ForumGarden

Far Rider wrote: What a bunch of horsepucky...

Nationalism is the place Im a patriot. Patriotism is the ideal my country is founded on.I think you need a dictionary, Far Rider.

I quite liked the way Ian Anderson put it:

"I hate to see the American flag hanging out of every bloody station wagon, out of every SUV, every little Midwestern house in some residential area. It's easy to confuse patriotism with nationalism. Flag waving ain't gonna do it"

Flag waving ain't gonna do it"


Then I suggest dear spot you change your avatar :-5

Of course I should have said your signature not avatar, I am sure that is a Union Jack, I admit it's not waving so I am sure you will be able to dissect my comment, I just thought it was a tad ironic given your comments

Far Rider wrote: Anything else you want to know about me?I thought we were discussing Remedial English?

Spot are you so bloody patronising in real life, I like a debate as much as anyone on here but you have beaten me, I will try once more.

The world has always had dominant powers, we were one once and I am sure our colonial behaviour would make George W seem like Ghandi. Given that this is the order of things should we align ourselves with this power or fight it. Our goverment makes these decisions for us, you might not like them ut we entrust them to do what is right for OUR country first and foremost.

Lets just say that the west (including the UK) were running out of oil. There was tons and tons of it in an unnamed Middle East country. this country was run by a complete nutcase. We are given a choice, run out of oil and go back to the dark ages, no cars, power, light etc or get rid of the nutcase and secure some future oil stocks for ourselves. Now I am not suggesting this is the case but what would you say to the proposal.

Far Rider wrote: Really, no agenda for you?Far Rider, I'm an individual unattached to any pressure group, I'm not a member of any party, I'm not paid to disseminate a propaganda line, I speak it how I see it, and we were discussing the meanings of patriotism and nationalism. I've been backing out of a lot of the politicized discussion on Forum Garden, because I can see that pressing my point of view has been disruptive on occasion, and I try to be polite during intercourse. So, no, no agenda. Threads, yes, agenda no. We could talk about folk rock, sometime, but not in a "No WMD...so what?" thread. The topic tends to dictate the area under discussion, it sets the agenda if you like, I didn't entitle the thread. There's lots of threads out there that I join in, very few of them are about Iraq, WMD, dismal Command decisions or the like. I've been amazingly restrained over WMD altogether, considering the answer to the unasked question - which nation on earth actually holds more stockpiles than everyone else added together, and why should that be acceptable within the comity of nations. I've not even been near there.

Bothwell wrote: Lets just say that the west (including the UK) were running out of oil. There was tons and tons of it in an unnamed Middle East country. this country was run by a complete nutcase. We are given a choice, run out of oil and go back to the dark ages, no cars, power, light etc or get rid of the nutcase and secure some future oil stocks for ourselves. Now I am not suggesting this is the case but what would you say to the proposal.I am, though this is entirely the wrong thread in which to raise the matter, an anti-Consumerist. That's not the same as a Communist, though I could make a fair shot of defining an implementation of Communism that is also anti-Consumerist, being rooted in a communality of resources. Your no power or light isn't a consequence of no oil, we don't use oil significantly for power or light. As for cars, I've been writing in favor of the prohibition of privately-owned motorized transport for years.

Perhaps I'll start a thread on Consumerism. Meanwhile, the subject is (in my opinion) a diversion from the topic at hand, and I'll leave it alone here, thank you.

On this side of the pond, look no further than Porton Down and Sellafield in the UK

It's a good point to make that the United States has become somewhat of a "Planetary Policeman."

But it's not because we set out to take that role. It was forced uponus, and now we have no choice but to do the job as responsibly as we can.

As for nuclear stockpiles, we invented the things, it stands to reason we'd have more of them than most others. Not only that, but the Cold War with Russia drove nuclear paranoia to unheard of levels, resulting in those very same stockpiles. Whose fault was that? Both sides most likely. Now we have the results of that history to deal with.

Here's something to think about though, our country has been under the same government, without a revolution, for over 150 years now. Since the Civil War we have been united and strong. Our help in WWII, changed the face of politics and war forever on this planet. Since then we have dedicated ourselves to helping the poor, feeding the hungry, and stopping aggression all over the planet.

That makes us responsible and mature enough to have those nukes. Countries like North Korea, a facist-totalitarian regime, are not.

Jives wrote: It's a good point to make that the United States has become somewhat of a "Planetary Policeman."

But it's not because we set out to take that role. It was forced uponus, and now we have no choice but to do the job as responsibly as we can.

