At 09:47 PM 12/9/2004, you wrote:
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/quiz/neoconQuiz.html
My results were unexpected, but not surprising:
Realist
RealistsÂ…
-Are guided more by practical considerations than ideological vision
-Believe US power is crucial to successful diplomacy - and vice vers
At 11:03 PM 12/9/2004 -0500 Damon Agretto wrote:
>At 09:47 PM 12/9/2004, you wrote:
>>http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/quiz/neoconQuiz.html
This quiz was pretty bad, but I somehow did end up with the
"neoconservative" rating.
JDG
___
http://www.
On Dec 9, 2004, at 7:47 PM, Robert G. Seeberger wrote:
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/quiz/neoconQuiz.html
Huh! I rated high-grade homophobic!
Go fig.
;)
(No, I got liberal too, which isn't surprising to me much.)
--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwa
Realist. But there were no good answers to some of the questions.
--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: Are You A Neocon? Neocon Quiz
> Realist. But there were no good answers to som
On 10 Dec 2004, at 5:13 am, Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: Are You A Neocon? Neocon Quiz
Realist. B
Dan Minette wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 11:01 PM
> Subject: Re: Are You A Neocon? Neocon Quiz
>
>
>&
--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Realist. But there were no good answers to some of
> the questions.
>
> --
> Doug
Yes, that is usually part of the definition of foreign
policy. Anyone who _knows_ what to do about Iran or
North Korea is either lying or a fool.
=
Gautam Muk
- Original Message -
From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 7:34 AM
Subject: Re: Are You A Neocon? Neocon Quiz
> --- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot
On Dec 9, 2004, at 9:01 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
Realist. But there were no good answers to some of the questions.
Quite agree. I believe that was the point: there *are* no good
answers, just more- or less-bad answers.
To no one's surprise, I came out "most likely a liberal."
It's interesting tha
Gautam wrote:
Yes, that is usually part of the definition of foreign
policy. Anyone who _knows_ what to do about Iran or
North Korea is either lying or a fool.
True, but you still need to have some basic idea of how you would approach
the problem.
--
Doug
--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gautam wrote:
>
> > Yes, that is usually part of the definition of
> foreign
> > policy. Anyone who _knows_ what to do about Iran
> or
> > North Korea is either lying or a fool.
>
> True, but you still need to have some basic idea of
> how you woul
Gautam wrote:
I have many basic ideas about how I would approach the
problem. Doesn't mean that any of them will work.
The best case scenario might well be just limiting the
damage - there may be no "solution" to the problem.
That's why foreign policy is hard.
I wouldn't disagree with a word you'v
--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wouldn't disagree with a word you've written. The
> idea behind the test,
> however, was not to determine how you would solve
> the problem but to
> determine from which angle you would approach it.
> As with any truncated
> set of answers, som
Gautam wrote:
You wouldn't? You're awfully certain about which
policies are right and wrong on a lot of different
issues to agree with what I've written. The two
stances conflict.
I have strong opinions on many subjects, but expressing an opinion doesn't
equal certianty.
If you want my particu
--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have strong opinions on many subjects, but
> expressing an opinion doesn't
> equal certianty.
It rather depends on the opinion, doesn't it?
> What are the long term effects of pissing everyone
> in the world off,
> Gautam?
> It's not really ab
I thought I already sent this - over three hours ago, but I don't see it
on the list so I'll try again.
Gautam wrote:
See, Doug, this is where we disagree. You have
somehow managed to convince yourself that the rest of
the world is interested in the "right thing".
No, _I'm_ interested in doing t
--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, _I'm_ interested in doing the right thing as, I
> believe, are the vast
> majority of the people (not
> governments) of the world.
How nice for you. It must be nice to be able to
operate in such a world. Want to, say, take an
opinion poll in S
On Dec 11, 2004, at 11:21 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
The reason we need to preserve good relations with other countries is
because the terrorism we are fighting is stateless and has tendrils in
many other countries. If we work together to root it out we stand a
far better chance of defeating it.
