|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Oct 13, 2014 17:16:23 GMT
The recent lunar eclipse was not a mere "scientific model" that "validate[d] the theory." Rather, it was empirical evidence that the theory was correct. You obviously look down your nose at the American people in general, believing us to be easily made subject to Joseph McCarthy-style demogoguery. I do not envision Iran's merely closing off "1/2 of the Straits of Hormuz," as you have suggested. And I do not have such confidence in Saudi Arabia (for whom I have a rather low regard) or any other state in the region as to believe that it will necessarily stop Iranian aggression--or even that it (or any combination of Arab countries in the Middle East) could stop Iran, militarily. But the US certainly could. Your caveat that "no other nation(s)" attack Iran, thereby prompting the (quite aggressive!) action of closing the Strait of Hormuz, overlooks the fact that Israel--which, as you are surely aware, may do precisely that--is a fully sovereign nation; and that the US should not, therefore, allow the consequences of an Israeli attack to be visited upon the US, out of a generalized spite (against both "The Little Satan" and "The Great Satan").
The "scientific model" predicts the event. The "emperical evidence" provides the validation of the model. Over 150 years ago the mathmatical model predicted the global temperatures would rise due to greenhouse gases being released. Global temperatures have risen considerably over the last 150 years providing "emperical evidence" that the mathmatical model is correct.
Can the US population be manipulated by political propaganda? I would suggest that the historical evidence is already in that shows it can and often is manipulated by propaganda. Remember the "WMD's in Iraq" propaganda that convinced about 80% of Americans that Iraq had WMD's? There was no actual evidence that Iraq had WMD's in 2002 but the propaganda machine convinced not just the American people but members of Congress as well.
No, I don't "look down my nose" at the American People but do understand that 1/2 of the population has an IQ of 100 or below. I'm not an "intellectual elitist" but I do understand that many followers as opposed the leaders and that political propaganda can have severe adverses effects.
You're very accurate in identifying Israel as being the potential problem nation that could be responsible for the Straits of Hormuz being closed. You're also probably correct that Royal Family of Saud would probably not side with Israel over Iran in an Israeli initiated war of aggression against Iran that would result in the closure of the Straits. There is unquestionably a dispute between the Sunni Family of Saud (and Sunni Arabs) with the Shi'ite government of Iran but they would be common enemies of the Zionist government of Israel if were it to attack Iran.
Ulitmately if we want to stop even the remote possibility of the Straits of Hormuz being closed we need to do something about Israel to prevent any Israeli attack against Iran. I would also suggest that if Israel does ever attack Iran, and it results in the closure of the Straits of Hormuz, the quickest way to get them re-opened would be for the US to lead a UN Security Council Resolution to impose an absolute economic embargo against Israel. That measure alone would provide a compelling reason for Iran to let all maritime traffic through the Straits without any interference. In fact UNSC economic sanctions against Israel, the aggressor, could be conditional on Iran making no attempt to close the Straits of Hormuz.
For starters, I certainly do not believe that Israel would be the "aggressor" if it were to bomb Iran's known and suspected nuclear facilities, since Tehran has repeatedly declared that it wishes to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth; so a nuclear Iran would be an existential threat to Israel. That aside, however, it is really not the province of the US--or the UN (for which I have about as high of a regard as I have for Kim Jong-un) to dictate to Israel what it may or may not do. As I have noted previously, Israel is a fully sovereign nation--not 80 percent or 90 percent, but 100 percent sovereign--so the US should not be punished for not telling Israel what to do, or not to do. And if Iran should decide to punish the US for not acting in loco parentis with regard to Israel, then the US should respond militarily to Iran's aggression. If recent empirical evidence "validat[ed]" a particular "scientific model," fine. But that does not establish the case that "scientific model " in general are accurate. In fact, those "models" as regarding some matters may begin with gratuitous assumptions. As I have stated previously: Garbage in, garbage out.
Your insistence that "the US population," in general, "often is manipulated by political propaganda," certainly strikes me as being elitist--even if you claim otherwise. Do you believe that you are easily "manipulated" by mere "propaganda"? If not, why would you believe that most other Americans are--unless, of course, you consider yourself much more intelligent than most other Americans? (By the way, I am still not certain that Saddam Hussein did not possess WMDs. They could have been spirited across the border, to Syria--which, by the way, hardly exists as a state separate from Iraq anymore, thanks to ISIS.)
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 14, 2014 11:48:47 GMT
The "scientific model" predicts the event. The "emperical evidence" provides the validation of the model. Over 150 years ago the mathmatical model predicted the global temperatures would rise due to greenhouse gases being released. Global temperatures have risen considerably over the last 150 years providing "emperical evidence" that the mathmatical model is correct.
Can the US population be manipulated by political propaganda? I would suggest that the historical evidence is already in that shows it can and often is manipulated by propaganda. Remember the "WMD's in Iraq" propaganda that convinced about 80% of Americans that Iraq had WMD's? There was no actual evidence that Iraq had WMD's in 2002 but the propaganda machine convinced not just the American people but members of Congress as well.
No, I don't "look down my nose" at the American People but do understand that 1/2 of the population has an IQ of 100 or below. I'm not an "intellectual elitist" but I do understand that many followers as opposed the leaders and that political propaganda can have severe adverses effects.
You're very accurate in identifying Israel as being the potential problem nation that could be responsible for the Straits of Hormuz being closed. You're also probably correct that Royal Family of Saud would probably not side with Israel over Iran in an Israeli initiated war of aggression against Iran that would result in the closure of the Straits. There is unquestionably a dispute between the Sunni Family of Saud (and Sunni Arabs) with the Shi'ite government of Iran but they would be common enemies of the Zionist government of Israel if were it to attack Iran.
Ulitmately if we want to stop even the remote possibility of the Straits of Hormuz being closed we need to do something about Israel to prevent any Israeli attack against Iran. I would also suggest that if Israel does ever attack Iran, and it results in the closure of the Straits of Hormuz, the quickest way to get them re-opened would be for the US to lead a UN Security Council Resolution to impose an absolute economic embargo against Israel. That measure alone would provide a compelling reason for Iran to let all maritime traffic through the Straits without any interference. In fact UNSC economic sanctions against Israel, the aggressor, could be conditional on Iran making no attempt to close the Straits of Hormuz.
For starters, I certainly do not believe that Israel would be the "aggressor" if it were to bomb Iran's known and suspected nuclear facilities, since Tehran has repeatedly declared that it wishes to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth; so a nuclear Iran would be an existential threat to Israel. That aside, however, it is really not the province of the US--or the UN (for which I have about as high of a regard as I have for Kim Jong-un) to dictate to Israel what it may or may not do. As I have noted previously, Israel is a fully sovereign nation--not 80 percent or 90 percent, but 100 percent sovereign--so the US should not be punished for not telling Israel what to do, or not to do. And if Iran should decide to punish the US for not acting in loco parentis with regard to Israel, then the US should respond militarily to Iran's aggression. If recent empirical evidence "validat[ed]" a particular "scientific model," fine. But that does not establish the case that "scientific model" in general are accurate. In fact, those "models" as regarding some matters may begin with gratuitous assumptions. As I have stated previously: Garbage in, garbage out. Your insistence that "the US population," in general, "often is manipulated by political propaganda," certainly strikes me as being elitist--even if you claim otherwise. Do you believe that you are easily "manipulated" by mere "propaganda"? If not, why would you believe that most other Americans are--unless, of course, you consider yourself much more intelligent than most other Americans? (By the way, I am still not certain that Saddam Hussein did not possess WMDs. They could have been spirited across the border, to Syria--which, by the way, hardly exists as a state separate from Iraq anymore, thanks to ISIS.)
