Cantousent

This made me laugh out loud.

Yeah, but real junk tends to sink. It's like cars, a gimmick might push your product, but for sales to endure it needs to do something. If it doesn't improve performance, I figure it will flop.

Okay, someone needs to restart this thread. 100 pages is enough for one little thread. Also, I'm listening to quite a few songs suggested to me from other members. I've compiled an "Obsidian favorites" in my itunes folder and it's playing right now.

With that, I'm willing to let folks read our arguments and decide. Well, that and we can both stick to the style that we find most agreeable. However, I would like to say that I have no real animosity over the issue. I might argue like hell against you one day, but I understand that we're just a couple of internet geeks trying to make sense out of a crazy world. The next day, we'll talk about games. Gotta love 'em.

Great gymnastics, but it misses the mark. For one thing, you cite the push for this treaty, but how many of these backers advocate the treaty because of a sincere belief that it is somehow enforceable? How many of them do so for reasons revolving around domestic or world politics? You say, "[w]ithout the non-proliferation treaty, there is no diplomatic route to keeping Iran non-nuclear." That is simply not true. The same measures used to control Iran's nuclear arsenal are available without the treaty. Force. Embargo. Diplomacy. These all exist independently of the treaty. The treaty is actually an example of failed diplomacy. Furthermore, what nations have disarmed or abandoned programs under threat of this treaty? Nothing argues like success except, perhaps, failure. Off the top of my head, I can think of the Ukraine and South Africa as nations that disarmed. Still, these nations had a vested interest in abadnoning their nuclear arsenals. That interest existed without the treaty. "[w]ithout legality, the US is just a global bully trying to weaken a country it doesn't like, and that cheapens US authority and power both over this matter and in matters yet to come." This puts undue weight on words rather than firepower. Sure, I'd rather have a war of words than firepower, but when your war of words is part of a goal to gain advantage in firepower, then it amounts to false security. This treaty only provides shelter for nations to hide programs just a little while longer. It serves no purpose, but enough misguided souls believe that all resolution can come from words. Those "figleafs" don't allow politicians to do the right thing. Rather, in this case, the leaves in question force them to do the wrong thing. ...Or, perhaps, the figleafs in question simply provide enough cover to pursue a program even in violation of the conditions of the treaty. You misunderstand me, however. I believe that treaties are an important part of diplomacy. Nevertheless, this diplomacy must be backed by some sort of consequence. Look at it this way, I can make a "treaty" with you that stipulates that I will give you two million tons of rice for ten million dollars a year. If you fail to supply the rice, at the very least I should have the right to withhold my money, right? What are the consequences of breaking this particular treaty? If it's anything like the programs centered on exchanging oil for food and medicine in Iraq, than we can count on corruption undermining the program from the very beginning. If Iran comes to the table and makes real concessions, you may rest assured that it is because of the threat of real consequences and those consequences would exist, and just as well defined, without the illusion of protection afforded by this treaty. You used the analogy of the police and then you broaden the analogy to include other governments. The problem is that police organizaitons are not analagous to either the UN or foreign governments. Our participation in the United Nations is a matter of national policy. It is a domestic matter. The removal or replacement of foreign governments is not. If the police are inept, then the police are replaced. That is also a domestic policy decision. If the organization is corrupt or ineffective, then we overhaul the entire organization. However, removing a foreign government is not the same thing as rooting out corruption in the police force. I appreciate a clever argument, but I much more admire a true one. Finally, while I respect your ability to argue, your arguments tend to be a bit morally superior. *shrug* Your style is your style, but you can sharpen your rhetoric without the didactic tone.

I'm currently accepting bribes.

If the police were as corrupt and inept as the United Nations or as ineffective as the Non-Porliferation treaty, yes. We would disband them immediately and replace them with something that did the job. In the case of the Non-Proliferation treaty, nothing is what we have anyhow. Nations that are willing to disarm do so. Nations that want nuclear weapons pursue them. In fact, because some people actually think the treaty will work, some nations have an easier path to nuclear weapons. Forget the treaty and approach each nation on a case by case basis. Even with the treaty, that's what we're doing anyway. That's assuming we even know they have a program and to what extent it's advanced towards actual production. I've always been impressed by your manner and style, Steve. I mean that sincerely. But Pixies has a better grasp of reality than you. These treaties are only effective if backed by force. That's the nature of all treaties. Look at the number of treaties the Germans signed before World War II. We might think treaties have power in and of themselves, but they do not. It is a fatal mistake to believe they do. Unless the United Nations is willing to enforce or, at the very least, endorse enforement of its own decisions, then it fails in one of it's primary tasks. Sure, I like the UN. I like having a deliberative body that gives voice, no matter how illusory, to smaller nations. I like having an apperatus to organize charitable donations. I even like a world body. Just don't think that well worded speeches in defense of the UN are anything more than an exercise in rhetoric. If the UN were the police, crime would have won already.