As for nuclear stockpiles, we invented the things, it stands to reason we'd have more of them than most others. Not only that, but the Cold War with Russia drove nuclear paranoia to unheard of levels, resulting in those very same stockpiles. Whose fault was that? Both sides most likely. Now we have the results of that history to deal with.

Here's something to think about though, our country has been under the same government, without a revolution, for over 150 years now. Since the Civil War we have been united and strong. Our help in WWII, changed the face of politics and war forever on this planet. Since then we have dedicated ourselves to helping the poor, feeding the hungry, and stopping aggression all over the planet.

That begs a question. Somebody or some nation is going to be the most powerful. It is just the way it is. Would those who are so freely criticizing the United States prefer to risk their life criticizing North Korea if it was the most powerful nation? How comfortable would the critics of the U.S. be criticizing Saddam if he had made it to be the most powerful?

That makes us responsible and mature enough to have those nukes. Countries like North Korea, a facist-totalitarian regime, are not.
That begs a question. Somebody or some nation is going to be the most powerful. It is just the way it is. Would those who are so freely criticizing the United States prefer to risk their life criticizing North Korea if it was the most powerful nation? How comfortable would the critics of the U.S. be criticizing Saddam if he had made it to be the most powerful?

Far Rider wrote: Excellent question. I will wait to hear their answer.The US Army should not have captured him. They should put him down like rapid dog that he is.

Far Rider wrote: Excellent question. I will wait to hear their answer.Yeah. I'd like to hear the answer, too.



Captain, once again, I love your idea!

Far Rider wrote: Spot Quote.

I've been amazingly restrained over WMD altogether, considering the answer to the unasked question - which nation on earth actually holds more stockpiles than everyone else added together, and why should that be acceptable within the comity of nations. I've not even been near there.
responding to spot's quote here, that nation would be russia, though it's 'merely' about half-again the size of the US stockpile, so not more than 'everybody else added together'.



next question?

I think, anastrophe, that for once you're going to need to show a source. Doesn't often happen that anyone asks you, but this time I'm asking.

I'll settle, for the moment, on the Wikipedia table:

Country, Number, Year of first test

United States 10240 1945

Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) 8400 1949

People's Republic of China 390 1964

France 350 1960

United Kingdom 200-300 1952

India 60-90 , 1974

Pakistan 30-52, 1998

North Korea 0-18 , not yet tested

I offer the alternative "We estimate the current size of the U.S. nuclear stockpile, at the end of fiscal 2004, to be 10,350 warheads"

I note that the wikipedia total agrees with my sum, as far as "more than the rest of them added up" goes.

Clint wrote: Somebody or some nation is going to be the most powerful. It is just the way it is. Would those who are so freely criticizing the United States prefer to risk their life criticizing North Korea if it was the most powerful nation?You know, Most Powerful Nation isn't likely to go to one as small as 47th in order of population - I do understand that we're ignoring wealth, of course, since wealth is the current deciding factor.

Let's take a stab at Most Powerful Nation having to come from the countries with a population exceeding 60 million, perhaps. That sounds fair. So, who else might there be in the wings, since North Korea can't quite make it with the heavyweights?

People's Republic of China 1,306,313,812

India 1,080,264,388

United States 296,202,709

Indonesia 241,973,879

Brazil 186,112,794

Pakistan 162,419,946

Bangladesh 144,319,628

Russia 143,420,309

Nigeria 128,771,988

Japan 127,417,244

Mexico 106,202,903

Philippines 87,857,473

Vietnam 83,535,576

Germany 82,468,000

Egypt 77,505,756

Ethiopia 73,053,286

Turkey 69,660,559

Iran 68,017,860

Thailand 65,444,371

France 60,656,178

United Kingdom 60,441,457

Democratic Republic of the Congo 60,085,804

OK, I'd be happy to see China take on the role. Let me see, what arguments can I think of in favor of China. They have a culture going back reasonably unbroken for three thousand years, they know how to behave well, they tend to appreciate poetry and esthetics, they've bombed remarkably few countries that don't share a common border - I think I'd insist on that as a qualification. They're keen on internationalizing space exploration and development.

Bad aspects of China? Some of the wealthy flaunt their power and glitz in a rather nouveau riche fashion, but that's a cultural issue. They don't take kindly to imported religions. Well, who'd want Scientologists on their doorstep anyway? I'd be very wary of some of their medical practices, but I'm just ignorant.

Jives wrote: It's a good point to make that the United States has become somewhat of a "Planetary Policeman."Not in my name, Jives. Not in my name.