The actual translations of what "Tehran" has stated is that the Zionist regime should, and someday will, be wiped off of the map. It has never claimed that Iran would take part in this but instead has almost been prophetic in it's rhetoric. This is in a very real sense the pot calling the kettle black. Any nation founded upon race, religion, ethnic heritage, gender, social/economic status, or other invidious criteria that divides the people is inherently tyrannical. There is no difference in principle between Iran being a Muslim nation, Israel being a Jewish nation, and Nazi Germany being an Aryan nation.
The model always exists in science, it is a part of the scientific method, and it makes predictions. The emperical evidence then either validates or discredits the model. In the case of AWG where mankind contributes to the global warming by increasing greenhouse gases while simultaneously destroying the ability of the planet to convert these atmospheric greenhouse gases back into a solid state, predicted over 150 years ago, the scientific model has been verified by the emperical evidence. There has been no emperical evidence to discredit the scientific model.
I don't know if being highly skeptical of statements being made by politicans qualifies me as being an elitist. Perhaps it does but I know that in 2002 and early 2003 I was asking "Where's the beef" (you remember the commericial I assume) when it came to evidence of WMD's in Iraq and there was none. The only "real time" intelligence was coming from the UN Weapons Inspectors that had found nothing at all to indicate Iraq had WMD's.
Don't you find it somewhat interesting that moving WMD's out of Iraq and into Syria would have been a major logistical endeavor and in over 10 years not a single "participant" in this logistical endeavor has ever stepped forward even though there were be huge financial rewards in doing so (e.g. royalties from a book detailing this would be in the millions of dollars). Not a single Iraqi that would have been involved has ever stated they were involved in the transfer of WMD's from Iraq to Syria although thousands would have had to been involved for it to happen. Not a single Iraqi has come forward stating that they were at any Iraq WMD storage facility in 2002 or early 2003. Not a single one.
I must truly wonder what you base your beliefs on sometimes because it obviously isn't on any facts related to possible WMD's in Iraq in 2002 and early 2003 before the US invasion. Were you fooled by the propaganda and do you still believe it even when it turned out to be false?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Oct 15, 2014 0:07:09 GMT
For starters, I certainly do not believe that Israel would be the "aggressor" if it were to bomb Iran's known and suspected nuclear facilities, since Tehran has repeatedly declared that it wishes to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth; so a nuclear Iran would be an existential threat to Israel. That aside, however, it is really not the province of the US--or the UN (for which I have about as high of a regard as I have for Kim Jong-un) to dictate to Israel what it may or may not do. As I have noted previously, Israel is a fully sovereign nation--not 80 percent or 90 percent, but 100 percent sovereign--so the US should not be punished for not telling Israel what to do, or not to do. And if Iran should decide to punish the US for not acting in loco parentis with regard to Israel, then the US should respond militarily to Iran's aggression. If recent empirical evidence "validat[ed]" a particular "scientific model," fine. But that does not establish the case that "scientific model" in general are accurate. In fact, those "models" as regarding some matters may begin with gratuitous assumptions. As I have stated previously: Garbage in, garbage out. Your insistence that "the US population," in general, "often is manipulated by political propaganda," certainly strikes me as being elitist--even if you claim otherwise. Do you believe that you are easily "manipulated" by mere "propaganda"? If not, why would you believe that most other Americans are--unless, of course, you consider yourself much more intelligent than most other Americans? (By the way, I am still not certain that Saddam Hussein did not possess WMDs. They could have been spirited across the border, to Syria--which, by the way, hardly exists as a state separate from Iraq anymore, thanks to ISIS.)
The actual translations of what "Tehran" has stated is that the Zionist regime should, and someday will, be wiped off of the map. It has never claimed that Iran would take part in this but instead has almost been prophetic in it's rhetoric. This is in a very real sense the pot calling the kettle black. Any nation founded upon race, religion, ethnic heritage, gender, social/economic status, or other invidious criteria that divides the people is inherently tyrannical. There is no difference in principle between Iran being a Muslim nation, Israel being a Jewish nation, and Nazi Germany being an Aryan nation.
The model always exists in science, it is a part of the scientific method, and it makes predictions. The emperical evidence then either validates or discredits the model. In the case of AWG where mankind contributes to the global warming by increasing greenhouse gases while simultaneously destroying the ability of the planet to convert these atmospheric greenhouse gases back into a solid state, predicted over 150 years ago, the scientific model has been verified by the emperical evidence. There has been no emperical evidence to discredit the scientific model.
I don't know if being highly skeptical of statements being made by politicans qualifies me as being an elitist. Perhaps it does but I know that in 2002 and early 2003 I was asking "Where's the beef" (you remember the commericial I assume) when it came to evidence of WMD's in Iraq and there was none. The only "real time" intelligence was coming from the UN Weapons Inspectors that had found nothing at all to indicate Iraq had WMD's.
Don't you find it somewhat interesting that moving WMD's out of Iraq and into Syria would have been a major logistical endeavor and in over 10 years not a single "participant" in this logistical endeavor has ever stepped forward even though there were be huge financial rewards in doing so (e.g. royalties from a book detailing this would be in the millions of dollars). Not a single Iraqi that would have been involved has ever stated they were involved in the transfer of WMD's from Iraq to Syria although thousands would have had to been involved for it to happen. Not a single Iraqi has come forward stating that they were at any Iraq WMD storage facility in 2002 or early 2003. Not a single one.
I must truly wonder what you base your beliefs on sometimes because it obviously isn't on any facts related to possible WMD's in Iraq in 2002 and early 2003 before the US invasion. Were you fooled by the propaganda and do you still believe it even when it turned out to be false?
Even Al Gore--certainly no right-winger (or Republican)--stated, in the fall of 2002: "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." John Kerry--then a Democratic senator from Massachusetts; now Barack Obama's Secretary of State--also in the fall of 2002, said: "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force--if necessary--to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." And Hillary Clinton--at the time, merely a former First Lady; although later to become Barack Obama's Secretary of State, just prior to John Kerry's ascending to that post--said, in the fall of 2002 (again): "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members...It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." I have heard, ad nauseum, complaints from the left (and from Iran's apologists) that the words from former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad--among others--were just not translated properly. Oddly enough, those making the complaint are seldom (if ever) more proficient in Farsi than the actual translators. (One might be pardoned for supposing that those setting forth this complaint are driven by an agenda.) How might you suppose that "models" are "a part of the scientific method" in, say, establishing the laws of physics? Or in establishing the chemical makeup of different substances, and their various interactions with each other? Or even of Newton's three laws of motion? I have no problem with anyone's being "highly skeptical of statements made by politicians." Whenever their lips are moving, they are most likely lying. Most of them, anyway. But that still cannot explain why you might suppose that most would consider it in their best interest to vote to restrict emigration from the US... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 15, 2014 13:38:04 GMT
The actual translations of what "Tehran" has stated is that the Zionist regime should, and someday will, be wiped off of the map. It has never claimed that Iran would take part in this but instead has almost been prophetic in it's rhetoric. This is in a very real sense the pot calling the kettle black. Any nation founded upon race, religion, ethnic heritage, gender, social/economic status, or other invidious criteria that divides the people is inherently tyrannical. There is no difference in principle between Iran being a Muslim nation, Israel being a Jewish nation, and Nazi Germany being an Aryan nation.
The model always exists in science, it is a part of the scientific method, and it makes predictions. The emperical evidence then either validates or discredits the model. In the case of AWG where mankind contributes to the global warming by increasing greenhouse gases while simultaneously destroying the ability of the planet to convert these atmospheric greenhouse gases back into a solid state, predicted over 150 years ago, the scientific model has been verified by the emperical evidence. There has been no emperical evidence to discredit the scientific model.
