|
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
Doug, should we have allowed Saddam's invasion of Kuwait with the idea
that commerce would resolve any problems arising therefrom? John H You are confusing the issue. It's one thing to go to the aid of an ally that has been attacked. The PNAC doctrine encourages "preemptive" strikes on countries that *may* be a *potential* threat to us, (solely determined by the Executive Branch). |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:44:07 -0500, John H wrote:
Doug, should we have allowed Saddam's invasion of Kuwait with the idea that commerce would resolve any problems arising therefrom? If democracy results, *this* war could make a difference, but the Gulf War is a big question. Kuwait is no closer to democracy now, than it was. Both Iraq and Kuwait are OPEC countries, so oil production may not have changed. Instead of controlling 113 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, Saddam would control 210 billion barrels. Remember that until Saddam invaded Kuwait, he had our tacit support. Also remembering that infidel soldiers in the land of Mecca is what set bin Laden off, 9/11 may not have happened. At the time, I supported the Gulf War, but perhaps, in hindsight, it wasn't our best course of action. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
This idea you, Chuck, seem to have, that we should just sit at home
taking care of our poor and sickly, paying no heed whatsoever to the rest of the globe (because it's arrogant) just isn't workable. You have the wrong impression. We do have strategic interests and treaty obligations around the world. We should not appoint ourselves the "leaders" of the entire world and use our superior military ability to impose that leadership where it is not wanted. The purpose of the military is to protect the homeland and our strategic allies, not to expand the commercial or moral "empire". Read the site. I suspect you've never delved deeper than the "Statement of Priniciples". When you have made a study of the entire PNAC program, we'll be on the same playing field in this discussion. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
|
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
"John H" wrote in message
... On 29 Dec 2003 15:26:13 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote: Doug, should we have allowed Saddam's invasion of Kuwait with the idea that commerce would resolve any problems arising therefrom? John H You are confusing the issue. It's one thing to go to the aid of an ally that has been attacked. The PNAC doctrine encourages "preemptive" strikes on countries that *may* be a *potential* threat to us, (solely determined by the Executive Branch). Is not the 'picking of allies' part of the shaping of circumstances which you find so abhorrent? Is not the picking of allies in our fundamental interests? Is it our right to pick our allies? Chuck, these are all things you find arrogant! A preemptive strike doesn't constitute "picking an ally", John. What we just did with Libya may end up being a perfect example of an economic "preemptive strike". Gadaffi has been bought, somehow. Nothing wrong with that, if it's a win-win situation. If it's not, it'll unravel, as it should. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message . com... "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership." We need to "shape circumstances" in the rest of the world so they are most favorable to our "fundamental interests"? We assume that it is our right, or mandate, to do so. How arrogant. We need to "shape circumstances" in order to "maintain peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East." And, yes, peace and security in those regions *is* in our "fundamental interest". Every country does this. But, the method is the issue. Broadly speaking, you can use weapons or commerce. You seem to favor weapons. Now that depends upon the threat you're dealing with. You own guns. I assume that you'd use them in self-defense if a person broke into your house. You might even be tempted to hunt someone down if they murdered your wife and were continuing to threaten your kids. Of course, you could offer them a ransom to stay away from your family. Unfortunately, if that gamble failed, you'd be kicking yourself for not following a more violent path to deal with the threat. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "John H" wrote in message ... On 29 Dec 2003 15:26:13 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote: Doug, should we have allowed Saddam's invasion of Kuwait with the idea that commerce would resolve any problems arising therefrom? John H You are confusing the issue. It's one thing to go to the aid of an ally that has been attacked. The PNAC doctrine encourages "preemptive" strikes on countries that *may* be a *potential* threat to us, (solely determined by the Executive Branch). Is not the 'picking of allies' part of the shaping of circumstances which you find so abhorrent? Is not the picking of allies in our fundamental interests? Is it our right to pick our allies? Chuck, these are all things you find arrogant! A preemptive strike doesn't constitute "picking an ally", John. What we just did with Libya may end up being a perfect example of an economic "preemptive strike". Gadaffi has been bought, somehow. How come Gadaffi couldn't be bought prior to our removing the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq? Don't you think that it's possible he caved out of fear rather than greed? |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
thunder wrote in message ...