Jives wrote: But it's not because we set out to take that role. It was forced upon us, and now we have no choice but to do the job as responsibly as we can.Abdicate! Resign!

Forced? I hesitate to describe that as ignorance, but. Really.

Even if you could do it responsibly instead of spreading your wretched capitalist style of thievery across the globe, it's still not your place and you lack the least hint of a mandate.

here's three. i based my statement on the first, but the others vary to one degree or another.



http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/summary.htm

http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/tkstock/tssum.asp

http://www.thebulletin.org/nuclear_weapons_data/

anastrophe wrote: here's three. i based my statement on the first, but the others vary to one degree or another.Well, I suppose there's three things to observe over your post, then, anastrophe. Firstly, you choose sites that favor your point of view, instead of looking for representative bias-free observations. Secondly, the numbers you feed in really need to all be either current or at least a snapshot of the same moment in time, since the numbers are plummetting year by year. Thirdly, right-wing Washington think tanks have had an interest in inflating Soviet... excuse me, Russian... totals since their commercial sponsors profit from such a general perception.

The State Department released a fact sheet April 18 on the aggregate numbers of strategic offensive weapons for signatories to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). They show Warhead totals for USA: 10834, Former USSR Parties: 8840.

Now, who's better at researching these things, anastrophe, you or me?

Far Rider wrote: Clint laid out a hypathetical question. Answer it. Would you criticize Iraq if it were the superpower?You obviously have a better imagination than I do, Far Rider. I cannot imagine what sort of history could ever have given rise to a modern world in which Iraq were a world Superpower, nor what it would be like if it had happened. How should I know if I'd criticize anything, in such circumstances? Everything I said about North Korea not being big enough in population terms to ever get to Top Nation applies just as much to Iraq.

Far Rider wrote: I see if you don't want to answer a question you morph the conversation or befuddle it with more questions.

there you go again.

Superpower, denotes size. hmmm, Isreal seems aweful small, yet their tenacity prooves you can't always mess with a small dog.If you think of Israel as the 51st State of the Union, it makes a lot more sense. They avoid formal recognition for fear of offending their neighbors, I imagine. The practical effect is no different. They certainly take enough US Federal subsidy to qualify.

Far Rider wrote: I see if you don't want to answer a question you morph the conversation or befuddle it with more questions. You know, Far Rider, this is not just a deplorable practice on my part, though I try hard to rectify it. While I do at least try to answer points raised, you and a lot of other people here just let hard-to-answer issues evaporate by pretending they never saw them. What happened to "Spotty boy, The fact remains that I don't hear any Hawaiians asking for it back? I think they like the USA."?

If you want to pick up on that, you can work from where we got to - "You truly never heard of it? http://www.hawaii-nation.org/ is a small fragment of a large protest movement. Perhaps news of it is suppressed by the US mainland news channels?"

The Hawaiian Independence Movement specifically compares its position to that of Iraq.

The story of how Hawaii was overthrown and passed to the American government like a two-dollar whore is one of the saddest ongoing act in modern U.S. history. Hawaiian independence is something few Americans know little about because the truth is disturbing, and most would prefer to keep Hawaii's image one of tourism, of hula dances and coconut milk.

The fact is, however, that Hawaii is not legally a state and never has been. It was conquered clandestinely by a group of sugar peddlers looking to eliminate their export tariff, and passed into America's hands illegally. That problem has never been rectified.

It's time to change that.

Far Rider wrote: 1960-something they kinda blew the sh** out of eqypt... im sure we helped their troops that day. Dang I don't ever remember fighting any of their battles for them.

I don't think Isreal thinks of themselves as the 51st state of the US.
I'd say Israel thinks themselves superior to mere statehood - especially being the beneficiary of billions of dollars in US taxpayers money....and if you need a clincher, think back to their cold blooded attack on the USS Liberty in 1967....

Would I criticize North Korea if it wanted to be dictator of the world? Yes.

That was easy. Got another one?

Would I want North Korea instead of America? That reminds me of a joke I heard a long time ago.

An American, a Japanese and a Canadian man are all captured by a "tribe". The chief walks up to the American and says "you have tough skin you make good canoe, how you want to die?" The American man raises his head proudly and says "Live by the gun, die by the gun." They hand him a pistol and he shoots himself. He's carried away. The goes to the Japanese man. "You have tougher skin, you make better canoe. How you want to die?" The Japanese man says "Live by the sword, die by the sword." They hand him a sword, he kills himself and is taken away. The chief walks up to the Canadian man and says "oooh. You have toughest skin, you make best canoe. How you want to die?" The Canadian says "Live by the fork, die by the fork". The tribesmen all look at each other, questioning. They get him a fork anyway. The Canadian begins to stab himself frantically with the utensil. "You're not going to make no f*cking canoe out of me!"

