I didn't know we were responsible for everyone.

Post #27,012 by Brandioch 2/2/02 5:42:36 PM Reply	I didn't know we were responsible for everyone. "And, in the attempt to combat jingoism, brandioch comes up with the most jingoistic notion possible. Up to us? Really?" Yes. Really. Or did you manage to miss the entire preceeding portion of my post? "There is thus neither restraint upon Israel, nor support of Israel in any material degree. How many dead, orphans, cripples, widows, and other undesirables would occur? --That's only the simplest, most obvious example." So, the US is responsible for Israel? I'm not following your "logic" here. Is the US responsible when a suicide bombs a bus in Israel? yes/no? Is the US responsible when Israeli soldiers shoot into a crowd of protesters? yes/no? "How many widows and orphans will the Iraqis generate when they invade Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Syria, then turn their attention to Jordan?" Is the US responsible for Iraq? yes/no? Is the US responsible for Kuwait? yes/no? Is the US responsible for Jordan? yes/no? Tell me this, WHERE DOES OUR RESPONSIBILITY END? "Consider, for a moment, one of the images from Afghanistan: a woman, massing perhaps fifty kilos, completely enveloped in the burkha and thus highly hampered in her ability to move, being whipped by a well-fed, bushy-bearded, hundred-kilo man using a meter and a half of rebar. Will that sort of thing stop if the United States should disappear? Echo answers hollowly." ARE WE RESPONSIBLE FOR AFGHANISTAN? yes/no? "Yes, we've done many things wrong. But "It's all our fault" is no less jingoistic than "We're the only ones who can help."" Allow me to clarify something for you. If YOU do something WRONG it is YOUR fault. We've done MANY things wrong. Those things are OUR fault. Where did I lose you? "Yes, the basis of the whole mess is oil -- more precisely, energy." Ummm, no. Oil. More precisely, the oil they have. "But, as pointed out elsewhere, the United States itself could do without Saudi oil entirely if (a) it had to and (b) our other oil suppliers didn't go away." So, we maintain our foreign policy to maintain our supply of oil. And you don't think that I've mentioned that in my post? Did you miss it? "Shucks, we could provide most of our own energy needs if the need was acute; we don't, because we want to protect the environment and (say it softly) keep our own in reserve while we use up other people's." Again, did you MISS that part of my previous post? Our foreign policy has been to support ANYONE who will guarantee that the oil supply won't stop. Not to support the "good" people. Not to support the "right" people. Not to support the "democratic" people. We will support ANYONE who will sell us oil. And that is the problem. "So is it our oil interests we're defending?" Hmmmm, didn't I make that clear enough? Is there some doubt as to what I believe? YES!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT IS OUR "INTEREST" IN THEIR OIL THAT IS THE MOTIVATION BEHIND OUR FOREIGN POLICY. Is that clear enough for you? "Or, just possibly, by some minuscule chance, could it be that part of what we're trying to protect is the ability of Europeans to sit in safe warm apartments as they compose their denunciatory screeds?" Ummm, no. Because we aren't buying the oil and then GIVING it to those Europeans. Are we? We want the oil. We WANT the oil. WE want the oil. We want the OIL. Is there some way I can make this a little more clear to you? "Is it at all possible that the same policies that allow mass settlement of New England -- which produces none of the energy it consumes to stay warm amidst the snowdrifts -- will inevitably permit Murican Dumth to produce SUVs?" News flash, New England is ALREADY SETTLED. And they're a part of the US. And the US wants that oil! Which forms the basis of our foreign policy. Where am I losing you? "That maintaining Noam Chomsky's health, happiness, and comfort -- not to mention his access to megawatts of transmitter power -- also leads directly to Ford Expeditions?" Ummm, okay, you've lost me. What are you talking about? "Yes, if we had a time machine and unlimited military/economic power, we'd love to go back and do it over, so that we didn't depend on inexpensive energy to keep our society running." Oh, so SORRY! You MUST HAVE MISSED THE PART WHERE I WAS TALKING ABOUT WHAT WE SHOULD DO NOW!!!! You see, we can end this cycle NOW and part of that REQUIRES that we lose our oil dependancy. Keep your time machine fantasies to yourself, please? "Let me know when the chronoscape does its trial runs, OK?" Gotta love that. You retreat into fantasies instead of looking at ways that we can solve this problem NOW. Again, can you at least TRY to keep a grip on reality? Hint: Reality doesn't have time machines. "In the meantime, when we duck and weave and, yes, hurt people to keep the oil flowing, you might at least try to keep in mind the remote possibility that part of what we've got in mind is Japanese retirees and European Greens, who are just as dependent on cheap energy as we are; perhaps more." Okay, so your position is that...... The US is responsible for the oil consumption of Europe? yes/no? The US is responsible for the oil consumption of Japan? yes/no? Let me put it this way.......... Is there ANYONE in the world who is RESPONSIBLE for their own oil consumption? Aside from the US who is responsible for its consumption AND EVERY OTHER PERSON'S ON THE PLANET. "And lost in all of this rhetoric is something I consider rather basic." Given your belief in time machines and the US's responsibility to keep Japanese retirees supplied with oil, I can't WAIT to see what this is. "For half a century we have wanted one (1) thing from the Arabs: recognition of the existence of the State of Israel." WTF? So, we haven't been in it for the oil? But we're responsible for everyone in the world's oil consumption. We're in it so that Israel can be recognized by the Arabs? Hmmmm, yes. This seems to fit right in with your time machines and ubiquitous US responsibility for world wide oil supplies. "Every proposal, every agreement, every debate on the subject has drawn one, single, unitary response: "Kill the Jews and destroy their works!" " Huh? So the deal that we were trying to strike with the Taliban over oil was actually a deal to kill Jews? coo coo! coo coo! "Kind of disappointing to those whose Pollyanaish approach to all things is to talk it out and compromise." Let me help you out here. My post was the one that was immediately before your's. You do know where my post was, right? You did read it, right? Read? Like in the words and stuff like that? Now, tell me where "compromise" came from? I don't want to "compromise" with anyone. I want us off of their oil so we don't have to get involved in their petty border disputes. And they ARE petty border disputes. Right up until we supply them with oil bux and weapons and international fame. "We have talked and cajoled, we have employed "diplomacy" in all its myriad forms, we have