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:44:07 -0500, John H wrote: Doug, should we have allowed Saddam's invasion of Kuwait with the idea that commerce would resolve any problems arising therefrom? If democracy results, *this* war could make a difference, but the Gulf War is a big question. Kuwait is no closer to democracy now, than it was. Both Iraq and Kuwait are OPEC countries, so oil production may not have changed. Instead of controlling 113 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, Saddam would control 210 billion barrels. Remember that until Saddam invaded Kuwait, he had our tacit support. Also remembering that infidel soldiers in the land of Mecca is what set bin Laden off, 9/11 may not have happened. At the time, I supported the Gulf War, but perhaps, in hindsight, it wasn't our best course of action. I agree with most of your observations, except the one that if democracy results from this war, that there will be a difference. We must remember, the Iraqis are not white, baptist, god-fearing republicans. They have their own set of beliefs, and what they think makes a successful society. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:44:49 +0000, NOYB wrote:
How come Gadaffi couldn't be bought prior to our removing the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq? Don't you think that it's possible he caved out of fear rather than greed? The process started long before Afghanistan, Iraq, or GWB. Reagan's bombing might have woke him up. A little history: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3338713.stm |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
basskisser wrote:
thunder wrote in message ... On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:44:07 -0500, John H wrote: Doug, should we have allowed Saddam's invasion of Kuwait with the idea that commerce would resolve any problems arising therefrom? If democracy results, *this* war could make a difference, but the Gulf War is a big question. Kuwait is no closer to democracy now, than it was. Both Iraq and Kuwait are OPEC countries, so oil production may not have changed. Instead of controlling 113 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, Saddam would control 210 billion barrels. Remember that until Saddam invaded Kuwait, he had our tacit support. Also remembering that infidel soldiers in the land of Mecca is what set bin Laden off, 9/11 may not have happened. At the time, I supported the Gulf War, but perhaps, in hindsight, it wasn't our best course of action. I agree with most of your observations, except the one that if democracy results from this war, that there will be a difference. We must remember, the Iraqis are not white, baptist, god-fearing republicans. They have their own set of beliefs, and what they think makes a successful society. Western-style democracy? In a Middle Eastern Moslem state? Puh-lease. Most Moslems believe democracy is the rule of humans in opposition to Islam, which they believe is the rule of God. Iran? Democratic? Iraq? Democratic? Afghanistan? Democratic? Naive. And the Kuwaitis? Totally non-democratic. We didn't aid Kuwait to restore or establish democracy there. It was strictly to prop up our oil interest in that Gulf State. At that, it was more honest than the current war, which is being conducted to prop up a failed president. -- Email sent to is never read. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net... What we just did with Libya may end up being a perfect example of an economic "preemptive strike". Gadaffi has been bought, somehow. How come Gadaffi couldn't be bought prior to our removing the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq? Don't you think that it's possible he caved out of fear rather than greed? Neither you nor I have a clue why he flipped. However, either guess is convenient. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
On 29 Dec 2003 12:51:43 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:
John H wrote in message . .. On 27 Dec 2003 07:38:11 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: John H wrote in message . .. On 24 Dec 2003 08:25:50 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: That's quite easy to to answer. You conservatives don't mind starting a war, with no real premise, right? Well, I guess except for the cardboard drones!! You think Bush is correct for the pre-emptive strike of a poor nation that we had no reason to be in, right? You righties are talking about which country we need to go blow the hell out of next, right? It would seem to me that if you thought war was bad, then you'd not want is in one....or more, especially when there has been no real evidence that we needed to go there. Again, could you please show me where a conservative said that war was grand? No, none of your statements above is 'right'. John H None of my statements are right?? Let's see, then, so you DON'T support Bush's war with Iraq? You conservatives AREN'T talking about which country to to go blow up next? I could cut and paste this one all day from just this newsgroup! Now again, if you bunch of conservatives admit that we shouldn't be in this war, then I will take back the statement that I think conservatives think war is grand. Basskisser, did I ever say I was a conservative? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:08:43 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . On 29 Dec 2003 15:26:13 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote: Doug, should we have allowed Saddam's invasion of Kuwait with the idea that commerce would resolve any problems arising therefrom? John H You are confusing the issue. It's one thing to go to the aid of an ally that has been attacked. The PNAC doctrine encourages "preemptive" strikes on countries that *may* be a *potential* threat to us, (solely determined by the Executive Branch). Is not the 'picking of allies' part of the shaping of circumstances which you find so abhorrent? Is not the picking of allies in our fundamental interests? Is it our right to pick our allies? Chuck, these are all things you find arrogant! A preemptive strike doesn't constitute "picking an ally", John. What we just did with Libya may end up being a perfect example of an economic "preemptive strike". Gadaffi has been bought, somehow. Nothing wrong with that, if it's a win-win situation. If it's not, it'll unravel, as it should. Does that mean that it's OK to 'shape circumstances' up to a point which you define? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
"John H" wrote in message
... Is not the 'picking of allies' part of the shaping of circumstances which you find so abhorrent? Is not the picking of allies in our fundamental interests? Is it our right to pick our allies? Chuck, these are all things you find arrogant! A preemptive strike doesn't constitute "picking an ally", John. What we just did with Libya may end up being a perfect example of an economic "preemptive strike". Gadaffi has been bought, somehow. Nothing wrong with that, if it's a win-win situation. If it's not, it'll unravel, as it should. Does that mean that it's OK to 'shape circumstances' up to a point which you define? John H You may be responding to the wrong message, John. In the absence of a blatant attack on this country, I have no problem with shaping circumstances using diplomacy, trade or other bait. I *do* have a problem with certain people in this government whose FIRST choice of methods is the use of force. The movie "Dr Strangelove" was supposed to be a comedy, not a lesson for future government employees. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
You are confusing the issue. It's one thing to go to the aid of an ally that
has been attacked. The PNAC doctrine encourages "preemptive" strikes on countries that *may* be a *potential* threat to us, (solely determined by the Executive Branch). Is not the 'picking of allies' part of the shaping of circumstances which you find so abhorrent? Is not the picking of allies in our fundamental interests? Is it our right to pick our allies? Chuck, these are all things you find arrogant! John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! Very weird response, John. I compared defending an ally that has been attacked vs. conducting preemptive strikes on govts. we just don't like for one reason or another...... and you respond with a comment about how we have a right to pick our allies. Of course we have a right to pick our allies. How about the right to conduct preemptive military strikes against governments we believe might eventually become a potential threat? |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
John H wrote:
Basskisser, did I ever say I was a conservative? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay What a giggle. -- Email sent to is never read. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
|
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
You get dumber by the day, Mr. Kevin Noble.
|
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
"John H" wrote in message
... Very weird response, John. I compared defending an ally that has been attacked vs. conducting preemptive strikes on govts. we just don't like for one reason or another...... and you respond with a comment about how we have a right to pick our allies. Of course we have a right to pick our allies. How about the right to conduct preemptive military strikes against governments we believe might eventually become a potential threat? Chuck, reread my response. I asked you the questions. I stated nothing regarding the picking of our allies. Well, then someone's using your name here, John. Here's what you wrote: "Is not the 'picking of allies' part of the shaping of circumstances which you find so abhorrent? Is not the picking of allies in our fundamental interests? Is it our right to pick our allies? Chuck, these are all things you find arrogant!" |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:03:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . Very weird response, John. I compared defending an ally that has been attacked vs. conducting preemptive strikes on govts. we just don't like for one reason or another...... and you respond with a comment about how we have a right to pick our allies. Of course we have a right to pick our allies. How about the right to conduct preemptive military strikes against governments we believe might eventually become a potential threat? Chuck, reread my response. I asked you the questions. I stated nothing regarding the picking of our allies. Well, then someone's using your name here, John. Here's what you wrote: "Is not the 'picking of allies' part of the shaping of circumstances which you find so abhorrent? Is not the picking of allies in our fundamental interests? Is it our right to pick our allies? Chuck, these are all things you find arrogant!" Doug, read the paragraph. Are they interrogative or declarative sentences? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
John H wrote in message . ..