I don't know if being highly skeptical of statements being made by politicans qualifies me as being an elitist. Perhaps it does but I know that in 2002 and early 2003 I was asking "Where's the beef" (you remember the commericial I assume) when it came to evidence of WMD's in Iraq and there was none. The only "real time" intelligence was coming from the UN Weapons Inspectors that had found nothing at all to indicate Iraq had WMD's.
Don't you find it somewhat interesting that moving WMD's out of Iraq and into Syria would have been a major logistical endeavor and in over 10 years not a single "participant" in this logistical endeavor has ever stepped forward even though there were be huge financial rewards in doing so (e.g. royalties from a book detailing this would be in the millions of dollars). Not a single Iraqi that would have been involved has ever stated they were involved in the transfer of WMD's from Iraq to Syria although thousands would have had to been involved for it to happen. Not a single Iraqi has come forward stating that they were at any Iraq WMD storage facility in 2002 or early 2003. Not a single one.
I must truly wonder what you base your beliefs on sometimes because it obviously isn't on any facts related to possible WMD's in Iraq in 2002 and early 2003 before the US invasion. Were you fooled by the propaganda and do you still believe it even when it turned out to be false?
Even Al Gore--certainly no right-winger (or Republican)--stated, in the fall of 2002: "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." John Kerry--then a Democratic senator from Massachusetts; now Barack Obama's Secretary of State--also in the fall of 2002, said: "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force--if necessary--to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." And Hillary Clinton--at the time, merely a former First Lady; although later to become Barack Obama's Secretary of State, just prior to John Kerry's ascending to that post--said, in the fall of 2002 (again): "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members...It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." I have heard, ad nauseum, complaints from the left (and from Iran's apologists) that the words from former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad--among others--were just not translated properly. Oddly enough, those making the complaint are seldom (if ever) more proficient in Farsi than the actual translators. (One might be pardoned for supposing that those setting forth this complaint are driven by an agenda.) How might you suppose that "models" are "a part of the scientific method" in, say, establishing the laws of physics? Or in establishing the chemical makeup of different substances, and their various interactions with each other? Or even of Newton's three laws of motion? I have no problem with anyone's being "highly skeptical of statements made by politicians." Whenever their lips are moving, they are most likely lying. Most of them, anyway. But that still cannot explain why you might suppose that most would consider it in their best interest to vote to restrict emigration from the US...
Of course I'm not fluent in Farsi but I've also read news stories for sources other than the AP or the Israeli news media that have provided more accurate translations of former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speaches and even AP has occationally noted that Ahmadinejad's statements were in reference to Zionism and not Israel per se. I've also seen interviews with those that are Iranian expatriots, with no love for Ahnadinejad, that were fluent in Farsi that clarified he was referring to "Zionism" being wiped off of the face of the Earth and not Israel per se. It is, of course, irrelevant because Iran has not launched a war against any other nation in modern times (i.e. since the Iranian revolution to overthrough the tyrannical dictatorship of the Shah). Iran has no more intention of attacking Israel than Egypt did in 1967.
The scientific method is defined as: "a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested."
dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+method
Establishing the means of testing the hypothesis requires a model to be tested. This is true in all cases including the laws of physics and chemistry.
Ironically you point to Democratic politicans that were convinced, based upon propaganda, that Iraq had WMD's (when no actual evidence supported that belief and real evidence actually disputed that belief) and then argue that they couldn't be convinced by propaganda to rationalize another false belief related to immigration where they could be convinced to limit immigration from the United States. I would suggest that the politicans are no less gullible than the average American.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Oct 15, 2014 23:49:15 GMT
Even Al Gore--certainly no right-winger (or Republican)--stated, in the fall of 2002: "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." John Kerry--then a Democratic senator from Massachusetts; now Barack Obama's Secretary of State--also in the fall of 2002, said: "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force--if necessary--to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." And Hillary Clinton--at the time, merely a former First Lady; although later to become Barack Obama's Secretary of State, just prior to John Kerry's ascending to that post--said, in the fall of 2002 (again): "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members...It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." I have heard, ad nauseum, complaints from the left (and from Iran's apologists) that the words from former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad--among others--were just not translated properly. Oddly enough, those making the complaint are seldom (if ever) more proficient in Farsi than the actual translators. (One might be pardoned for supposing that those setting forth this complaint are driven by an agenda.) How might you suppose that "models" are "a part of the scientific method" in, say, establishing the laws of physics? Or in establishing the chemical makeup of different substances, and their various interactions with each other? Or even of Newton's three laws of motion? I have no problem with anyone's being "highly skeptical of statements made by politicians." Whenever their lips are moving, they are most likely lying. Most of them, anyway. But that still cannot explain why you might suppose that most would consider it in their best interest to vote to restrict emigration from the US...
Of course I'm not fluent in Farsi but I've also read news stories for sources other than the AP or the Israeli news media that have provided more accurate translations of former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speaches and even AP has occationally noted that Ahmadinejad's statements were in reference to Zionism and not Israel per se. I've also seen interviews with those that are Iranian expatriots, with no love for Ahnadinejad, that were fluent in Farsi that clarified he was referring to "Zionism" being wiped off of the face of the Earth and not Israel per se. It is, of course, irrelevant because Iran has not launched a war against any other nation in modern times (i.e. since the Iranian revolution to overthrough the tyrannical dictatorship of the Shah). Iran has no more intention of attacking Israel than Egypt did in 1967.
The scientific method is defined as: "a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested."
dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+method
Establishing the means of testing the hypothesis requires a model to be tested. This is true in all cases including the laws of physics and chemistry.
Ironically you point to Democratic politicans that were convinced, based upon propaganda, that Iraq had WMD's (when no actual evidence supported that belief and real evidence actually disputed that belief) and then argue that they couldn't be convinced by propaganda to rationalize another false belief related to immigration where they could be convinced to limit immigration from the United States. I would suggest that the politicans are no less gullible than the average American.
Do you believe that you are "gullible"? Or is that a characteristic that you believe applies to most "politicians," in addition to "the average American"--but not to you, personally? I find it quite instructive that you consider the Associated Press to be an unreliable source. Your excuse that former Iranian President Ahmadinejad--and others who have expressed the identical sentiments--were merely talking about "Zionism" is typical of the rationalizations I have heard. (Of course, even if it were true--and it is not--it would necessitate that one should believe that the Jewish people should not have a homeland--even after the horror of the Holocaust (which Amadinejad has denied)--and that the state of Israel, as it now exists, must be destroyed.
Wikipedia defines the scientific method thus: That is precisely the sort of science in which I believe-- not mere "models." You have begun with the question-begging position that Saddam Hussein possessed no WMDs at the time of America's incursion into Iraq, in March 2003; and therefore reasoned that American politicians could easily "be convinced to limit [emigration] from the United States." In order for the conclusion to make sense, one would first have to agree to the premise. And I do not. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 16, 2014 12:56:12 GMT
Of course I'm not fluent in Farsi but I've also read news stories for sources other than the AP or the Israeli news media that have provided more accurate translations of former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speaches and even AP has occationally noted that Ahmadinejad's statements were in reference to Zionism and not Israel per se. I've also seen interviews with those that are Iranian expatriots, with no love for Ahnadinejad, that were fluent in Farsi that clarified he was referring to "Zionism" being wiped off of the face of the Earth and not Israel per se. It is, of course, irrelevant because Iran has not launched a war against any other nation in modern times (i.e. since the Iranian revolution to overthrough the tyrannical dictatorship of the Shah). Iran has no more intention of attacking Israel than Egypt did in 1967.
The scientific method is defined as: "a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested."
dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+method
Establishing the means of testing the hypothesis requires a model to be tested. This is true in all cases including the laws of physics and chemistry.