bribed, we have tried to offer good examples, we have "respected cultural norms", and in general we have tried to offer Muslims -- and Arabs in particular -- a place in the complex web of trust relationships that is polyglot industrial society." All in an effort to secure access to their oil. And they know this. Fuck EVERY ONE OF THEM KNOWS THIS. That's why NONE OF IT WORKS. We will do ANYTHING for ANYONE to keep the oil flowing. So, the SOLUTION is to stop needing that oil. "Their response has been to treat "trust" as an opportunity -- if it exists, you can betray it and kill a lot of people." Because IT DOES NOT MATTER!!! No matter WHAT they do, we will be back, begging for oil. And they know that. " It's hard to see how a further extension of Western values can accomplish anything in the face of that." The ONLY "Western" value we've extended is OUR NEED FOR THEIR OIL. Haven't I made that clear enough? Is there someway I could phrase it that would make it clearer? "But, if talking won't work, the other possibility is violence -- and we see that being rejected." Okay, there are none so blind as those who will not see. You've COMPLETELY skipped over the option of NOT NEEDING THEIR OIL. Is that some form of mental block you have? A psychological issue? "So where does "we are the only ones who can fix it" fit in that?" Well, I don't know if this will get through your mental block. I'd love to see what this post looks like in your head. Are you asking yourself "why does he fill page after page with white lines?" Let's see........................ "we are the only ones wo can fix it"................... Could that have SOMETHING to do with us getting off of their oil? Could it? Might it? Or do you see another white line there? Or is it incomprehensible gibberish? Where did I lose you? Is the US responsible for EVERY other country's oil needs? Is the US responsible for the behaviour in another country? Is the US responsible for Israel's acceptance? and WHY do you suggest it is if it isn't? and if it IS, why do YOU believe it is?
Post #27,304 by Ric Locke 2/4/02 9:07:54 PM Reply	Oh, dear. What a lot to wade through. Let's take some examples: "So is it our oil interests we're defending?" Hmmmm, didn't I make that clear enough? Is there some doubt as to what I believe? YES!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT IS OUR "INTEREST" IN THEIR OIL THAT IS THE MOTIVATION BEHIND OUR FOREIGN POLICY. Is that clear enough for you? Uh, Brandi -- If you really think it's that simple, I feel sorry for you. Oil is a component of our foreign policy. It's even a large component. What I was trying to point out is that that doesn't necessarily mean that oil is a component of our foreign policy because we want the oil ourselves. If you are saying oil is the only component, or even the only significant component, you are either a liar or too stupid to take seriously. George W. Bush would be a Billyionaire if the Saudis hadn't gotten OPEC to pull the rug out from under U.S. oil production in the Eighties. Many of his associates in the current administration are in the same position. My income would have roughly doubled at the same time. Roughly a third of my neighbors would be gainfully employed instead of burger-flipping. And the biggest allies the Saudis had in that effort were American and European Watermelon Greens. "Or, just possibly, by some minuscule chance, could it be that part of what we're trying to protect is the ability of Europeans to sit in safe warm apartments as they compose their denunciatory screeds?" Ummm, no. Because we aren't buying the oil and then GIVING it to those Europeans. Are we? We want the oil. We WANT the oil. WE want the oil. We want the OIL. Is there some way I can make this a little more clear to you? Well, no, because your position is already clear. You're repeating the Received Wisdom of the American Left. What you haven't realized yet is that the people you're parrotting have very carefully simplified their arguments down to the point where people of limited intellect can apprehend them, and in the process have left out a lot of things that are germane to the case. You don't make yourself any more "clear" by repeating the mantra, dig? Nor do you improve your chances of being taken seriously by either shouting or ignoring when somebody says, "Yes, but--". "Yes, but--" is not the same as "Yes". Europe is a cold place. They need energy [oil] in order to stay warm, so their fingers don't cramp while they're writing their anti-American screeds. Part of our foreign policy [up to now] has been based on the idea that that's actually a good idea -- that people should not only be free to express themselves [even if we don't like the expressions!] but also able to express themselves without, for instance, freezing. Any assertion you make that our entire goal is oil for ourselves ignores that -- and it's a big part of the real world. "Is it at all possible that the same policies that allow mass settlement of New England -- which produces none of the energy it consumes to stay warm amidst the snowdrifts -- will inevitably permit Murican Dumth to produce SUVs?" News flash, New England is ALREADY SETTLED. And they're a part of the US. And the US wants that oil! Which forms the basis of our foreign policy. Where am I losing you? Whiiisssssh! As the point zooms over your head at Mach 5, so far up you can't see the contrail. Yes, New England is already settled. News flash: There are millions of people in New England. It gets COLD in New England. It SNOWS in New England. Film at 11 -- All those people living in New England need energy TO STAY WARM and TO GET FOOD. Any oil pricing policy that makes SUVs too expensive for people to operate is going to either (1) FREEZE PEOPLE TO DEATH in Massachusetts or (2) make it impossible for me and the rest of the bucolic nimwits out here who provide food to them to get crops to market at any reasonable cost, thus STARVING PEOPLE TO DEATH in New England. Probably both. And the bit about "bucolic nimwits" is actually pretty serious. We country people -- "red county" voters, remember that? -- provide you city dwellers with food and energy. Most of what gets paid for that goes into the pockets of middlemen who are, wait for it -- other city dwellers! And in return for providing those resources, we get insulted, paid a pittance, and subjected to dumbass regulations as to what kind of cars we can drive. Pretty stupid of us, isn't it? "In the meantime, when we duck and weave and, yes, hurt people to keep the oil flowing, you might at least try to keep in mind the remote possibility that part of what we've got in mind is Japanese retirees and European Greens, who are just as dependent on cheap energy as we are; perhaps more." Okay, so your position is that...... The US is responsible for the oil consumption of Europe? yes/no? The US is responsible for the oil consumption of Japan? yes/no? Let me put it this way.......... Is there ANYONE in the world who is RESPONSIBLE for their own oil consumption? Aside from the US who