Point: Give me better choices. I believe there are some.

spot wrote: Well, I suppose there's three things to observe over your post, then, anastrophe. Firstly, you choose sites that favor your point of view, instead of looking for representative bias-free observations. Secondly, the numbers you feed in really need to all be either current or at least a snapshot of the same moment in time, since the numbers are plummetting year by year. Thirdly, right-wing Washington think tanks have had an interest in inflating Soviet... excuse me, Russian... totals since their commercial sponsors profit from such a general perception.



The State Department released a fact sheet April 18 on the aggregate numbers of strategic offensive weapons for signatories to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). They show Warhead totals for USA: 10834, Former USSR Parties: 8840.



Now, who's better at researching these things, anastrophe, you or me?
i do apologize for having responded specifically to the words you posted - "which nation on earth actually holds more stockpiles than everyone else added together", rather than to what you conflate your words to actually mean.



stockpiles, not deployed warheads in service. two different things.



get a dictionary.

Far Rider wrote: Spot you not only brought the question to bear but you also changed Jives question to redirect, once again pushing your personal 'agenda'



Im gonna start saying 'there you go again', borrowing the line from Ronald Reagan during his second term election race.



Clint laid out a hypathetical question. Answer it. Would you criticize Iraq if it were the superpower?i find it amusing that spot just happened to choose '60 million' as his benchmark. imagine that - the UK, the faded old madam, presiding over the empty whorehouse that used to be her imperialism - just squeaks in under the wire!

anastrophe wrote: stockpiles, not deployed warheads in service. two different things. The aggregate numbers of strategic offensive weapons isn't the same as the stockpile? What else is there besides the aggregate numbers of strategic offensive weapons? Go on, it's a serious question, I've no idea what else you could count into a stockpile. Weapons-grade HEU? Tritium? Unassembled bomb casings? The START totals have been the indicator for as long as people have counted. I think the NRDC figures you picked up are different because they're 1998 totals, that's what they say they are.

anastrophe wrote: i find it amusing that spot just happened to choose '60 million' as his benchmark. imagine that - the UK, the faded old madam, presiding over the empty whorehouse that used to be her imperialism - just squeaks in under the wire!I liked that too. I'm glad you saw it.

spot wrote: The aggregate numbers of strategic offensive weapons isn't the same as the stockpile? What else is there besides the aggregate numbers of strategic offensive weapons? Go on, it's a serious question, I've no idea what else you could count into a stockpile. Weapons-grade HEU? Tritium? Unassembled bomb casings? The START totals have been the indicator for as long as people have counted. I think the NRDC figures you picked up are different because they're 1998 totals, that's what they say they are.
i've always taken "stockpiles" to mean "held in reserve", not necessarily "on the shelf" so to speak, or deployed. however, it appears that the term can also be extended to mean that held in reserve, *and* that deployed. however, i don't think "stockpiles" is ever applied *only* to items that are deployed - and the START document you cited only refers to deployed weapons (which for matters of strategic arms reduction, makes sense - it is deployed weapons - weapons primed and ready, fueled and targeted - that are the threat (the primary threat of course), while weapons that are warehoused, or slated for destruction, are ostensibly not part of the threat.



here's a different source. in this instance, because you cast the aspersion that i was choosing sources based on agenda, i've specifically chosen a source that - well, at least by my perception - does not appear to be part of the military industrial complex.



http://www.ceip.org/files/nonprolif/numbers/default.asp



please note their notes, specifically note one, to wit ""Total Weapons" includes deployed strategic warheads, plus tactical weapons and weapons held in reserve. ".



but ultimately, if we are to go by only deployed weapons, the difference between just under nine thousand nuclear bombs for russia, and just under eleven thousand nuclear bombs for the US - what's a few thousand nuclear bombs among friends?



i'm a lot more worried about russia's nuclear arsenal than our own. and no, remarkably enough, that's not 'cold war' carryover.



dammit, you're on my ignore list, and again i'm doing a miserable job of it.

anastrophe wrote: dammit, you're on my ignore list, and again i'm doing a miserable job of it.May the Good Fairy sprinkle stardust on your bippy, my child. I'm sure life will be cleaner if you bite hard and stick it out.

spot wrote: On the dusty highway south from bustling Tehran, an enormous gold dome rises importantly across the horizon. Heat from the surrounding desert makes it shiver like a mirage, even in winter. Four spiny minarets quiver rhythmically alongside it.