Think there's anything to it?

Overall, the non-proliferation treaty is ineffective. I wish it weren't, but it really only keeps in proper check those countries that pose little threat in the first place.

Your smiley isn't showing up. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Alas, it never does. :ph34r: Now, back to the political discussion, yeh scurvy lot.

New Years Day -- U2 I loved it when it was new. Now I'm just not so sure. I love most of their stuff, though. Great band. Haha, one of my friends from college said she "loved U2." She then turned red and said she meant the band. Then she turned red and said she didn't mean she didn't... Then I laughed and said I understood. Funny stuff man. You've got love a band named U2. Makes for great music and great comedy.

I'm not offended. I'm actually glad to hear your opinion on the matter. So happy, in fact, I'm willing to leave it at that. I'll even use a smiley. :Cant's slapping Arkan on the back and offering his the beverage of his choice icon:

With nukes? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Your a witty guy, Arkan. Tell me if that's what you think I meant. As for the original idea, what is your position, then? I mean, you don't want Iran to have nukes but you can see why they want them. You support the effort to deny nukes to Iran? You think Iran should have equal access to nuclear weapons? What's your point, because mostly I just see the usual, ineffective griping about the president. That's all well and good, but you should really come up with a constructive statement in regards to what the proper course of action should be. For example, should we increase our efforts to disarm? Should we seek concensus from the United Nation and, even more important, our allies? How will we handle an Isreali military operation such as the one that destroyed the Iraqi nuclear program? See, flippant come-backs and the typical snide comments simply don't do much to further the discussion. However, you do have the right to ask silly questions. I might even answer them.

"The US and the UN both would like to see Iran stop messing with nuclear technology... [emphasis added]" Seems that the originating post had a broader definition than yours, Arkan. first of all, threads are funny things. They tend to evolve and mutate over time. With all of the spam thrown into threads, I don't see why you would concern yourself with keeping to the original point in this particular thread. It seems a bit unfair to cite the original point in this thread when I've seen you, Arkan, when I have seen you break from the original point in other threads. Second of all, saying that we have nuclear weapons and therefore we should be happy to see Iran have nuclear weapons doesn't make sense from any angle. If you hate nukes, you want ours dimished or destroyed. You don't want another nation to have them. The entire premise of this thread is flawed. Finally, the real point behind this thread, rather than question whether or not Iran should have nukes, is to attack the United States. ...Well, the real point is to trawl, but we might turn this into a legitmate discuss despite the nature of the original post.

Israel is the equivalent of nazi Germany? You people need to put your head under some cool running water. clear your thoughts a little. Maybe take a little time to understand your extremist nature and how small minded and petty it seems. Everybody who supports Israel is either a wacko right wing Christian conservative or a rich ethnic Jew? For shame, people.

Read the Brothers Karamazov. In particular, read Ivan's interchange with Alyosha. It is not for the faint of heart and religion and belief take a ruthless beating at the hands of Dostoevsky. He feared, after he wrote it, that he had made an argument against faith that he had failed to address within the book. "Do you understand why this infamy must be and is permitted? Without it, I am told, man could not have existed on earth for he could not have known good and evil. Why should he know that diabolical good and evil when it costs so much?"

Well, then, let's just admit that, under your vision, doing anything or nothing will likely be a mistake. There's where you still haven't seen my point. You can't rely on hating Bush. BTW: saying, "don't vote for Bush" amounts to the same thing. What would you do, Hades? What is the better way? There are countless things Bush isn't doing. Should we resort to nuclear weapons? After all, Bush isn't using nukes right now. Don't say we should do what Bush isn't doing. It's a silly argument. Say what you think we should do. Of course, that's a big chance, because the second you stop hating Bush and start coming up with you own policy, you'll be open to attack. That's how politics work.

Okay, cool down period is over. I'm reopenning the topic because it has been a reasonable discussion. Also, I know for a fact someone has something to say and he should have the right to say it. :Cant's grin and wink icon: That and meta is posting in it anyhow. :D Actually, I'm quite glad to let meta have the last word. ...But I figure it's a fun topic and generally we're all respectful to one another. Please feel free to contribute. Well, that and I'd like to agree with Steve that there are yet great, lively historians in our midst. I don't like the focus of the discipline, but you can't stop a great historian.

