Comments Posted By Jonathan
Displaying 91 To 99 Of 99 Comments
"anything I said about Reid above goes double for Bush."
Kudos sir for being evenhanded, something which doesn't happen very often on either the left or the right.
This is my first visit to your website and I think that I shall be back.
On another note, it's interesting that no one on the right has addressed the point the Mr Reid is not Majority Leader until 1 January 2007. I would be interested in any comments from the right leaning posters on this site regarding this fact.
Have a happy and safe New Years everyone!
Jonathan
Comment Posted By Jonathan On 31.12.2006 @ 14:09
the last thing I want to do is get into a calculus of death. however, for anyone who thinks that the number is "too high to be credible":
a sample of deaths in world war I(combined civilian and military, rounded off)-
France: 1.4 million
Italy: 650,000
Romania: 611,000
Russia: 3.7 million
Serbia: 1.1 million
UK: 733,000
United States: 126,000
Austria-Hungary: 1.5 million
Bulgaria: 350,000
Germany: 2.5 million
Ottoman Empire: 2.5 million
What were they saying again about the death toll being too high?
Comment Posted By jonathan On 12.10.2006 @ 19:44
SACRE BLEU! FRENCH CNN TO BROADCAST IN ENGLISH
It's been a long time since French was regarded as the international language of diplomcy and commerce. If France had a strong economy and a broad cultural influence, the French government wouldn't have to waste it's time trying to stamp out foreign words.
That being said, is this any different from efforts by conservatives in the U.S. to make English our official language? The English-only movement is motivated by fears that the U.S. might someday be balkanized into Spanish and English language areas. Given the surge of Muslim immigration into France, enforcing the use of French makes some sense.
Comment Posted By Jonathan On 17.03.2006 @ 10:23
An invasion would have a lot of bad consequences for America and the world, no doubt about it. But as Tom Holsinger notes, the consequences of not invading would be worse in the long term. If we do decide to invade, we must avoid half measures. Simply bombing a few installations would only slow Iran down while providing it with a casus belli and a thirst for revenge.
This crisis is upon us not because of Iran's nuclear capabilities but because of the perceived malign intent of its leaders. For years they've vowed to excise the "tumor" of Israel from the Middle East and have repeatedly talked about destroying "anglo-saxon civilization." It may be all bluff and buster, but we have to assume that they mean what they say and act accordingly.
Comment Posted By Jonathan On 19.01.2006 @ 14:21
"A TERRORISTS DREAM: AN AMERICAN NIGHTMARE"
We should also keep our eyes on China, which has sophisticated nuclear weapons and an emerging space flight capability. In addition, the Chinese military has publicly threatened to use nukes against the U.S. if it interferes with Chinese efforts to invade Taiwan. On the other hand, a nuclear explosion in space would probably take out most of China's space-based assets.
In June 2004, Scientific American had a long article on this subject titled "Nuclear Explosions in Orbit." The article raised the issue of how we would respond to a high-altitude nuclear explosion over our territory. It's likely that we would not respond with a conventional nuclear attack. Required reading for all.
Comment Posted By Jonathan On 6.12.2005 @ 15:23
THE RIGHT WAY TO GO TO THE MOON
You can bet that if private companies had been running the space program in the 1960's, 70's and 80's, they would not have wasted their money on the space shuttle and the International Space Station, which are absurd and useless boondoggles.
The fundamental question that private corporations need to answer is "Why go back to moon?" Unless the moon has some unique resources that can't be found anywhere else (Helium-3?), going there may not be worth the expense. Tourism seems problematic given the expense and dangers of space flight, as well as the harsh lunar environment.
Comment Posted By Jonathan On 25.11.2005 @ 22:47
ARE WE MOVING TOWARD A MILITARY SHOWDOWN WITH IRAN?
Israel's nuclear forces are primarily land-based and therefore vulnerable to a surprise attack. However, Israel also possesses three diesel-electric Dolphin class submarines, which were manufactured by Germany. The subs are capable of launching cruise missiles, and some reports claim that these missiles are nuclear-armed.
In the past, Israel has maintained a policy of deliberate ambiguity about its nuclear capabilities, partly to avoid provoking its neighbors into acquiring nuclear weapons. This policy has failed. With Iran threatening to "wipe Israel off the map," it's time for Israel to go public about its nuclear weapons, especially its sea-based weapons. The only way for Israel to deter Iran is by stating unambiguously what will happen in the event of a surprise attack.
Comment Posted By Jonathan On 3.11.2005 @ 10:37
In 1925, Adolph Hitler published Mein Kampf, which laid out in plain language his rabid hatred of the Jews and his plans for world conquest. The book was mostly ignored by educated people outside of Germany, who considered it too over the top to be taken seriously.
In a similar vein, Iran has been saying some very scary things for a long time. So long, in fact, that a lot of people have tuned it out. In May 2004, for example MEMRI reported on a speech in which a prominent official claimed that Iran had a "strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization and for the uprooting of the Americans and the English." The same official also noted that Iran had identified "29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and the West" for attack.
Are the Iranians really that crazy? The fact that they're hunkering down is a bad sign. On the other hand, all this confrontation could just be designed to keep average Iranians from thinking too hard about what a miserable hole their country has become. We just don't know. But assuming that Iran's anti-American, anti-Western, anti-modern theocrats share our priorities and think like we do would be very dangerous.
Comment Posted By Jonathan On 2.11.2005 @ 22:58
"DROOPY DRAWERS" IS NOT A CARTOON CHARACTER
I don't mind seeing guys wearing saggy drawers. It's a source of great humor watching them attempt to walk and continually pull up on the things to keep them from falling down. And they look so intelligent! Not to mention the fact that another source of laughter is imagining that they took a big dump in them and that's why they're sagging...and they're too stupid to empty them out. Thanks for the laughs fellas!
Comment Posted By Jonathan On 14.12.2007 @ 14:29