is responsible for its consumption AND EVERY OTHER PERSON'S ON THE PLANET. Well, well, aren't we just overflowing with the Milk of Human Kindness today! Gee, I thought you were the one who was all worried that we'd mistreat people down in Cuba... We live on a planet that's eight thousand miles in diameter, more or less. We daily use transport that goes over five hundred miles an hour. It takes ten hours to get to Europe, half that or less with the Concorde. What part of "the planet is too damn small for us to go it alone?" haven't you figured out? Or is Planet Brandioch bigger than that? Clearly Planet Brandioch is not inhabited by anyone you give a damn about. If you think the Arabs and the French don't like us now, watch what happens when we adopt an energy policy that beggars Europe. Or Japan. IT ALL HOOKS TOGETHER, dammit. [Gee, I thought "One World" was an Environmentalist position. Well, one lives and learns.] "For half a century we have wanted one (1) thing from the Arabs: recognition of the existence of the State of Israel." WTF? So, we haven't been in it for the oil? But we're responsible for everyone in the world's oil consumption. Message for Planet Brandioch... Message for Planet Brandioch... Yoo Hoo! Anyone home? Ah, well, broadcast works, and maybe somebody's listening. You really do think that the only reason Israel was established was to serve as catspaw so the U.S. could rape and pillage in the oil fields, don't you? Bah. Holocaust Denier, are you? Getcher brown shirt here... Yes, we're responsible for the world's oil consumption... by your very own arguments. After all, the whole point is to gitthatoil so we can make stuff cheap and make money, no? And the original point of the essay was why the Arabs are giving us trouble, no? We -- the Western nations, not just the United States -- established Israel for a complex of reasons, some based on generosity and good feeling, some based on guilt, and some based on various nastinesses. The point I was trying to make was that we didn't expect the Arabs to love Jews (or anybody else); we expected the Arabs to participate in the ebb and flow of the Western World, and got severely disappointed. You want to reduce it to the single word "oil", so the issue will be simple enough to fit in your frontal lobes. Trouble is, it ain't that simple, and if you try to make decisions based on that oversimplification, you're gonna make it worse, not better. Oh, and BTW -- ever hear the phrase "My Brother's Keeper?" "But, if talking won't work, the other possibility is violence -- and we see that being rejected." Okay, there are none so blind as those who will not see. You've COMPLETELY skipped over the option of NOT NEEDING THEIR OIL. No, I didn't skip it. What part of WE DON'T NEED THEIR OIL don't you get? We don't need their oil [IF] --we reduce our own consumption (you're right about that bit. Too bad it isn't all of the issue, isn't it?) ....[AND IF] --we produce more of our own oil (yeah, you'll be right behind that, won't you? Right up until sombody ::gasp choke shudder:: makes money on it) ....[OR] --we produce more energy from somewhere else (yeah, right. What there is in that category is nuclear power + seeds and stems) ....[OR] --we damage our own economy and those of the rest of the developed world to the point of people freezing in the dark, unable to travel to sheltered places ....[OR] --some combination of the above ....[ENDIF] [AND] --we want to abandon the rest of the world (how nicely they'll remember us!) [AND] --we don't mind the pollution and nuclear fallout resulting from the abandonment. [END IF] Brandioch, I'm sorry, but the issue really is more complicated than the people you're listening to want to paint it. We don't need Middle Eastern oil; it provides around a fifth of what we use, and we could do very well indeed if it all vanished tomorrow. Our own resources [oil, nuclear, "alternate"] could be developed; we could depend more on the Venezuelans and [especially] Russians to take up part of the slack; we could, yes, judiciously and carefully freeze a few people in the dark to minimize consumption. And we'd be net richer for it. Shucks, I might be able to get a nice oilfield job and be able to afford a decent place to live, and we might very well be able to subsidize some folks [a little more] so as to minimize the starving and freezing. Oh, and, gee, we'd be able to afford more and bigger SUVs :-) There are even a fair number of people proposing just that -- but I don't think you'll like the much as allies; you certainly denounce them often enough. I'm talking about the people who claim that the right way to do it is to go cold turkey, sink the tankers, blast the Middle East flat with nukes, and paint parking-lot lines. Gives us a place to store the SUVs and RVs when we're not using them, no? And it would certainly minimize the Arab problem. But if you think we'd be better off, given that we've got to share this little pebble with two billion Chinese, a billion Europeans, and two and a half billion others, Planet Brandioch is indeed a strange and wonderful place. Most of my previous post was an attempt to point out some of the unforeseen [by you and your ideological advisors] consequences of making those decisions. Apparently you still like the idea. Sorry, I still don't. Regards, Ric
Post #27,324 by Brandioch 2/5/02 12:18:01 AM Reply	I didn't know we were responsible for everyone. (again) "Oil is a component of our foreign policy. It's even a large component. What I was trying to point out is that that doesn't necessarily mean that oil is a component of our foreign policy because we want the oil ourselves." Like I said before, why are we responsible for Japan's oil supply? Hmmmm? "If you are saying oil is the only component, or even the only significant component, you are either a liar or too stupid to take seriously." Really? Well, take out the oil and see how our foreign policy changes. "What you haven't realized yet is that the people you're parrotting have very carefully simplified their arguments down to the point where people of limited intellect can apprehend them, and in the process have left out a lot of things that are germane to the case." Okay, tell me what has been left out. "Europe is a cold place." Parts are, parts aren't. "They need energy [oil] in order to stay warm, so their fingers don't cramp while they're writing their anti-American screeds. " And that matters to us because.....................? "Part of our foreign policy [up to now] has been based on the idea that that's actually a good idea -- that people should not only be free to express themselves [even if we don't like the expressions!] but also able to express themselves without, for instance, freezing. " Are you serious about this? Our foreign policy is based around making sure some idiot in Trunklesburg has cheap oil? And you think that >I< am the one that doesn't understand foreign policy? "News flash: There are millions of people in New England. It gets COLD in New England." You see, that's the part I