Alas, it seems we've gone from the discussion to taunting and one of our number :Cant's glowering at Kirottu icon: dared invoke the name of Gray Jedi Knight. For that reason, we've got a short period of cooling. If someone would like to restart the thread, reviving respectfull debate, please feel free. Otherwise, this thread goes down into the screaming abyss from which it was spawned.

Are you saying that we should take the all or nothing approach, Pidesco? You must take every single word of the bible as literally true or you must deny it completely? That's a ridiculous thought if I've ever seen one. Blank cites context, and yet you continue in essentially the same vein throughout the entire thread. I get that you like to bait Christians. It's probably a lot of fun, just don't consider yourself enlightened over it. The bible is a written work. To some people, it is a historical document. In asmuchas it provides accounts of past events, and where those accounts are reinforced by other evidence, it clearly has something of a historical nature. To other people, the bible is a literary work. It is beautiful in and of itself in much the same way as the Iliad or Aeneid. Still others see the bible as the foundation of their world view and religious conviction. Within that group, there are disparate views. Some say that each word must be taken literally. This group relies on literal interpretations of words in idiomatic phrases. The emphasis is placed on taking each individual word as it stands in the passage and then deriving the most literal translation possible under such circumstances. That's not how language is spoken or written today. Language was no different in this regard two thousand years ago. Some folks say that the bible serves as a foundation for spiritual beliefs but not as a scientific document. To such people, the bible must be taken as a compiliation of spiritual tenets culminating in Jesus' own words. The commentary on earthly matters is either less important or superfluous. Other folks see the bible as a strict guideline for earthly activity, but don't rely on it for scientific discovery. These folks adhere to the earthly dictates in asmuchas these dictates reflect spiritual mandates. See, there are a variety of ways of seeing the bible. Saying that we must take the all or nothing approach amounts either to the stingy tyranny of a closed mind (in the case of fundamentalists) or a small minded and petty attack (in the case of hostile atheists). ...And the bible is a beautiful work. It is a hugely important book for a number of reasons, but because of its religious nature, it receives no end of mistreatment at the hands of folks who want to attack it on one extremely narrow line of reasoning.

Ouch. First of all, I forgot your picture, Checkpoint, you handsome dawg, you. Second of all, please don't go attacking each other. Folks will be afraid to post pictures. Third of all, we need more pictures from our female friends. Step up to the plate, ladies, and post pictures!

You're still not understanding the point, Hades. This isn't just a matter of questionable logic on your part. That's all well and good. Instead of just saying you hate Bush and he's caused world war three or whatever folks like you do, say that you hate Bush and his policies will cause world war three if we don't change them. Hate Bush a little less, or at least with a little less exuberance, and suggest changes. I understand you'd like to remove our troops, but that seems secondary to attacking the current administration. BTW: Focusing on atacking the current administration rather than suggesting viable alternatives is what cost the opposition the last election. This isn't just idle. Somewhat fewer theatrics and more reasoned debate would serve everyone well in this regard.

Funny, I find most of the scholars are more interested in the method than the events. I also find them more interested in the events than the story. Narrative is a long way down the list. As you get farther into the study of history, you get farther away from cogent story of the events and closer to the scrutiny of mind-numbing minutia. That's my experience, but I suppose there might be a scholar in our number who might want to set me straight on the matter. From my perspective, the drift of focus away from narrative is one of reasons I prefer Classics to History.

You can't remove bias. It is a mistake to believe it is possible. It is a lie to suggest that you have succeeded in doing so. History is so dreadfully boring, lifeless, and devoid of any soul whatsoever these days, it simply doesn't matter anyhow. What amounts to removing bias today is to take first hand accounts, which are invariably biased in the first place, and substituting the scholar's bias for that of the witness. Using statistical information is another cute way of getting around bias. It would be laughable if it weren't so sad. We should treat history as a narrative. We should see it as something grander than a simple catalogue of events. It's richer, grander than what passes for history among academic circles today. What academes have done to history is a crime. They exhort the reader to look at history with a dispassioned eye. Certainly, their writing lacks passion, but not for lack of an impassioned perspective. They sit in ivory towers grind, GRIND, GRINDING their axes and then tell us to ignore the metal shavings on the floor.

I wonder, even as I write this, why I bother. The ancient Greeks, before Christ, not only knew the world was essentially round, but had measured the size more or less accurately.