On 29 Dec 2003 12:51:43 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: John H wrote in message . .. On 27 Dec 2003 07:38:11 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: John H wrote in message . .. On 24 Dec 2003 08:25:50 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: That's quite easy to to answer. You conservatives don't mind starting a war, with no real premise, right? Well, I guess except for the cardboard drones!! You think Bush is correct for the pre-emptive strike of a poor nation that we had no reason to be in, right? You righties are talking about which country we need to go blow the hell out of next, right? It would seem to me that if you thought war was bad, then you'd not want is in one....or more, especially when there has been no real evidence that we needed to go there. Again, could you please show me where a conservative said that war was grand? No, none of your statements above is 'right'. John H None of my statements are right?? Let's see, then, so you DON'T support Bush's war with Iraq? You conservatives AREN'T talking about which country to to go blow up next? I could cut and paste this one all day from just this newsgroup! Now again, if you bunch of conservatives admit that we shouldn't be in this war, then I will take back the statement that I think conservatives think war is grand. Basskisser, did I ever say I was a conservative? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! John, you may or may not know this, but some things can be IMPLIED with a very high certainty. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
On 31 Dec 2003 05:44:33 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:
John H wrote in message . .. On 29 Dec 2003 12:51:43 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: John H wrote in message . .. On 27 Dec 2003 07:38:11 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: John H wrote in message . .. On 24 Dec 2003 08:25:50 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: That's quite easy to to answer. You conservatives don't mind starting a war, with no real premise, right? Well, I guess except for the cardboard drones!! You think Bush is correct for the pre-emptive strike of a poor nation that we had no reason to be in, right? You righties are talking about which country we need to go blow the hell out of next, right? It would seem to me that if you thought war was bad, then you'd not want is in one....or more, especially when there has been no real evidence that we needed to go there. Again, could you please show me where a conservative said that war was grand? No, none of your statements above is 'right'. John H None of my statements are right?? Let's see, then, so you DON'T support Bush's war with Iraq? You conservatives AREN'T talking about which country to to go blow up next? I could cut and paste this one all day from just this newsgroup! Now again, if you bunch of conservatives admit that we shouldn't be in this war, then I will take back the statement that I think conservatives think war is grand. Basskisser, did I ever say I was a conservative? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! John, you may or may not know this, but some things can be IMPLIED with a very high certainty. If you meant to say "probability" instead of certainty, you may be correct in your statement. Implication does not provide a probability of 1, which is required for certainty. I don't know myself if I'm a conservative or not. I agree with some of the 'liberal' positions and with some of the 'conservative' positions. If I must rant and rave and lie and exaggerate to be a liberal, then I guess I'm not one of those. If I can't donate to a charity and be a conservative, then I guess I'm not one of those. I do find that you and some of the others who follow your thinking make statements which are easily refutable, if not downright ridiculous. It is fun to challenge some of the stuff you post. It's also true that some of the 'conservatives' (tuuk, for example) make ridiculous statements. They also are fun to challenge. You tend to make your own made up implications of anything that's posted. Then you argue against the implied statements you made. Can you see the humor in that? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
John H wrote:
On 31 Dec 2003 05:44:33 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: John H wrote in message . .. On 29 Dec 2003 12:51:43 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: John H wrote in message . .. On 27 Dec 2003 07:38:11 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: John H wrote in message . .. On 24 Dec 2003 08:25:50 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: That's quite easy to to answer. You conservatives don't mind starting a war, with no real premise, right? Well, I guess except for the cardboard drones!! You think Bush is correct for the pre-emptive strike of a poor nation that we had no reason to be in, right? You righties are talking about which country we need to go blow the hell out of next, right? It would seem to me that if you thought war was bad, then you'd not want is in one....or more, especially when there has been no real evidence that we needed to go there. Again, could you please show me where a conservative said that war was grand? No, none of your statements above is 'right'. John H None of my statements are right?? Let's see, then, so you DON'T support Bush's war with Iraq? You conservatives AREN'T talking about which country to to go blow up next? I could cut and paste this one all day from just this newsgroup! Now again, if you bunch of conservatives admit that we shouldn't be in this war, then I will take back the statement that I think conservatives think war is grand. Basskisser, did I ever say I was a conservative? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! John, you may or may not know this, but some things can be IMPLIED with a very high certainty. If you meant to say "probability" instead of certainty, you may be correct in your statement. Implication does not provide a probability of 1, which is required for certainty. I don't know myself if I'm a conservative or not. I agree with some of the 'liberal' positions and with some of the 'conservative' positions. If I must rant and rave and lie and exaggerate to be a liberal, then I guess I'm not one of those. If I can't donate to a charity and be a conservative, then I guess I'm not one of those. You're a right-wing neoCon. I do find that you and some of the others who follow your thinking make statements which are easily refutable, if not downright ridiculous. It is fun to challenge some of the stuff you post. It is fun to challenge; too bad you aren't equipped to do it with any wit or panache. It's also true that some of the 'conservatives' (tuuk, for example) make ridiculous statements. They also are fun to challenge. They're too easy. -- Email sent to is never read. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
"John H" wrote in message
... Chuck, reread my response. I asked you the questions. I stated nothing regarding the picking of our allies. Well, then someone's using your name here, John. Here's what you wrote: "Is not the 'picking of allies' part of the shaping of circumstances which you find so abhorrent? Is not the picking of allies in our fundamental interests? Is it our right to pick our allies? Chuck, these are all things you find arrogant!" Doug, read the paragraph. Are they interrogative or declarative sentences? They're obviously acrylic. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:02:48 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . Chuck, reread my response. I asked you the questions. I stated nothing regarding the picking of our allies. Well, then someone's using your name here, John. Here's what you wrote: "Is not the 'picking of allies' part of the shaping of circumstances which you find so abhorrent? Is not the picking of allies in our fundamental interests? Is it our right to pick our allies? Chuck, these are all things you find arrogant!" Doug, read the paragraph. Are they interrogative or declarative sentences? They're obviously acrylic. They're obviously written in response to this writing from Chuck: ******************************************** We need to "shape circumstances" in the rest of the world so they are most favorable to our "fundamental interests"? We assume that it is our right, or mandate, to do so. How arrogant. ************************************************** * John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
"John H" wrote in message
... Doug, read the paragraph. Are they interrogative or declarative sentences? They're obviously acrylic. They're obviously written in response to this writing from Chuck: ******************************************** We need to "shape circumstances" in the rest of the world so they are most favorable to our "fundamental interests"? We assume that it is our right, or mandate, to do so. How arrogant. ************************************************** * John H Like I said, John, technique is everything. There are hints that our style is becoming macabre. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 20:15:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . Doug, read the paragraph. Are they interrogative or declarative sentences? They're obviously acrylic. They're obviously written in response to this writing from Chuck: ******************************************** We need to "shape circumstances" in the rest of the world so they are most favorable to our "fundamental interests"? We assume that it is our right, or mandate, to do so. How arrogant. ************************************************** * John H Like I said, John, technique is everything. There are hints that our style is becoming macabre. But you still haven't answered the questions. I think that you and Chuck are both pretty astute individuals, and you know where those questions were leading. So I won't press for an answer any more. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
|
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
Before we start arguing the merits of each individual article on the
site, I think it's fair to discuss the principles of the organization. We started with your comments shaping circumstances for favorable outcomes, which you found arrogant. However, from later posts it seems you agree with that statement. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! Good grief, John. Is that a Belgian Waffle? |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
"John H" wrote in message