Ironically you point to Democratic politicans that were convinced, based upon propaganda, that Iraq had WMD's (when no actual evidence supported that belief and real evidence actually disputed that belief) and then argue that they couldn't be convinced by propaganda to rationalize another false belief related to immigration where they could be convinced to limit immigration from the United States. I would suggest that the politicans are no less gullible than the average American.
Do you believe that you are "gullible"? Or is that a characteristic that you believe applies to most "politicians," in addition to "the average American"--but not to you, personally? I find it quite instructive that you consider the Associated Press to be an unreliable source. Your excuse that former Iranian President Ahmadinejad--and others who have expressed the identical sentiments--were merely talking about "Zionism" is typical of the rationalizations I have heard. (Of course, even if it were true--and it is not--it would necessitate that one should believe that the Jewish people should not have a homeland--even after the horror of the Holocaust (which Amadinejad has denied)--and that the state of Israel, as it now exists, must be destroyed.
Wikipedia defines the scientific method thus: That is precisely the sort of science in which I believe-- not mere "models." You have begun with the question-begging position that Saddam Hussein possessed no WMDs at the time of America's incursion into Iraq, in March 2003; and therefore reasoned that American politicians could easily "be convinced to limit [emigration] from the United States." In order for the conclusion to make sense, one would first have to agree to the premise. And I do not.
In some cases I'm very gullible or have been in the past. I've trusted people that were ultimately have not been deserving of trust but that was always on a personal basis. I'm not nearly so gullible when it comes to politics.
It is my understanding that the word in Farsi for "Israel" and "Zionism" is the same and the difference is in the nuance of usage. The AP has been forthright in some instances by clarifying that when Ahmadinejad used the word that it was referring to Zionism but not in other cases. Supports of Israel always use the definition as "Israel" as they don't acknowledge atrocities based upon the Zionist political agenda.
Everyone has a Right to their Homeland based upon Jus Soli. They do not have a Right to use force to take the homeland away from someone else. Governments have no Rights at all but instead only have authority and power. While only fully recognized by world nations since WW II the acquisition of territory by war has always been unacceptable.
In 1916 Einstein published his Theory of Gravity and a scientific model predicted that during a solar eclipe some of the stars that were behind the sun would be seen because the sun's gravity would act as a lens curving the light from the stars making them visible. That model was confirmed in the 1920's during a solar eclipse. I would suggest you read about the scientific model building for Einstein's theory in Wikipedia to obtain and understanding of scientific models that are also used for AGW as well as the social sciences.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity#Model-building
There was no evidence that Iraq had WMD's in 2002/2003 and the absence of those weapons was confirmed after the US invasion. Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant because it's an established fact historically. The members of Congress and the American People were duped by the Bush Adminstration in 2002-2003 and they can be duped again. That is a simple historical fact as well as an accurate prediction. As to what they will be duped about remains a mystery but always remember that propaganda based upon half-truths (e.g. Iraq had WMD's in the 1980's but not in 2002) is very effective.
Of note you apparently missed my post that predicts the beginning of the to all coal-fired powerplants.
worldpf.com/thread/821/goodbye-coal-fired-powerplants
I had previously predicted that nuclear fusion would become a reality in 20 years but apparently it will be a reality much sooner than that.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Oct 17, 2014 23:54:56 GMT
Do you believe that you are "gullible"? Or is that a characteristic that you believe applies to most "politicians," in addition to "the average American"--but not to you, personally? I find it quite instructive that you consider the Associated Press to be an unreliable source. Your excuse that former Iranian President Ahmadinejad--and others who have expressed the identical sentiments--were merely talking about "Zionism" is typical of the rationalizations I have heard. (Of course, even if it were true--and it is not--it would necessitate that one should believe that the Jewish people should not have a homeland--even after the horror of the Holocaust (which Amadinejad has denied)--and that the state of Israel, as it now exists, must be destroyed.
Wikipedia defines the scientific method thus: That is precisely the sort of science in which I believe-- not mere "models." You have begun with the question-begging position that Saddam Hussein possessed no WMDs at the time of America's incursion into Iraq, in March 2003; and therefore reasoned that American politicians could easily "be convinced to limit [emigration] from the United States." In order for the conclusion to make sense, one would first have to agree to the premise. And I do not.
In some cases I'm very gullible or have been in the past. I've trusted people that were ultimately have not been deserving of trust but that was always on a personal basis. I'm not nearly so gullible when it comes to politics.
It is my understanding that the word in Farsi for "Israel" and "Zionism" is the same and the difference is in the nuance of usage. The AP has been forthright in some instances by clarifying that when Ahmadinejad used the word that it was referring to Zionism but not in other cases. Supports of Israel always use the definition as "Israel" as they don't acknowledge atrocities based upon the Zionist political agenda.
Everyone has a Right to their Homeland based upon Jus Soli. They do not have a Right to use force to take the homeland away from someone else. Governments have no Rights at all but instead only have authority and power. While only fully recognized by world nations since WW II the acquisition of territory by war has always been unacceptable.
In 1916 Einstein published his Theory of Gravity and a scientific model predicted that during a solar eclipe some of the stars that were behind the sun would be seen because the sun's gravity would act as a lens curving the light from the stars making them visible. That model was confirmed in the 1920's during a solar eclipse. I would suggest you read about the scientific model building for Einstein's theory in Wikipedia to obtain and understanding of scientific models that are also used for AGW as well as the social sciences.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity#Model-building
There was no evidence that Iraq had WMD's in 2002/2003 and the absence of those weapons was confirmed after the US invasion. Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant because it's an established fact historically. The members of Congress and the American People were duped by the Bush Adminstration in 2002-2003 and they can be duped again. That is a simple historical fact as well as an accurate prediction. As to what they will be duped about remains a mystery but always remember that propaganda based upon half-truths (e.g. Iraq had WMD's in the 1980's but not in 2002) is very effective.
Of note you apparently missed my post that predicts the beginning of the to all coal-fired powerplants.
worldpf.com/thread/821/goodbye-coal-fired-powerplants
I had previously predicted that nuclear fusion would become a reality in 20 years but apparently it will be a reality much sooner than that.
Yes, nuclear fusion may soon become a reality, based upon a recent discovery: www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/15/lockheed-breakthrough-nuclear-fusion-energy You admit that you have been "very gullible" in "the past"--just not so much as concerning "politics." Why would you suppose that most Americans are more gullible, as concerning politics, than you are? Is it simply because most do not agree with your leftist worldview? Can you supply some evidence, please, that would substantiate your charge that "Israel" could just as well have been translated "Zionism"? (In any case, even such an interpretation would necessarily imply that Israel, as it presently exists, must be destroyed.) Isreal never did "use force to take the homeland away from someone else." Rather, it acted in mere self-defense in the so-called "Six-Day War" of 1967. If a mere model concerning an eclipse turned out to be accurate, fine. But I still would not have trusted the "model" until after it had been confirmed, by empirical evidence.
And your merely dubbing something "an established fact" does not automatically make it such. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 18, 2014 11:43:42 GMT
In some cases I'm very gullible or have been in the past. I've trusted people that were ultimately have not been deserving of trust but that was always on a personal basis. I'm not nearly so gullible when it comes to politics.
It is my understanding that the word in Farsi for "Israel" and "Zionism" is the same and the difference is in the nuance of usage. The AP has been forthright in some instances by clarifying that when Ahmadinejad used the word that it was referring to Zionism but not in other cases. Supports of Israel always use the definition as "Israel" as they don't acknowledge atrocities based upon the Zionist political agenda.
Everyone has a Right to their Homeland based upon Jus Soli. They do not have a Right to use force to take the homeland away from someone else. Governments have no Rights at all but instead only have authority and power. While only fully recognized by world nations since WW II the acquisition of territory by war has always been unacceptable.