don't understand. I can see us needing the oil. -BUT- I can't see us being responsible for OTHER COUNTRIES. But you're going to skip over the MAJOR portion (not the title in both these posts) about WHY we are responsible for other countries' oil supplies and instead go on about New England. Don't try that. Answer the question as to WHY we are responsible for Japan's oil supply. Don't tell me that we are. Tell me why we are. "Well, well, aren't we just overflowing with the Milk of Human Kindness today! Gee, I thought you were the one who was all worried that we'd mistreat people down in Cuba..." Clue #1. If we weren't tied up in the oil over there, they wouldn't be in Cuba. "We live on a planet that's eight thousand miles in diameter, more or less. " Clue #2. When people start quoting irrelevant "facts", that usually means they've run out of relevant facts are are going to try to bullshit you. "What part of "the planet is too damn small for us to go it alone?"" Yep, there's the bullshit. Why is it that Japan cannot ensure that it has access to the oil it needs? Why do we have to do that? Answer the question. "Clearly Planet Brandioch is not inhabited by anyone you give a damn about. " Ooooohhhh. I am verily wounded to the core! Oh, wait a minute. Am I not the one who advocates treating the other people like humans? Ah, I understand. You don't have any reason why we are responsible for everyone else's oil supply. So you're going to claim that I don't care about them. Why don't you just tell me why we're responsible for their oil supply and leave off the hysterics? "If you think the Arabs and the French don't like us now, watch what happens when we adopt an energy policy that beggars Europe. " Again with the hysterics. Tell me why we're responsible for their energy usage? Don't give me the dire scenarios. Tell me WHY we're responsible for their oil supply. "You really do think that the only reason Israel was established was to serve as catspaw so the U.S. could rape and pillage in the oil fields, don't you? Bah. Holocaust Denier, are you? Getcher brown shirt here..." Again with they hysterics. I asked why we were responsible for everyone's oil supply. You said that Israel wants Arab recognition. So? Why are we responsible for everyone's oil supply? "Yes, we're responsible for the world's oil consumption... by your very own arguments." Uh, no. That was my question to you. Why are we responsible for everyone's oil supply? "After all, the whole point is to gitthatoil so we can make stuff cheap and make money, no?" Nice tangent. Why are we responsible for everyone's oil supply? "And the original point of the essay was why the Arabs are giving us trouble, no?" True. I say that it is because of our interests in their oil and our willingness to support anyone in anything as long as they keep the oil flowing. You say that this is our national responsiblity. And that the oil isn't for us. It's for everyone else. So I'm asking why is it our national responsiblity to make sure other countries have oil? Why can't they do it themselves? "We -- the Western nations, not just the United States -- established Israel for a complex of reasons, some based on generosity and good feeling, some based on guilt, and some based on various nastinesses." And why are we responsible for everyone else's oil supply? "The point I was trying to make was that we didn't expect the Arabs to love Jews (or anybody else); we expected the Arabs to participate in the ebb and flow of the Western World, and got severely disappointed. " Very nice. So, why are we responsible for everyone's oil supply? "You want to reduce it to the single word "oil", so the issue will be simple enough to fit in your frontal lobes. " Nope. I want to show that without the oil, our foreign policy is COMPLETELY different. And why are we responsible for everyone else's oil supply? "Trouble is, it ain't that simple, and if you try to make decisions based on that oversimplification, you're gonna make it worse, not better." So you claim. But you have not supported that statement yet. Tell me why we're responsible for everyone else's oil supply. "Oh, and BTW -- ever hear the phrase "My Brother's Keeper?"" Yes. So tell me why we are responsible for everyone else's oil supply. "No, I didn't skip it. What part of WE DON'T NEED THEIR OIL don't you get?" The part where you tell me why we're responsible for everyone else's oil supply. " [AND] --we want to abandon the rest of the world (how nicely they'll remember us!) [AND] --we don't mind the pollution and nuclear fallout resulting from the abandonment. [END IF] " So tell me, why are we responsible for everyone else's oil supply? Why aren't they responsible for their own oil supply? "Brandioch, I'm sorry, but the issue really is more complicated than the people you're listening to want to paint it. " And yet you cannot answer a simple question or two. #1. Why are we responsible for everyone else's oil supply? #2. Why can't they be responsible for their own oil supply? "We don't need Middle Eastern oil; it provides around a fifth of what we use, and we could do very well indeed if it all vanished tomorrow. " Yet our foreign policy seems to be based around it. "Our own resources [oil, nuclear, "alternate"] could be developed; we could depend more on the Venezuelans and [especially] Russians to take up part of the slack; we could, yes, judiciously and carefully freeze a few people in the dark to minimize consumption. " Again with the hysterics. Just tell me why we're responsible for everyone else's oil supply. "There are even a fair number of people proposing just that -- but I don't think you'll like the much as allies; you certainly denounce them often enough. " Whatever. You still haven't answered the question. Why are we responsible for everyone else's oil consumption? "I'm talking about the people who claim that the right way to do it is to go cold turkey, sink the tankers, blast the Middle East flat with nukes, and paint parking-lot lines. " Hysterics, again. Why are we responsible for everyone else's oil supply? "But if you think we'd be better off, given that we've got to share this little pebble with two billion Chinese, a billion Europeans, and two and a half billion others, Planet Brandioch is indeed a strange and wonderful place. " Whatever. Just tell me why we're responsible for their oil supply. Why can't they be responsible for it themselves? "Most of my previous post was an attempt to point out some of the unforeseen [by you and your ideological advisors] consequences of making those decisions. " Actually, most of it was you stating your beliefs without support. You see, you COULD give 99% of your money away to other people. They'd appreciate you for it. They'd have nice homes and warm clothes. And there would be a few of them that would be mad at you if you ever stopped doing it. You do share the planet with them, you know. "Brother's keeper" and all. But you still haven't answered why you SHOULD do that. Nor why they aren't able to support themselves. That that again.