The most ornate shrine in Iran ” and one of the largest monuments ever constructed in the Muslim world over the past thirteen centuries ” was built in record time above the burial site of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini after he died abruptly from a heart attack in 1989.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/w/wr ... htmlPardon me if I merely ditto the previous diatribe.


Nice poetry from you.

anastrophe wrote: the START document you cited only refers to deployed weapons



http://www.ceip.org/files/nonprolif/numbers/default.asp




further muddying the issue, the carnegie page has a subnote stating that "**The official numbers from the START process differ from these figures. The treaty method counts deployed systems and launchers awaiting destruction (and have counting rules that undercount bomber-carried weapons)."



it doesn't help that the sentence is ambiguously worded.

nvalleyvee wrote: Nice poetry from you.I think perhaps you're refering to the book review in the New York Times. I don't do poetry.

The gist, if I recall, was that "Has anyone heard from Kohmeni lately - I believe we bombed him out of his country too for crimes against his own people." was somewhat lacking as a description of recent history.

anastrophe wrote: it doesn't help that the sentence is ambiguously worded."and have counting rules that undercount bomber-carried weapons"? Wow, they built a fudge factor into the Treaty? Go on, ask me if I trust politicians! One day I might try reading it again, but there's only so many hours in a lifetime.

Let me try. I'm glad the counts are down from the 30,000+ that were out there at one point. I'm perturbed that the ex-Soviet territories have so many book-keeping errors between what are now autonomous regions. I do think there are missing nukes in good working order out there. I do think there are lots of nasty people on the planet who would pay top dollar, for a smell of even one of those floating hundreds, in their arsenal. Finally, whether the US has twice as many on one-month notice as Russia or Russia has twice as many on one-month notice as the US, I don't imagine either of those two nations is going to let even one off in the vicinity of the other nation. The genie is out of the bottle, though. You want a totally uninformed guess where one will go off first? Somewhere within hearing distance of the Temple Mount, that's my guess. I've got friends there, too. I visit sometimes.

I do think maintaining these rogue devices is something only a State can achieve, though. I can't see even a full university department having the resources. So, for what it's worth, state-sponsored terrorism is still the key to the problem, not private armies.

brief note here because it happened in this thread.

anastrophe, whether you read this or not...and I hope you do. I ignored your characterization of me and your addition of me to your ignore list because, quite frankly, I am getting used to being labeled by so many people who couldn't deal with my disagreeing with them. This particular circumstance has been annoying me because I know you are not like that.

Please recheck what was said. You characterized one of my comments as a non sequitor. I challenged NOT YOU but your classification of my comment. If you reread you should see that I never accused you of supporting the slaughter of a country for domestic problems. I was awaiting your, to me, obvious response that the statement was not correct so I could point out that my original statement was not non sequitor. You assumed I made a personal attack when, instead, I was defending a comment I made that was NOT ABOUT YOU AT ALL. If you still keep me on your ignore list...frankly, it doesn't surprise me anymore from anyone. So be it. Just wanted to clarify that I never implied you would or could feel that the statement was true.

Your friendly neighbourhood scapegoat

koan

Far Rider wrote: It may have been during the time I was ignoring you. Yes you have gotten under my skin.And why, exactly, are you so darned precious, while assuming that I am so thick-skinned that I can't get riled? Take it from me, I get riled. I do not, however, lose my sense of what is due to those I talk with.

Far Rider wrote: Ok I got this, interesting, very interesting. Apparently this ship was

14 miles off shore during the Israeli/Egypt conflict, it was attacked and destroyed by Isreali air defense. I have never heard this story. Below is one mans discription as close to an eyewitness as I could get.

The attack is suspect to me, but we will never know for sure.





Turbo, I fail to understand your point though. and yes I am dense sometimes so please spell it out.


Oh, it happened all right. And it is suspect, but not for the reasons you may think.

I don’t see what the issue is with the USS Liberty. Most of the people who continuously make issue of it are just fine with our alliances with countries we have been to war with. To them, the 50,000 US lives lost in Vietnam have no consequence now. We should forgive and forget, trade and be friends. I don’t disagree with being friends with those we have been enemies with. I just don’t like the double standard when it comes to Israel over one ship nearly 40 years ago.

I also fail to see the connection to this tread.