In 1916 Einstein published his Theory of Gravity and a scientific model predicted that during a solar eclipe some of the stars that were behind the sun would be seen because the sun's gravity would act as a lens curving the light from the stars making them visible. That model was confirmed in the 1920's during a solar eclipse. I would suggest you read about the scientific model building for Einstein's theory in Wikipedia to obtain and understanding of scientific models that are also used for AGW as well as the social sciences.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity#Model-building
There was no evidence that Iraq had WMD's in 2002/2003 and the absence of those weapons was confirmed after the US invasion. Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant because it's an established fact historically. The members of Congress and the American People were duped by the Bush Adminstration in 2002-2003 and they can be duped again. That is a simple historical fact as well as an accurate prediction. As to what they will be duped about remains a mystery but always remember that propaganda based upon half-truths (e.g. Iraq had WMD's in the 1980's but not in 2002) is very effective.
Of note you apparently missed my post that predicts the beginning of the to all coal-fired powerplants.
worldpf.com/thread/821/goodbye-coal-fired-powerplants
I had previously predicted that nuclear fusion would become a reality in 20 years but apparently it will be a reality much sooner than that.
Yes, nuclear fusion may soon become a reality, based upon a recent discovery: www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/15/lockheed-breakthrough-nuclear-fusion-energy You admit that you have been "very gullible" in "the past"--just not so much as concerning "politics." Why would you suppose that most Americans are more gullible, as concerning politics, than you are? Is it simply because most do not agree with your leftist worldview? Can you supply some evidence, please, that would substantiate your charge that "Israel" could just as well have been translated "Zionism"? (In any case, even such an interpretation would necessarily imply that Israel, as it presently exists, must be destroyed.) Isreal never did "use force to take the homeland away from someone else." Rather, it acted in mere self-defense in the so-called "Six-Day War" of 1967. If a mere model concerning an eclipse turned out to be accurate, fine. But I still would not have trusted the "model" until after it had been confirmed, by empirical evidence.
And your merely dubbing something "an established fact" does not automatically make it such.
The Skunk Works made a technological, not a scientific, breakthrough on nuclear fusion. Of course that's what the Skunk Works, where I once worked, is all about. Of interest is that ITAR is building a megalithic nuclear fusion reactor which is going to require many years to just construct because it scales it's projects based upon the international funding it receives. The Lockheed Skunk Works, with a much smaller budget, simply decided to build what it could afford to based upon the identical science.
But it does make coal absolete for the purpose of electical production eliminating the Republican arguments against the EPA's regulations to reduce emissions by 30% by 2030 moot. We have the projected means of providing the electrical power well within that time frame to completely eliminate the use of coal for electrical power production it that source is far less expensive than coal. Lockheed already has the nuclear fusion techology issues fundamentally resolved.
It is true that the creation if Israel as a "Jewish State" based upon acts of force by immigrant Zionist European Jews was a violation of the Rights of the existing residents in Palestine but it is also a fait accompli that for the present is irreversable. That may change in the future when the Arabs become the majority in Israel based upon future demographic projections of population growth. When the Arabs, by power of the vote, control the Israeli government things could change.
You claim that Israel acted in self-defense in 1967 so can you please provide a link that provides the date of the Syrian, Jordanian, and/or Egyptian attack/invasion of Israel? Can't find it can you?
Self-Defense against an act of aggression can only occur if there is an act of aggression but there was no military act of aggression threatening Israel's existance in 1967.
Additionally, as established by UNSC Resolution 242, the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and it doesn't matter if the war was act of aggression or an act of self-defense. The territory still cannot be seized from the people by an act of war. The US, for example, had no right to seize Japan at the end of WW II and make it a part of the United States.
There is a model of manmade global warming (AGW) that goes back over 150 years and it predicted that the global temperatures would rise (just like the model for gravity predicted that stars located behind the sun could be seen during a solar eclipse) and that prediction has proven to be accurate based upon emperical evidence. All that is occuring today is that the math behind the AGW model is being refined to predict by exactly how much temperatures will rise. Today's models are addressing far more variables than the earlier mathmatical models from 150 years ago and that is all. The general mathmatical prediction has already been verified by emperical evidence.
By way of analogy we can look at the value for Pi (π). 150 years ago it was 3.142 but today, with the ability of computers to calculate the value it stretches into the thousands (or millions) of decimal places. That didn't invalidate the value for Pi (π) of 3.142 that we had 150 years ago. It merely means we can calculate the circumference of a circle more accurately today than we could 150 years ago.
Today's mathmatical models of global warming are merely more accurate than what we had 150 years ago because more variables are being accounted for.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Oct 19, 2014 4:12:18 GMT
Yes, nuclear fusion may soon become a reality, based upon a recent discovery: www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/15/lockheed-breakthrough-nuclear-fusion-energy You admit that you have been "very gullible" in "the past"--just not so much as concerning "politics." Why would you suppose that most Americans are more gullible, as concerning politics, than you are? Is it simply because most do not agree with your leftist worldview? Can you supply some evidence, please, that would substantiate your charge that "Israel" could just as well have been translated "Zionism"? (In any case, even such an interpretation would necessarily imply that Israel, as it presently exists, must be destroyed.) Isreal never did "use force to take the homeland away from someone else." Rather, it acted in mere self-defense in the so-called "Six-Day War" of 1967. If a mere model concerning an eclipse turned out to be accurate, fine. But I still would not have trusted the "model" until after it had been confirmed, by empirical evidence.
And your merely dubbing something "an established fact" does not automatically make it such.
The Skunk Works made a technological, not a scientific, breakthrough on nuclear fusion. Of course that's what the Skunk Works, where I once worked, is all about. Of interest is that ITAR is building a megalithic nuclear fusion reactor which is going to require many years to just construct because it scales it's projects based upon the international funding it receives. The Lockheed Skunk Works, with a much smaller budget, simply decided to build what it could afford to based upon the identical science.
But it does make coal absolete for the purpose of electical production eliminating the Republican arguments against the EPA's regulations to reduce emissions by 30% by 2030 moot. We have the projected means of providing the electrical power well within that time frame to completely eliminate the use of coal for electrical power production it that source is far less expensive than coal. Lockheed already has the nuclear fusion techology issues fundamentally resolved.
It is true that the creation if Israel as a "Jewish State" based upon acts of force by immigrant Zionist European Jews was a violation of the Rights of the existing residents in Palestine but it is also a fait accompli that for the present is irreversable. That may change in the future when the Arabs become the majority in Israel based upon future demographic projections of population growth. When the Arabs, by power of the vote, control the Israeli government things could change.
You claim that Israel acted in self-defense in 1967 so can you please provide a link that provides the date of the Syrian, Jordanian, and/or Egyptian attack/invasion of Israel? Can't find it can you?
Self-Defense against an act of aggression can only occur if there is an act of aggression but there was no military act of aggression threatening Israel's existance in 1967.
Additionally, as established by UNSC Resolution 242, the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and it doesn't matter if the war was act of aggression or an act of self-defense. The territory still cannot be seized from the people by an act of war. The US, for example, had no right to seize Japan at the end of WW II and make it a part of the United States.
There is a model of manmade global warming (AGW) that goes back over 150 years and it predicted that the global temperatures would rise (just like the model for gravity predicted that stars located behind the sun could be seen during a solar eclipse) and that prediction has proven to be accurate based upon emperical evidence. All that is occuring today is that the math behind the AGW model is being refined to predict by exactly how much temperatures will rise. Today's models are addressing far more variables than the earlier mathmatical models from 150 years ago and that is all. The general mathmatical prediction has already been verified by emperical evidence.