Post #27,331 by wharris2 2/5/02 1:15:48 AM Reply	Re: I didn't know we were responsible for everyone. (again) We are responsible for our liberty and security. We are not responsible for anyone else's. We are responsible to maintain our agreements with other nations (unless broken or until dissolved, such as the ABM treaty.) At least that's how it works, theoretically. Yep, there's the bullshit. Why is it that Japan cannot ensure that it has access to the oil it needs? Why do we have to do that? There's that treaty thing. By treaty, Japan is an ally and, due to justifiable paranoia on our part, has not been allowed to create or maintain a large army or navy. (You do remember what got us into World War 2, right? Japan attacking Pearl Harbor and immediately thereafter seizing every oil and other mineral resource they could grab in the far east?) In general I agree with the thought that we should generally disentangle ourselves from other nations as much as possible. If the Saudis want to make their women wear veils, chop hands off thieves, behead people for other offenses, that's their business.... unless they make the mistake of making it our business, as the Taliban did by supporting a terrorist group that killed thousands of our people. Unfortunately, there you get into the question. We do currently need oil from the Middle East. Theoretical pipe dreams about living without it aside, it would take years to muster the resources - which yes, we should do, but that's not the here and now. "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Post #27,383 by Brandioch 2/5/02 11:43:53 AM Reply	Which leads to my other point. Well, first off, I'm not aware of any treaty with Japan that says we have to make sure they have affordable oil. If they're attacked, we will help them. But I don't see a yen/barrel inclusion anywhere. "We do currently need oil from the Middle East. Theoretical pipe dreams about living without it aside, it would take years to muster the resources - which yes, we should do, but that's not the here and now." Nope. It's not. And it NEVER will be UNTIL we start doing it. Like I said before. For the next 20 years, cut 1/20'th of the influx from them. After 20 years, we will be at zero. Focus on developing alternatives. We can KEEP saying that it won't work TODAY. But until we START, the day when we're off their oil will NEVER come. (well, until the oil is gone and we have no alternatives readied)
Post #27,385 by CRConrad 2/5/02 11:54:28 AM Reply	Brandi, USE the freaking QUOTE BUTTON! That's what it's FOR!
Post #27,392 by Another Scott 2/5/02 12:13:41 PM Reply	Hey, cut him some slack. I've never noticed it either. Neato. I hadn't noticed the Quote button with the drop-down list before either. Is that a recent upgrade or has it been there for months? Usage?: To use it for a blockquote, hit the "Symbol" drop down list, select Block, then hit the Quote button. Put your cut-and-paste in between the sets of brackets. Hey Scott! How about adding an option to do the "open link in another window" HTML madness that imric is so fond of. It's very nice for links outside the world of IWeThey. Thanks, CRC. Cheers, Scott.
Post #27,393 by CRConrad 2/5/02 12:20:40 PM Reply	Use "Split Block" to save on cut-and-pasting. :-)
Post #27,394 by Another Scott 2/5/02 12:25:31 PM Reply	Eh? I don't understand the usage I guess. Split Block just seems to generate 2 pairs of [blockquote type="cite"] [/blockquote]. It seems that the same cut-and-paste actions are required. What am I missing? Thanks. Cheers, Scott.
Post #27,433 by CRConrad 2/5/02 6:19:11 PM Reply	How "Split Block" helps cut down on cut/paste: Scott II writes: Split Block just seems to generate 2 pairs of [blockquote type="cite"] [/blockquote]. It seems that the same cut-and-paste actions are required. Naah; you get one set of blockquote tags around each paragraph with "Split Block". (I've always assumed that's what it means: The post you're replying to is split up into paragraph-size blocks.) [X] Unfortunately, because most of us separate our paragraphs with an extra pair of newlines, you also usually get an empty pair of blockquote tags (I've put in a "[X]" to illustrate it above) between each real paragraph. What am I missing? The fact that an empty post like my previous one gives the same result in "Block" and "Split Block", probably... :-) [X] Oh, and these empty blockquote tag pairs are still: A) Easier to delete than it is to copy a single pair around and split up a post manually, and B) Useful if you want to further split up a paragraph to reply to two separate points in it: Just cut one bit out and paste it into one of these! :-) Thanks. You're welcome; HTH! Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything (But is still rather amazed that someone could miss that select box and button for months on end.)