From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> It was wrong because it didn't have anything to do
>> with 9/11 or the war on
>> terrorism.
>So you say. Yet there is, in fact, a pretty coherent
>argument otherwise. You don't like it, but that
>doesn't make the people who feel otherwise delud
--- Andrew Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would be interested to hear this coherent
> arguement.
> The one that demonstrates that Saddan and Iraq were
> intimately involved in 9/11.
They clearly were not.
>
> Or was it the second part you were referring too the
> War on Terror?
> Is the "Ba
In answer to your question Gautam, overthrowing Saddam's government
could be morally wrong because it was as gross a violation of Iraq's
soveirgnty as could be found. Also, it violates the people's moral
right to choose their own government- nowhere have I heard a formulation
which goes 'the peo
- Original Message -
From: "maru" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2004 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: Are You A Neocon? Neocon Quiz
> In answer to your question Gautam, overthrowing Saddam&#x
--- maru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In answer to your question Gautam, overthrowing
> Saddam's government
> could be morally wrong because it was as gross a
> violation of Iraq's
> soveirgnty as could be found. Also, it violates the
> people's moral
> right to choose their own government- now
Perhaps; most bad governments eventually get overthrown, irregardless of
to how high a pitch of perfection of oppression their ruling elites have
managed,
when they piss off their people enough.
I would say though, certain rights must be respected by all governments,
if the 'marketplace' of nati
--- maru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not really Gautam: you asked for a way in which you
> could interpret the
> invasion as morally bad, and I provided it.
Yes, and I was pointing out the premise which makes
your statement true. It's only morally bad if you put
an extremely high - a Westpha
- Original Message -
From: "maru" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: Are You A Neocon? Neocon Quiz
> Perhaps; most bad governments eventually get overthrown, irreg
I can't even come up with a plausible story in which defending
Israel and Taiwan is in our national interest defined in anything
but idealogical terms (democray is good, basically), ...
A former Israeli paratrooper told me many years ago that he thought
the US supported Israel because
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 12:21 AM
Subject: Re: Are You A Neocon? Neocon Quiz
> I thought I already sent this - over three hours ago,
Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
You need simply ask - how much did the US use that "unsinkable
aircraft carrier" in any of its numberless conflicts in the Gulf?
Well, the Israelis won three wars against the Arab countries in its
first 25 years. During most of that time, the US did not
- Original Message -
From: "Robert J. Chassell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: Are You A Neocon? Neocon Quiz
> Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> You need simply ask - how
--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And it's another damned straw man, given that Saddam
> Hussein is in no
> position to acquire weapons.
>
> Nick
Not _anymore_ anyways, thanks to the war you opposed.
=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blo
- Original Message -
From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 12:27 AM
Subject: Re: Are You A Neocon? Neocon Quiz
> At 10:21 PM 12/11/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote:
> >
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And it's another damned straw man, given that Saddam
Hussein is in no
position to acquire weapons.
Nick
Not _anymore_ anyways, thanks to the war you opposed.
Did I?
Apparently our memories differ.
Nick
- Original Message -
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: Are You A Neocon? Neocon Quiz
> Gautam Mukunda wrote:
> > --- Nick Arnett &l
> I was more concerned, personally, with chem/bio and
> radiological
> weapons. Dirty bombs would be pretty vicious. Nukes
> not so much because
> apart from Scuds -- which I've always thought of as
> late-model V-1s --
> I don't think Iraq had much of a delivery platform.
Nope. V-1s (aka "Doo
On Dec 14, 2004, at 12:34 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
I took my time making up my mind.
Tue Jul 29 23:34:29 PDT 2003
[...]
Bush's mention of the possibility of Iraq with nuclear weapons
touched a nerve. The idea of those nightmares arising again was one
of the
things that brought me to reluctantly sup
On Dec 14, 2004, at 1:31 PM, Damon Agretto wrote:
I was more concerned, personally, with chem/bio and
radiological
weapons. Dirty bombs would be pretty vicious. Nukes
not so much because
apart from Scuds -- which I've always thought of as
late-model V-1s --
I don't think Iraq had much of a deliver
Dan Minette wrote:
I went back over the archivesyou appeared to not want to say what your
opinion was.