By way of analogy we can look at the value for Pi (π). 150 years ago it was 3.142 but today, with the ability of computers to calculate the value it stretches into the thousands (or millions) of decimal places. That didn't invalidate the value for Pi (π) of 3.142 that we had 150 years ago. It merely means we can calculate the circumference of a circle more accurately today than we could 150 years ago.
Today's mathmatical models of global warming are merely more accurate than what we had 150 years ago because more variables are being accounted for.
The "attack" upon Israel, in 1967, was imminent. It was pre-empted by Israel's military. As The Washington Post (no Israeli mouthpiece) put it in 1967: Here is the link: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/07/AR2007060701872.html As you noted, nuclear fusion "may" soon become "a reality." The operative word is "may." Until it actually does, however, coal should remain an option. It should probably be obvious to you, by now, that your merely alluding to UN pontifications carries no more weight with me than the ramblings of Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, or Pol Pot would. It seems quite apparent to me that you not only believe the "models" that declare this or that about global warming; but that you additionally want America to take action based upon those "models." And even if I agreed with the predicate--which I emphatically do not--that would not lead me, irresistably, to your conclusion. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 19, 2014 10:22:44 GMT
The Skunk Works made a technological, not a scientific, breakthrough on nuclear fusion. Of course that's what the Skunk Works, where I once worked, is all about. Of interest is that ITAR is building a megalithic nuclear fusion reactor which is going to require many years to just construct because it scales it's projects based upon the international funding it receives. The Lockheed Skunk Works, with a much smaller budget, simply decided to build what it could afford to based upon the identical science.
But it does make coal absolete for the purpose of electical production eliminating the Republican arguments against the EPA's regulations to reduce emissions by 30% by 2030 moot. We have the projected means of providing the electrical power well within that time frame to completely eliminate the use of coal for electrical power production it that source is far less expensive than coal. Lockheed already has the nuclear fusion techology issues fundamentally resolved.
It is true that the creation if Israel as a "Jewish State" based upon acts of force by immigrant Zionist European Jews was a violation of the Rights of the existing residents in Palestine but it is also a fait accompli that for the present is irreversable. That may change in the future when the Arabs become the majority in Israel based upon future demographic projections of population growth. When the Arabs, by power of the vote, control the Israeli government things could change.
You claim that Israel acted in self-defense in 1967 so can you please provide a link that provides the date of the Syrian, Jordanian, and/or Egyptian attack/invasion of Israel? Can't find it can you?
Self-Defense against an act of aggression can only occur if there is an act of aggression but there was no military act of aggression threatening Israel's existance in 1967.
Additionally, as established by UNSC Resolution 242, the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and it doesn't matter if the war was act of aggression or an act of self-defense. The territory still cannot be seized from the people by an act of war. The US, for example, had no right to seize Japan at the end of WW II and make it a part of the United States.
There is a model of manmade global warming (AGW) that goes back over 150 years and it predicted that the global temperatures would rise (just like the model for gravity predicted that stars located behind the sun could be seen during a solar eclipse) and that prediction has proven to be accurate based upon emperical evidence. All that is occuring today is that the math behind the AGW model is being refined to predict by exactly how much temperatures will rise. Today's models are addressing far more variables than the earlier mathmatical models from 150 years ago and that is all. The general mathmatical prediction has already been verified by emperical evidence.
By way of analogy we can look at the value for Pi (π). 150 years ago it was 3.142 but today, with the ability of computers to calculate the value it stretches into the thousands (or millions) of decimal places. That didn't invalidate the value for Pi (π) of 3.142 that we had 150 years ago. It merely means we can calculate the circumference of a circle more accurately today than we could 150 years ago.
Today's mathmatical models of global warming are merely more accurate than what we had 150 years ago because more variables are being accounted for.
The "attack" upon Israel, in 1967, was imminent. It was pre-empted by Israel's military. As The Washington Post (no Israeli mouthpiece) put it in 1967: Here is the link: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/07/AR2007060701872.html As you noted, nuclear fusion "may" soon become "a reality." The operative word is "may." Until it actually does, however, coal should remain an option. It should probably be obvious to you, by now, that your merely alluding to UN pontifications carries no more weight with me than the ramblings of Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, or Pol Pot would. It seems quite apparent to me that you not only believe the "models" that declare this or that about global warming; but that you additionally want America to take action based upon those "models." And even if I agreed with the predicate--which I emphatically do not--that would not lead me, irresistably, to your conclusion.
Political rhetoric is not an act of military aggression. The threats of war were being flung back and forth between Israel and Egypt. Syria and Jordan didn't matter as they couldn't have launched any war against Isael and Iraq doesn't even share a border with Israel. Yes, Egypt did move many of it's military units towards the border of Israel but what would you have done if another nation was threatening you with war?
Four fundamental facts: 1) All "pre-emptive" military strikes are acts of aggression. 2) The acquisition of territory by war, regardless of the rationalizations for the war, is unaccepable. 3) It is a violation of long established international law to relocate a civilian population into a territory of military occupation. 4) While Israel is fait accompli as a nation it's territorial borders are the pre-1967 borders as the rest of Palestine belongs to the Palestinian People many of which were, or are the children of, those forced from their native homeland by the European Zionist immigrants in 1948.
Nuclear fusion is a reality of the future and has been for quite some time. All the Lockheed announcement does is move up that reality by a few years because of the time of construction when compared to the ITAR nuclear fusion reactor that is scheduled for completion by roughly 2020. The scientific issues have been resolved and all we're waiting on is the engineering design and physical construction. In the meantime we will certainly continue to use coal but there is no reason for any unnecessary pollution when using coal.
No, I want America to act because the coal industry doesn't have a "Right to Pollute" regardless of the climate change models. I've repeatedly stated that fact. The coal industry has repeatedly claimed in can economically eliminate up to 40% of coal pollution so I see nothing wrong whatsoever with requiring it to only accomplish 75% of that in a reasonable amount of time.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Oct 20, 2014 2:30:42 GMT
The "attack" upon Israel, in 1967, was imminent. It was pre-empted by Israel's military. As The Washington Post (no Israeli mouthpiece) put it in 1967: Here is the link: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/07/AR2007060701872.html As you noted, nuclear fusion "may" soon become "a reality." The operative word is "may." Until it actually does, however, coal should remain an option. It should probably be obvious to you, by now, that your merely alluding to UN pontifications carries no more weight with me than the ramblings of Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, or Pol Pot would. It seems quite apparent to me that you not only believe the "models" that declare this or that about global warming; but that you additionally want America to take action based upon those "models." And even if I agreed with the predicate--which I emphatically do not--that would not lead me, irresistably, to your conclusion.
Political rhetoric is not an act of military aggression. The threats of war were being flung back and forth between Israel and Egypt. Syria and Jordan didn't matter as they couldn't have launched any war against Isael and Iraq doesn't even share a border with Israel. Yes, Egypt did move many of it's military units towards the border of Israel but what would you have done if another nation was threatening you with war?
Four fundamental facts: 1) All "pre-emptive" military strikes are acts of aggression. 2) The acquisition of territory by war, regardless of the rationalizations for the war, is unaccepable. 3) It is a violation of long established international law to relocate a civilian population into a territory of military occupation. 4) While Israel is fait accompli as a nation it's territorial borders are the pre-1967 borders as the rest of Palestine belongs to the Palestinian People many of which were, or are the children of, those forced from their native homeland by the European Zionist immigrants in 1948.
Nuclear fusion is a reality of the future and has been for quite some time. All the Lockheed announcement does is move up that reality by a few years because of the time of construction when compared to the ITAR nuclear fusion reactor that is scheduled for completion by roughly 2020. The scientific issues have been resolved and all we're waiting on is the engineering design and physical construction. In the meantime we will certainly continue to use coal but there is no reason for any unnecessary pollution when using coal.
