I wasn't aware of that.

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!