I took my time making up my mind.
Tue Jul 29 23:34:29 PDT 2003
...
I've realized that there's a strong emotional component to this for me,
which I suspect is shared by many others who grew up
Nick Arnett wrote:
I bought the nuclear threat pitch the first time around. It reminded
me of the nightmares (literally) of the '60s. Do you think that those
of us who bought it the first time, only to find out it was a
fabrication, are any more likely to swallow it now?
When do you mean by "b
- Original Message -
From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Are You A Neocon? Neocon Quiz
> On Dec 14, 2004, at 1:31 PM, Damon Agretto wrote:
On Dec 14, 2004, at 6:47 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote:
From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
As despotic
as
Saddam was, I'm not so sure he could have convinced one of his
flunkies
to personally carry a small unshielded nuke and/or be nearby when it
detonated. That's much more like a Jihadist t
Robert J. Chassell wrote:
>
> What if the Chinese offer to pay for some of the natural gas they
> expect to buy from Iran in Euros rather than dollars?
>
There are some real, technical, problems in the export of gas over long
distances. It's not a piece of cake like oil
Alberto Monteiro who now
Hmm, that's an interesting twist I hadn't considered. I guess you wouldn't
want a timer on it though. (Same reason you don't put a timer on a mail
bomb.) How would you handle the detonation trigger? GPS? (Oo. Oo. That
could work.)
No. Maybe a cell phone. Any intelligence network worth its salt
On Dec 15, 2004, at 5:23 PM, Robert J. Chassell wrote:
I find it fascinating that neither they nor anyone else are talking of
spending that amount of money on alternatives to fossil fuel. With
tens of billions spent on development, I bet the price of alternatives
would come down below the costs of
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 05:26:52PM -0500, Damon Agretto wrote:
> Oh I dunno. I don't think any company is going to let the situation
> go to the point where there is no more oil. To make a viable product
> during the Oil Embargo, and to meet customer demands, more fuel
> efficient cars were develo
On Dec 16, 2004, at 3:26 PM, Damon Agretto wrote:
Speaking of military, what do we imagine will happen when fossil
fuels get low enough in reserve that there just aren't enough to go
around any more?
I guess we'll just need to develop pocket fusion reactors to go along
with our A-grav, rail guns
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
One of the things we're constantly reminded of by the fossil fuel
interests is how generally impractical, difficult, costly and, most of
all, expensive any conversion will be. If this propaganda happens to be
true, it could be decades before we have decent new military veh
It's not just about fuels... development of easier-to-maintain systems
would also be a big win. We have a lot of military equipment that needs
maintenance time that is a multiple of operational time. Maintainence
costs for the Marines have doubled in the last 15 years. IIRC, their
AAVs, abo
Really? I thought I was doing a 'half-way decent rendering' of the Bush
doctrine.
/re-reads what he wrote.
oops- I forgot the proviso 'outsiders that covet some of that realm's
natural resources'.
Silly me! Sorry 'bout that.
~Maru
JDG wrote:
At 09:54 PM 12/11/2004 -0500 maru wrote:
nowhere ha
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: Are You A Neocon? Neocon Quiz
Perhaps; most bad governments eventually get overthrown, irregardless of
to how high a pitch of perfection of oppression their
And the US has been contributing so much to world happiness lately-
let's tar all Americans
as Islamophobics who want to bomb the shiat out of any who disagree with
their prayin',
spendin' ways! Don't you think saying that all of France supported the
Rwandan genocides
is slightly unfair to the
At 11:16 PM 12/9/2004 -0500 JDG wrote:
>At 11:03 PM 12/9/2004 -0500 Damon Agretto wrote:
>>At 09:47 PM 12/9/2004, you wrote:
>>>http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/quiz/neoconQuiz.html
>
>This quiz was pretty bad, but I somehow did end up with the
>"neoconservative" rating.