Post #27,434 by Another Scott 2/5/02 6:25:52 PM Reply	Thanks. Thanks. You're welcome; HTH! It does indeed. (But is still rather amazed that someone could miss that select box and button for months on end.) Hey, it just seemed to be extraneous stuff. I had no need to post "Symbols" nor make things "Wider" so I didn't investigate the other options. I managed to pick up enough HTML to do italics, bold, and blockquotes, so I was happy. And it never occurred to me to highlight a block of text and then mess around with the Quote and Change buttons to see what would happen.... Until you bestowed your wisdom upon me. :-) Thanks again. Cheers, Scott.
Post #27,438 by CRConrad 2/5/02 7:12:56 PM Reply	You're welcome! (And so is Brandhisim, dammit...)
Post #27,614 by Ashton 2/7/02 2:24:27 AM Reply	Reassuring that I'm not the only one who doesn't reexplore such things as 'Symbol' after I thought I had, and didn't expect NEW STUFF to be snuck in and.. such. (Maybe it's a M$-ingrained habit, an aversion to all Their menus of All that bloat - after initially finding the Few useful things.) Hmmm how's that for rationalization of terminal feature sloth ? Ashton Luddite
Post #27,460 by Ric Locke 2/5/02 10:45:58 PM Reply	We aren't responsible for everyone. We are responsible for ourselves. We have to take responsibility for others who need our help, just as others have to take responsibility for us when we need help. We need to take responsibility for others in some ways, in order to influence them to do things that help us. If the Japanese don't get oil, their people die, their industry dies, and a huge chunk of our trade goes away. We get poorer. Very likely, they get pissed off and start another war. This is, of course, a Good Thing, because We took care only of our Own Interests, right? If the Europeans don't get oil, their industry starts dying, their people start dying, a huge chunk of our trade goes away, and we get poorer. They get pissed. They're already unhappy. What happens when they get really mad? But of course we only took care of our own interests, right? We aren't responsible for anyone else. But, to safeguard our own interests, we have to take due regard for others' interests. As for New England -- let's try it one more time, shall we? Warning: long interconnected thought not suitable for single-phrase snipping follows. Engage -- New England is a part of the United States. Roughly fifty million people live there. It does not produce, internally, any significant fraction of the energy [oil] it uses, nor of the food. OK, we clear with that? HANDS OFF THAT SNIPPER -- THE THOUGHT CONTINUES. Sheesh. No wonder you have trouble. If you can't continue a thought past a single sentence, imagine the problem with paragraphs. Reviewing: New England is a massive consumer of food and oil, right? If oil becomes more expensive, people in New England have to pay more for oil, right? If oil becomes more expensive, people in New England have to pay more for food, because food has to be grown [oil] and transported [oil] from elsewhere. Are these concepts at all clear to you? [Thought continues in third paragraph. Yes, I know it's hard. Try to keep up] Therefore any action taken that makes oil more expensive makes New England less habitable. It might be necessary. But you're trying to focus the entire thrust of your argument on one single issue, and ignoring the "side" issues and the consequential damages. What I'm trying to do is point out that It Ain't That Simple^TM -- there are consequences to anything we do, and basing our entire policy on one single [mostly false] thought is a bad idea. Furthermore -- there is a school of thought, going back several centuries, that being engaged in trade makes hostilities less likely. It might be wrong, but it is accepted as one possibility -- and if you don't think United States trade policy hasn't included that idea as one of its components, you don't know anything about international policy. And again -- do you think they're going to just disappear? [Whoever "they" are.] Like the ostrich's enemies, that disappear when it puts its head in the sand [yes, I know they really don't do that]? What you're positing is that if we don't buy their oil, they'll go away. What's "away" in that context? Is there any valid analogy with the concept of "throwing away" pollutants? Will they be poorer? If so, will they be enough poorer that they aren't a threat any more? If they are enough poorer that they can't give us trouble, do you suppose they'll like that? Can you get all of them? What if somebody else comes along and buys their oil? Lots of people have money. Some of that money comes from people who sell things to us, like my keyboard and monitor [Japan] and computer case [Korea] and other parts [Taiwan, Germany, others]. What if somebody else buys their oil and they still have money, but now none of them has any reason to look favorably on the United States, 'cause we told 'em to piss off and die? We just spent half a century trying to see to it that the Japanese don't repeat the events of 1935-45, and, as someone else pointed out, part of that has been to see to it that they aren't much of a military threat. If we abandon them to the cold and dark, is there any chance at all that they might reconsider that? If we don't help see to it that Japanese stay warm and employed, how hard will it be to recruit Japanese terrorists? Bah. You're as isolationist as a Mississippi redneck of the Fifties. All this sounds like the kind of argument my Dad and I had with Uncle Earl about then... ::epiphany!:: I just figured out why you ps me off so bad, Brandioch. I'm* supposed to be the rightwing reactionary bomb-em-all redneck around here, and you're supposed to be the left-wing, all-cultures-are-created-equal Liberal. You're trampling on my prerogatives, dammit. Regards, Ric
