheSilent wrote:- You have no seperation of church and state. We barely do. You do not.

You won't catch the Prime Minister talking about God in the House of Commons, but you'll see the President talking about God to US political assemblies.

SemajTheSilent wrote:- The first modern computer was the Zuse Z3, invented in Germany in 1941

Apart from Charles Babbage's Analytical Engine from 1799, you mean?

SemajTheSilent wrote:- The invention of the telephone is disputed. Front runners are Italian, American, and German... though Bell gets the credit.

And he was British.

Sure, he lived in the US.

SemajTheSilent wrote:- The Germans invented the tank in 1911, but it's the Brits who built them and deployed them for troop escort because your boys were getting shot down like stray mutts.

No, they were getting shot down like large groups of people walking slowly across open ground into machinegun fire.

WW1 was an incredibly dumb war. 3 million British dead, a much bigger butcher's bill for us than WW2 (where we lost under 500k). Good job we won it, though, isn't it?

Nice of the US to join in. Eventually.

SemajTheSilent wrote:But you are most certainly correct about the Bill of Rights... Parliament and George III created the Bill of Rights through their hamhanded tactics and by generally being British.

Oliver Cromwell created it in 1689. France and the US copied it later.

SemajTheSilent wrote:Except that the US still has ample resources for economic renaissance. It wouldn't be pretty, but we could conceivably do it.

You won't; the resource you're lacking is the will to do it.

SemajTheSilent wrote:The UK's problem is that it had not so much resources and created an empire in order to fuel the lifestyle you've all enjoyed for the past century or so... and now the chickens are coming home to roost.

What?

Britain created the largest empire in history, largely to fund an elaborate lifestyle for a few people in London; when you're an 800-mile long island, you can't conquer a planet without resources. It took coal, silver, iron, tin, and decent quality hardwoods, all of which we had in abundance. They aren't quite so relevant nowadays; what matters now is energy sources (e.g. oil and natural gas).

That's where the North Sea and the North Atlantic come into play.

SemajTheSilent wrote:American English.

If it matters so much to you, you can put your name on your dialect of our language.

SemajTheSilent wrote:The Chinese, followed by the Germans.

Never heard of Caxton or De Worde?

Q: "When one nation flouts the will of the rest, we take steps to bring it into compliance. Like in North Korea, or Iraq, or longer ago in South Africa--it's a well-established precedent. They don't ratify and don't accept, so we use trade sanctions to bring them into line."

Oh, right, educated in the US.

And with that statement, you just lost the right to talk to me.

SemajTheSilent wrote:

Oh, right, educated in the US.

And with that statement, you just lost the right to talk to me.

Ha ha ha ha ha!

Is this why politics aren't allowed to be discussed on most gaming boards? And shouldn't you people be writing gaming supplements right now for me to buy?

SemajTheSilent wrote:

Oh, right, educated in the US.

And with that statement, you just lost the right to talk to me.

aw come one, don't 'be upset that you have to deal with people educated by nationally controlled educational systems that work hard to guide and control the minds of their citizenry.

(yes I'm poking fun at a bunch of people and many views and trust me there is NO National Control of Education in the U.S., many states can't even get it together)

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:Taught you too well, I think. I read today that 45% of the US population still believes in intelligent design.

Meaning 55% still believes in evolution nonsense? Hmmm, maybe your criticisms of U.S. education are apt.

That's participatory democracy. The idea of a House of Lords and a House of Commons--on which the Senate and Congress are modelled--is British.

I don't think the House of Lords has a direct analogue at all in the U.S. The bicameral legislature in the U.S. was a compromise between less-populated States and more-populated States.

You won't catch the Prime Minister talking about God in the House of Commons, but you'll see the President talking about God to US political assemblies.

At the same time, you won't see the President appointing bishops and the U.S. certainly doesn't have any Lords Spiritual. Of course, whether the latter is good or bad is debatable.

Nice of the US to join in [WWI]. Eventually.

It probably would have ended earlier if we hadn't, and the injustices of the Versailles and Trianon Treaties could have been avoided.

Oliver Cromwell created it in 1689. France and the US copied it later.

I don't think Cromwell is anyone to be proud of. . . .

Global warming is not a man made phenomena----it is a creation of the socialist left to allow them to tax and redistribute income. Of course, most of this tax will bepaid by the West.

The same dolts who think global warming is a man made threat in the 70s warned of the impending ice age.

Semaj has done an execellent job of citing the links to the fact the earth is actually cooling recently and that Kyoto is an absolute joke. The once proud countryof England is now run by socialist who make up ways to control and tax----with global warming right up their alley. (Remember, these are the same guys----I kid you not---who want to ban sharp ended knives in Engalnd.)

I say it again, fight agaisnt those who make up crap to take your wealth and rights to "re-distribute" to others. Stop the Western-Europeanizatoin of the world's last best hope (The U.S.) and vote against the left in this country!