No, I want America to act because the coal industry doesn't have a "Right to Pollute" regardless of the climate change models. I've repeatedly stated that fact. The coal industry has repeatedly claimed in can economically eliminate up to 40% of coal pollution so I see nothing wrong whatsoever with requiring it to only accomplish 75% of that in a reasonable amount of time.
You seem enormously worried about "pollution." However, it is really not one of my chief concerns. I hope that, indeed, this breakthrough as regarding nuclear fusion bears fruit. On this, I think we are agreed. But considering the strength of the anti-nuclear movement--dating all the way back to Three Mile Island, in the late 1970s--it remains unclear to me if it actually will succeed. I very much hope, however, that it does. As for you "[f]our fundamental facts": (1) I think pre-emptive warfare got a bad name following then-President Bush's incursion into Iraq in 2003. But it strikes me as being a most useful tool, at times. (2) I do not consider "the acquisition of territory by war" to be "unacceptable" if the aggressor nation loses territoty to its intended victim. (3) I also do not consider Israel, as it is presently constituted, to be under "military occupation." (4) The reference to "the children" of the Palestinian people seems to imply a desire, on your part, for the so-called "Right of Return"; which would immediately overwhelm the Jewish state, and transmute it into something very different. No need, therefore, to consider the possibility of demographics, for the distant future. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 20, 2014 12:47:56 GMT
Political rhetoric is not an act of military aggression. The threats of war were being flung back and forth between Israel and Egypt. Syria and Jordan didn't matter as they couldn't have launched any war against Isael and Iraq doesn't even share a border with Israel. Yes, Egypt did move many of it's military units towards the border of Israel but what would you have done if another nation was threatening you with war?
Four fundamental facts: 1) All "pre-emptive" military strikes are acts of aggression. 2) The acquisition of territory by war, regardless of the rationalizations for the war, is unaccepable. 3) It is a violation of long established international law to relocate a civilian population into a territory of military occupation. 4) While Israel is fait accompli as a nation it's territorial borders are the pre-1967 borders as the rest of Palestine belongs to the Palestinian People many of which were, or are the children of, those forced from their native homeland by the European Zionist immigrants in 1948.
Nuclear fusion is a reality of the future and has been for quite some time. All the Lockheed announcement does is move up that reality by a few years because of the time of construction when compared to the ITAR nuclear fusion reactor that is scheduled for completion by roughly 2020. The scientific issues have been resolved and all we're waiting on is the engineering design and physical construction. In the meantime we will certainly continue to use coal but there is no reason for any unnecessary pollution when using coal.
No, I want America to act because the coal industry doesn't have a "Right to Pollute" regardless of the climate change models. I've repeatedly stated that fact. The coal industry has repeatedly claimed in can economically eliminate up to 40% of coal pollution so I see nothing wrong whatsoever with requiring it to only accomplish 75% of that in a reasonable amount of time.
You seem enormously worried about "pollution." However, it is really not one of my chief concerns. I hope that, indeed, this breakthrough as regarding nuclear fusion bears fruit. On this, I think we are agreed. But considering the strength of the anti-nuclear movement--dating all the way back to Three Mile Island, in the late 1970s--it remains unclear to me if it actually will succeed. I very much hope, however, that it does. As for you "[f]our fundamental facts": (1) I think pre-emptive warfare got a bad name following then-President Bush's incursion into Iraq in 2003. But it strikes me as being a most useful tool, at times. (2) I do not consider "the acquisition of territory by war" to be "unacceptable" if the aggressor nation loses territoty to its intended victim. (3) I also do not consider Israel, as it is presently constituted, to be under "military occupation." (4) The reference to "the children" of the Palestinian people seems to imply a desire, on your part, for the so-called "Right of Return"; which would immediately overwhelm the Jewish state, and transmute it into something very different. No need, therefore, to consider the possibility of demographics, for the distant future.
(1) Pre-emptive War is always an Act of Aggression.
Pre-emptive war is always based upon a rationalization and is never based upon a fact. It is impossible to actually determine if another nation is going to attack. For example there were no orders given to the Egyptian military to launch an attack against Israel in 1967.
(2) Israel was the "aggressive nation" in 1967 because it was the invading nation.
(3) The West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Golan Heights are all territories of military occupation.
(4) While the creation of Israel violated the Rights of the non-Jewish (citizens) that were forcefully coerced into fleeing from Their Homeland the Palestinians have dropped the demand for their "Right of Return to their Homeland" (that Israel had promised in the peace agreements between the Syria, Jordan, and Egypt at the end of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War). The Palestinians have also dropped the demand for compensation for property stolen from Arab landowners by Israel in 1948 (I've read about 18% of Israel was stolen from the lawful Arab property owners when Israel was created).
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Oct 21, 2014 23:34:51 GMT
You seem enormously worried about "pollution." However, it is really not one of my chief concerns. I hope that, indeed, this breakthrough as regarding nuclear fusion bears fruit. On this, I think we are agreed. But considering the strength of the anti-nuclear movement--dating all the way back to Three Mile Island, in the late 1970s--it remains unclear to me if it actually will succeed. I very much hope, however, that it does. As for you "[f]our fundamental facts": (1) I think pre-emptive warfare got a bad name following then-President Bush's incursion into Iraq in 2003. But it strikes me as being a most useful tool, at times. (2) I do not consider "the acquisition of territory by war" to be "unacceptable" if the aggressor nation loses territoty to its intended victim. (3) I also do not consider Israel, as it is presently constituted, to be under "military occupation." (4) The reference to "the children" of the Palestinian people seems to imply a desire, on your part, for the so-called "Right of Return"; which would immediately overwhelm the Jewish state, and transmute it into something very different. No need, therefore, to consider the possibility of demographics, for the distant future.
(1) Pre-emptive War is always an Act of Aggression.
Pre-emptive war is always based upon a rationalization and is never based upon a fact. It is impossible to actually determine if another nation is going to attack. For example there were no orders given to the Egyptian military to launch an attack against Israel in 1967.
(2) Israel was the "aggressive nation" in 1967 because it was the invading nation.
(3) The West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Golan Heights are all territories of military occupation.
(4) While the creation of Israel violated the Rights of the non-Jewish (citizens) that were forcefully coerced into fleeing from Their Homeland the Palestinians have dropped the demand for their "Right of Return to their Homeland" (that Israel had promised in the peace agreements between the Syria, Jordan, and Egypt at the end of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War). The Palestinians have also dropped the demand for compensation for property stolen from Arab landowners by Israel in 1948 (I've read about 18% of Israel was stolen from the lawful Arab property owners when Israel was created).
(1) Pre-emptive war does not necessarily have to be "based upon a rationalization." Not if one's military intelligence is good; which, regrettabley, America's no longer is. (2) Given Israeli intelligence, I certainly would not consider its pre-emptive actions to render it the "aggress[or] nation." (3) Territories obtained in a purely defensive war should not be considered to be under "military occupation." (4) When did the Palestinians ever drop their demand for a "right of return"? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 22, 2014 9:44:31 GMT
(1) Pre-emptive War is always an Act of Aggression.
Pre-emptive war is always based upon a rationalization and is never based upon a fact. It is impossible to actually determine if another nation is going to attack. For example there were no orders given to the Egyptian military to launch an attack against Israel in 1967.
(2) Israel was the "aggressive nation" in 1967 because it was the invading nation.
(3) The West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Golan Heights are all territories of military occupation.