Post #27,521 by Brandioch 2/6/02 1:39:31 PM Reply	I wasn't aware of that. First you say: "We aren't responsible for everyone." And I can agree with that. Then you say: "We are responsible for ourselves." And I can agree with that. Then you say: "We have to take responsibility for others who need our help, just as others have to take responsibility for us when we need help." And that's where you lose me. If we ARE NOT responsible for everyone (see the first two lines of this post), the how can we be RESPONSIBLE for everyone? "If the Japanese don't get oil, their people die, their industry dies, and a huge chunk of our trade goes away." Ummmmm, no. You are COMPLETELY wrong on this. People in Japan are going to DIE if we don't fuck around with the people of S.A. (and thereabouts)?!? Please support that statement. "Very likely, they get pissed off and start another war." Excuse me, but could you find your way back to reality before continuing this conversation? "If the Europeans don't get oil, their industry starts dying, their people start dying, a huge chunk of our trade goes away, and we get poorer." Again, please support your position that people in Europe will die if we don't fuck around with oil producing nations. "What happens when they get really mad?" I don't know. Why don't YOU tell me what YOU think will happen? "New England is a part of the United States." Like I said before. When lots of irrelevant facts are thrown into the conversation, it is usually a sign that their position is crumbling and they're hoping to swamp you so you don't notice. (skips forward a few paragraphs). "But you're trying to focus the entire thrust of your argument on one single issue, and ignoring the "side" issues and the consequential damages." And the rebuttal is..................... New England is part of the US. Japan isn't. It's like I said before. YOU (that is you, Ric), could give all your money away to strangers. They would like you. In fact, you could reduce the rations of some of your family members. Just like some of our troops die so that Japan can have cheap oil. I'm not saying that we can't do this. I'm asking why we have to do this. A question that you have YET to answer. Except to claim that Japan might start another war if we don't. "It might be wrong, but it is accepted as one possibility -- and if you don't think United States trade policy hasn't included that idea as one of its components, you don't know anything about international policy." Good move. Claim that I don't know something because you just brought it up. Hello? So, we trade with various countries. And we tried to negotiate a pipeline with Afghanistan. But now we're bombing them. Do you see the flaws in your viewpoint? "And again -- do you think they're going to just disappear? [Whoever "they" are.] " Ummmm, why don't you answer that second question first? Who are you talking about? "Like the ostrich's enemies, that disappear when it puts its head in the sand [yes, I know they really don't do that]?" Who? What? Reality? "What you're positing is that if we don't buy their oil, they'll go away." Amazing. How many posts and you STILL haven't read them? I've never said that ANYONE will go away if we don't buy oil. The CLOSEST that this "discussion" has come to that is YOUR claim that people in Japan and Europe will DIE if we don't keep up our current policy (care to tell that to the orphans from the WTC attack?) That's right. "It's okay that daddy got killed, 'cause Daddy died so our country can make sure European Socialists can badmouth the US." Or, at least, that seems to be the sum of your position. "What's "away" in that context?" You tell me. YOU are the one that said it. "Is there any valid analogy with the concept of "throwing away" pollutants? " And now you're going to introduce another concept? Does the term "straw man" have any meaning to you? "Will they be poorer?" Will >WHO< be poorer? Who are you talking about? "If so, will they be enough poorer that they aren't a threat any more?" Will >WHO< be poor enough? Who are you talking about? Okay, I'm going to skip the rest of your post 'cause it's just repetitions of that theme. Until you tell me WHO you're talking about, asking rhetorical questions of them is just a waste of time (more so than regular rhetorical questions).
Post #27,525 by CRConrad 2/6/02 1:55:21 PM Reply	Do you have some kind of religious objection... ...to sensible quoting, or what THE FUCK is your problem?!? Oh, and from your last post it seems you've just proven you can't grasp a thought that extends over more than one -- preferably short -- sentence, O Master Of The Snip. Christian R. Conrad Yet Another European Socialist Who Gets Daddy Killed By Badmouthing The US
Post #27,564 by Brandioch 2/6/02 6:55:25 PM Reply	Did I miss something? Oh, and from your last post it seems you've just proven you can't grasp a thought that extends over more than one -- preferably short -- sentence, O Master Of The Snip. Happy now? Now, to what were you refering? Be specific.
Post #27,568 by CRConrad 2/6/02 7:09:34 PM Reply	Yes, you did. I refer to ALL your posts EXCEPT the one above
Post #27,595 by Ric Locke 2/6/02 10:33:34 PM Reply	Christian, I've disagreed with you once or twice and a little more often with Ashton. If I ever get that stupidly, ignorantly infuriating, just say so, willya? Sheesh. I haven't met anyone that monomaniac, or with that short an attention span, since -- oh, since ten minutes or so ago, when the six-month-old staying with us quit crying. BTW Brandioch, a quick clue: You do >>NOT<< impress anyone, or win the debate, by simple obtuseness that's clearly willful, nor by asking a question you've snipped the answer to because you can't keep track of a thought past a full stop. Regards, Ric
Post #27,602 by Ric Locke 2/6/02 11:03:32 PM Reply	Oh, yes.. No man is an Iland, intire of it selfe; Every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; If a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Mannor of thy friends or of thine own were; Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee. --John Donne Regards, Ric
Post #27,617 by Ashton 2/7/02 3:31:28 AM Reply	Since the weathervane has struck a vein and taken my sobriquet in vain: I'd categorize your debate strategy here as ~ Ashleigh Brilliant's, In the end, everything is related to.. everything else. A Revealed-Truth with which I would never be so foolish as to disagree. And.. undeniably this precept is the mother's milk of all international diplomacy / tact etc. wherein each spokesperson, in highly ritualized manner - attempts to portray the large Concern felt by (his) people for the (addressee's) people. The trouble I see with attempting to achieve this highest scale of Consideration is, not merely the attention span of all parties + their historical memory, but - the sheer human impossibility of even coming close. This, even in the rarest of cases: where there is a genuine mutual desire to do so. I don't believe that you think it's possible either, unless you do Not believe that we (US) operate on largely Machiavellian principles, ~ those of enlightened self-interest. If that is so, we are most often Not 