This article on ne
Not really Gautam: you asked for a way in which you could interpret the
invasion as morally bad, and I provided it.
If i had said, that under no circumstance should we violate soveirgnty,
then I would be elevating it mighty high (& could only
defend it by extension from individual rights).
And Na
--- "Robert J. Chassell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A former Israeli paratrooper told me many years ago
> that he thought
> the US supported Israel because it was an
> `unsinkable aircraft
> carrier' in a part of the world which provides much
> oil.
>
> (A consequence of this theory is that the
At 09:54 PM 12/11/2004 -0500 maru wrote:
> nowhere have I heard a formulation
>which goes 'the people have the right to choose their own government,
>and overthrow one which is completely unacceptable. Unless, of course, some
>outsiders think that the current government is reprehensible and
>dese
At 10:21 PM 12/11/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote:
>The resources we've squandered would have gone a long way
>towards actually solving the problem of terrorism which, I reiterate, has
>little or nothing to do with Iraq or Sadam Hussein.
Even so, once Saddam Hussein were to, say, acquire a nucle
At 01:13 AM 12/11/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote:
>The more people we piss off, the greater the resources of our
>enemies.
>We might be the mightiest nation on the planet, but as our
>failures in Iraq instruct us, we can't take on the whole world.
I am not convinced of this. In particular,
On Dec 13, 2004, at 11:27 PM, JDG wrote:
At 10:21 PM 12/11/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote:
The resources we've squandered would have gone a long way
towards actually solving the problem of terrorism which, I reiterate,
has
little or nothing to do with Iraq or Sadam Hussein.
Even so, once Saddam H
JDG wrote:
Even so, once Saddam Hussein were to, say, acquire a nuclear weapon from
the A. Q. Khan underground network, isn't it a little too late at that
point to do something about the problem?
I bought the nuclear threat pitch the first time around. It reminded me
of the nightmares (literally)
Russell Chapman wrote:
When do you mean by "bought it the first time" - I assume you're not
talking about 1962 - 1978? Did you mean the lead up to the 2003 invasion?
Yes... the aluminum tube nonsense, etc.
Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinf
> What if the Chinese offer to pay for some of the natural gas
> they expect to buy from Iran in Euros rather than dollars?
There are some real, technical, problems in the export of gas over
long distances. It's not a piece of cake like oil
No. Evidentally, the Chinese are offer
Speaking of military, what do we imagine will happen when fossil fuels get
low enough in reserve that there just aren't enough to go around any more?
I guess we'll just need to develop pocket fusion reactors to go along with
our A-grav, rail guns, and directed energy weapons...
Either the world
On Dec 16, 2004, at 3:44 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
I think you are both underestimating the duration of the transition. I
doubt the cross-over point will be reached in our lifetimes, but in
general what will happen (barring a revolutionary technological
advance)
is that fossil fuels will gradually ge
Damon Agretto wrote:
You'll be happy to know, then, that the DoD is looking to dump the
AAVP7A1s in favor of a new vehicle to be fielded after 2008:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/aaav.htm
Yeah, the AAV is expected to be phased out in favor of the AAAV in 2012.
I'll just ho
- Original Message -
From: "maru" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: Are You A Neocon? Neocon Quiz
> Wait- Stalin's government was not overthrown?
Unless
e -
From: "maru" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: Are You A Neocon? Neocon Quiz
Wait- Stalin's government was not overthrown?
Unless you count the Politbur
Gautam wrote (quite a while ago):
Popularity doesn't have anything to do with it.
Except when it does, as you say below.
No, I don't. To wit, if you are the C.O. of a ship at sea, someone who
supposedly has absolute power, and there are members of your crew that you
don't like but whom are impor
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
If not pissing people off is an important concern of
yours
I'm wondering where you read this in Doug's words... I'm reading
quickly, but the Doug's premise seemed to be that we ideally decide what
is the right thing and then do our best to build a coalition around it.
It s
69 matches
Mail list logo