(4) While the creation of Israel violated the Rights of the non-Jewish (citizens) that were forcefully coerced into fleeing from Their Homeland the Palestinians have dropped the demand for their "Right of Return to their Homeland" (that Israel had promised in the peace agreements between the Syria, Jordan, and Egypt at the end of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War). The Palestinians have also dropped the demand for compensation for property stolen from Arab landowners by Israel in 1948 (I've read about 18% of Israel was stolen from the lawful Arab property owners when Israel was created).
(1) Pre-emptive war does not necessarily have to be "based upon a rationalization." Not if one's military intelligence is good; which, regrettabley, America's no longer is. (2) Given Israeli intelligence, I certainly would not consider its pre-emptive actions to render it the "aggress[or] nation." (3) Territories obtained in a purely defensive war should not be considered to be under "military occupation." (4) When did the Palestinians ever drop their demand for a "right of return"?
(1) Can you provide an example of any "pre-emptive war" that wasn't based upon a rationalization?
(2) We know as a historical fact that Egypt, Jordan, and Syria were not going to invade Israel in 1967 (and were incapable of doing so) so was Israeli intelligence good or bad? In fact Syria had accepted a peace accord from the United Nations prior to the Israeli invasion of the Golan Heights and Israel was well aware of that fact before invading.
(3.a) A purely defensive war is a response to an attack/invasion. (3.b) A "pre-emptive" attack is never an act of defense. A pre-emptive war is always an act of aggression with the intent of preventing the necessity for a defensive war. (3.c) Based upon all international agreements and treaties all territories occupied by war of any kind are considered to be under "military occupation" and your personal opinion is invalid in this regard.
(4) The Palestinians haven't been demanding a "right of return" in any peace negotiations with Israel for years. The recent Palestinian proposals for peace with Israel rest exclusively upon the conditions of UNSC 242 which does not include any provisions for a "right of return" to Israel.
In the most recent peace negotiations with Israel the Palestinians have agreed to:
Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.
Additionally the Palestinians have requested a neutral military force (e.g. NATO) occupy a demiliterized zone overwhelmingly if not exclusively inside of Palestinian territory to ensure that neither side will take any military action against the other in the future. Of note Israel had previously proposed that it's military occupy the demiliterized zone so it could attack Palestine at will but Palestine could not attack Israel which made no sense at all. Only a neutral military force can provide protection for both nations.
In return the Palestinians want:
Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the (1967) conflict.
The only two issues I'm aware of preventing a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians are: (A) The refusal of Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and E Jerusalem that it occupied in 1967, and (B) The illogical demand by Israel that the Palestinians formally acknowledge Israel as a "Jewish State" where the Palestinians correctly point out that the nature of Israel is an internal matter for the Israelis that other nations have no right to define or establish under international agreements.
On a final note the Palestinians have submitted applications to become a party to 15 international treaties/conventions including the Fourth Geneva Conventions. The United States can, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, block the Palestinian application to join the Geneva Conventions but I haven't read that it has. If admitted as a party to the Fourth Geneva Conventions then the Palestinians could (and probably would) challenge the occupation of the West Bank and E Jerusalem before the International Criminal Court (that the US is a primary member of). In short the Palestinians want their "day in court" which is the last thing that Israel wants because Israel is fairly certain that it's civilian occupation violates Article 49 of the Conventions even as it argues otherwise. Israel would have no allies if the matter was brought before the International Criminal Court as even the US considers the occupation of the West Bank and E Jerusalem as being a violation of Article 49. The only way to prevent this from becoming an formal declaration by the Court is to deny access to the Court to the Palestinians.
In short Israel, not the Palestinians, are the reason that a lasting peace accord that ensures the political independence free from external threats or acts of force has not been achieved.
(Israeli intelligence was really quite good as Mosad had moles deep in the highest echelons of Egyptian military command and Israel knew that Egypt wasn't going to invade).
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Oct 22, 2014 20:38:42 GMT
(1) Pre-emptive war does not necessarily have to be "based upon a rationalization." Not if one's military intelligence is good; which, regrettabley, America's no longer is. (2) Given Israeli intelligence, I certainly would not consider its pre-emptive actions to render it the "aggress[or] nation." (3) Territories obtained in a purely defensive war should not be considered to be under "military occupation." (4) When did the Palestinians ever drop their demand for a "right of return"?
(1) Can you provide an example of any "pre-emptive war" that wasn't based upon a rationalization?
(2) We know as a historical fact that Egypt, Jordan, and Syria were not going to invade Israel in 1967 (and were incapable of doing so) so was Israeli intelligence good or bad? In fact Syria had accepted a peace accord from the United Nations prior to the Israeli invasion of the Golan Heights and Israel was well aware of that fact before invading.
(3.a) A purely defensive war is a response to an attack/invasion. (3.b) A "pre-emptive" attack is never an act of defense. A pre-emptive war is always an act of aggression with the intent of preventing the necessity for a defensive war. (3.c) Based upon all international agreements and treaties all territories occupied by war of any kind are considered to be under "military occupation" and your personal opinion is invalid in this regard.
(4) The Palestinians haven't been demanding a "right of return" in any peace negotiations with Israel for years. The recent Palestinian proposals for peace with Israel rest exclusively upon the conditions of UNSC 242 which does not include any provisions for a "right of return" to Israel.
In the most recent peace negotiations with Israel the Palestinians have agreed to:
Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.
Additionally the Palestinians have requested a neutral military force (e.g. NATO) occupy a demiliterized zone overwhelmingly if not exclusively inside of Palestinian territory to ensure that neither side will take any military action against the other in the future. Of note Israel had previously proposed that it's military occupy the demiliterized zone so it could attack Palestine at will but Palestine could not attack Israel which made no sense at all. Only a neutral military force can provide protection for both nations.
In return the Palestinians want:
Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the (1967) conflict.
The only two issues I'm aware of preventing a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians are: (A) The refusal of Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and E Jerusalem that it occupied in 1967, and (B) The illogical demand by Israel that the Palestinians formally acknowledge Israel as a "Jewish State" where the Palestinians correctly point out that the nature of Israel is an internal matter for the Israelis that other nations have no right to define or establish under international agreements.
On a final note the Palestinians have submitted applications to become a party to 15 international treaties/conventions including the Fourth Geneva Conventions. The United States can, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, block the Palestinian application to join the Geneva Conventions but I haven't read that it has. If admitted as a party to the Fourth Geneva Conventions then the Palestinians could (and probably would) challenge the occupation of the West Bank and E Jerusalem before the International Criminal Court (that the US is a primary member of). In short the Palestinians want their "day in court" which is the last thing that Israel wants because Israel is fairly certain that it's civilian occupation violates Article 49 of the Conventions even as it argues otherwise. Israel would have no allies if the matter was brought before the International Criminal Court as even the US considers the occupation of the West Bank and E Jerusalem as being a violation of Article 49. The only way to prevent this from becoming an formal declaration by the Court is to deny access to the Court to the Palestinians.
In short Israel, not the Palestinians, are the reason that a lasting peace accord that ensures the political independence free from external threats or acts of force has not been achieved.
(Israeli intelligence was really quite good as Mosad had moles deep in the highest echelons of Egyptian military command and Israel knew that Egypt wasn't going to invade).
(1) The war we are currently discussing--the 1967 war--is an excellent example of a pre-emptive war that "wasn't based upon a rationalization." (You appear to harbor a desire for revisionist history, in an attempt to make it appear otherwise.) (2) See #1. (3) It is certainly true that any pre-emptive war is the result of a nation's having "the intent of preventing the necessity for a defensive war." So what? That is a bit like one's saying that receiving the annual flu shot has the intent of preventing the necessity for hospitilazition, due to a serious illness. Why should that be regarded as a bad thing? (4) If the Palestinians really wanted a sovereign state, next to Israel, they could have already had it. Remember the negotiations featuring the late Yasser Arafat and then-American President Bill Clinton, in December 2000? |
|