'considering the overall health of the world-complex'. (We could digress and discuss the Marshall Plan - a component of which was (almost undeniably?) such altruistic motives. To claim that these were unalloyed humanitarion motives however.. is where the long thread would just begin.) Maybe my mind operates differently from yours (!?) but I often find that reducing multifarious 'considerations' to a few simple questions - can lead to listing of those multis in some semblance of priority. (I don't know if that's Brandioch's point) Lastly, I believe that many of our (US) worldwide dilemmas exist for us because: we WON'T stop, look around - and go back to some first principles to be debated or at least shared.. with the interested few who trouble to vote (on anything). In present context an obvious example would be: WHEN are we going to address pointedly, our profligacy with energy usage? We can raise 'efficiency' in countless areas - where we have done so already, in just a few. Imagining that petroleum shall suffice forever IS the POV of the ostrich. And I agree with Brandioch ~ that: [oil] is all we think about, however intermixed occasionally with ~worldwide considerations. We can continue with this style so typical of the bizness Quarterly mentality - per usual - or, we could do better. (And if we did - maybe have fewer Quarterly-type wars?) Thus far we appear as disinterested as always, in "looking at root causes" of our discontent. Maybe that's too radical a concept. [pun intended] Ashton
Post #27,650 by Brandioch 2/7/02 11:20:17 AM Reply	Feel free to not address my points. #1. What treaty do we have with Japan to ensure that they have cheap oil at the cost of US lives? #2. What is the price per barrel guaranteed in this treaty? #3. The same question goes for the European nations. BTW Brandioch, a quick clue: You do >>NOT<< impress anyone, or win the debate, by simple obtuseness that's clearly willful, nor by asking a question you've snipped the answer to because you can't keep track of a thought past a full stop. You claim that we are responsible to ensure that Japan and Europe have cheap oil. You suggest that Japan might go to war if they don't have cheap oil. The reason I phrase things in such a simple manner is so that people like you can answer them easily. You claim we are responsible for them. "My brother's keeper" is a term you've used. When I ask you for specifics, you go off about how people could die if they don't have cheap oil. I won't ever bother going into the details of buying sweaters and such. To me, they seem like simple enough questions: Why are we responsible for their oil consumption? At what point does our responsibility end? Why can they not be responsible for their own consumption? When faced with your position, boiled down to these very simple points, you attempt to swamp me in irrelevant facts about New England. In case your education lacked where mine did not, I'll now inform you that, contrary to what the name implies, New England is, in fact, NOT in England (or Europe) but in the US. If I'm asking why we're responsible for Europe's oil consumption, do not switch to telling me about people who might die in New England. Europe is responsible for Europe's oil consumption. We are NOT. Japan is responsible for Japan's oil consumption. We are NOT. We are NOT responsible for ANY person that freezes to death in Japan. We do NOT trade US lives so that Japanese retirees can save some Yen on their heating bill.
Post #27,713 by boxley 2/7/02 6:56:38 PM Reply	The treaty at the end of ww2 1.ending the co-prosperity sphere that Japan was building. We limited their army to defensive only in their constitution which we wrote for them. To keep the little bastards on their Island it cost american lives. Lately they have been ajitating for the good old days, so get them some oil. 2.Under 32USD per barrel 3.Fsck europe they can buy it from russia cause we got all we need in ANWR. :) thanx, bill "If you're half-evil, nothing soothes you more than to think the person you are opposed to is totally evil." Norman Mailer
Post #27,615 by Ashton 2/7/02 2:41:26 AM Reply	Minor disagreement. In what here has been a dialogue (2): the need for pretty blue lines to separate out, merely sequential quote + reply - seems a bit formatory, don't it? In fact, I find it easier (having now explored the new add-in to the Symbol menu) to just use my boilerplate file and cut&paste the quote pairs. The split block seems to massage all the \ufffds. That might.. even be useful in above peculiar duo-thread IF you really are going to reply to each bloody thing. Yes, I can see some utility but.. All I'm saying is - there's no confusion about who is being quoted and, the reply: above. IMhO. Some things are optional. ~~Ashton~~
Post #27,628 by CRConrad 2/7/02 6:55:42 AM Reply	Sorry, but you're just plain wrong. Father Brown: In what here has been a dialogue (2): the need for pretty blue lines to separate out, merely sequential quote + reply - seems a bit formatory, don't it? Actually, they don't show up as blue lines, but just indents, in my browser. But, to get to your real point: No, it doesn't -- it is a very real need. In fact, I find it easier (having now explored the new add-in to the Symbol menu) to just use my boilerplate file and cut&paste the quote pairs. The split block seems to massage all the \ufffds. That might.. even be useful in above peculiar duo-thread IF you really are going to reply to each bloody thing. Yes, I can see some utility but.. Two things: First, I was talking about reading the stuff, not writing it. Second, what you find easier isn't necessarily what I find easier. All I'm saying is - there's no confusion about who is being quoted and, the reply: above. IMhO. Some things are optional. Well, bully for you... But the reason I asked for sensible quoting was precisely because I do find Khasim's mile-after-mile-of-one-sentence-paragraphs style confusing; sometimes I do lose track of whose text it is I'm seeing. And for writing in a public forum, clarity is NOT "optional" AFAICS. Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #27,705 by Ashton 2/7/02 5:35:31 PM Reply	Well..________OK, Grouch. You're right - it must be tough on youse guys using the ASR-33s. Now for less punctilious briefer posts: can ya handle the quoted text just bein in italics, occasionally? I SAID it was a minor disagreement; no need for Right n'Wrongth, but then, Clarity is as hard to be against as.. Mom :( I, The Jury

Welcome to IWETHEY!