... Read the site. I suspect you've never delved deeper than the "Statement of Priniciples". When you have made a study of the entire PNAC program, we'll be on the same playing field in this discussion. Before we start arguing the merits of each individual article on the site, I think it's fair to discuss the principles of the organization. We started with your comments shaping circumstances for favorable outcomes, which you found arrogant. However, from later posts it seems you agree with that statement. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! I doubt that Chuck disagrees completely with the idea of meddling PEACEFULLY in order to create favorable political or economic situations. Every country on earth does that to the best of its ability. I suspect the problem is that people involved with the PNAC have already demonstrated that whether to meddle peacefully or with weapons is pretty much a coin toss - a 50/50 chance of either happening. Not much different than standing in the cleaning products at the supermarket and picking Ajax instead of Comet because it doesn't make much difference. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
Gould 0738 wrote:
......but you have to respect people courageous enough to admit that they actually endorse the strategy. There is enough room in the world for more than a single opinion. Wait a minute ... since when it it "courageous" to endorse the strategy of apartheid, genocide, the overthrow of legitimate governments, or the invasion of sovereign nations who threaten us in no way other than they do not subscribe to the economic interests of the likes of Cheney and Bush? The political strategies that brought us the concentration camps, the stadiums of Argentina, the killing fields of Cambodia, installed the Shah, and mined the harbors of Nicaragua were not "opinions." They were atrocities and this nation will pay for those crimes for generations to come. Please do not dignify the NOYB's rabid bloodlust as "opinion." His voice here is the cry of a frightened and angry mob. Rick |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
I doubt that Chuck disagrees completely with the idea of meddling PEACEFULLY
in order to create favorable political or economic situations. There's a difference between, "Let me show you the benefits of our economic and cultural priorities and see if there might be something there that will benefit both of us should you adopt it......" and "Let me show the business end of gun bigger than your entire army. You will now adopt the following economic and cultural priorities because it will be good for the United States if you do...." |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
... I doubt that Chuck disagrees completely with the idea of meddling PEACEFULLY in order to create favorable political or economic situations. There's a difference between, "Let me show you the benefits of our economic and cultural priorities and see if there might be something there that will benefit both of us should you adopt it......" and "Let me show the business end of gun bigger than your entire army. You will now adopt the following economic and cultural priorities because it will be good for the United States if you do...." Yeah. That's another way of putting it. No matter which method we use, it's always going to come down to whether there's a win-win ending. If we use choice B, it'll just take between 2 and 100 years longer. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
|
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
It would appear as though you were again putting words in someone's
mouth. John H No, it's a device known as "characterizing." No person actually spoke those words. They were simply chosen to represent, or "characterize" two contrasting approaches. What the heck do you teach, John? I suspect it isn't language arts. :-) |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
Gould 0738 wrote:
It would appear as though you were again putting words in someone's mouth. John H No, it's a device known as "characterizing." No person actually spoke those words. They were simply chosen to represent, or "characterize" two contrasting approaches. What the heck do you teach, John? I suspect it isn't language arts. :-) He doesn't teach. He babysits as a substitute, and basically is a placeholder in various classes until the real teacher returns. Short-term substitute teaching is a nice little racket; it allows the school board to have an "adult" at the head of the class, and it gives the students a break they shouldn't have, because very little teaching takes place. -- Email sent to is never read. |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
|
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
"John H" wrote in message
... "Characterizing" sounds like a neat trick. That means I can basically do whatever I want with someone's statement. I could take something like this, Chuck offered just one example, as did you. But, "characterizing" can also be a form of translation when you're not dealing with a foreign language, but instead trying to understand gibberish. Think of the typical unrehearsed responses when reporters corner Curious George. Or even the rehearsed statements, like "When we talk about war, we're really talkin' about peace". scratching head |
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message news:npeJb.32917 ..... But, "characterizing" can also be a form of translation when you're not dealing with a foreign language, but instead trying to understand gibberish. I agree. The ability and opportunity to characterize speech can help bring clarity and understanding to those who otherwise simply wouldn't truly comprehend what is happening. For example, in cases where circumstances require that you carefully and specifically define the meaning of the word "is", or to help elucidate the meaning of convoluted or confusing statements like "I did not have sexual relations with that woman -- Ms Lewinski." That sort of thing. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:59 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com