Israel needs the United States to survive we don't need them. That is the hard reality. Israel's interest can be our interest but not necessarily so. It is true that Europe could do more in Afghanistan but it takes time to mend fences after the neocon episode in Iraq. I know it is fashionable to beat up on Europe in some conservative circles but that is stupid and shortsighted in my opinion. Europe will always be closest in mentality and history. While I support Israel and think we should honor our commitment to protect her it is not in our interest to alienate the whole Muslim world.Comment Posted By funny man On 15.05.2009 @ 23:34
B. Poster,Comment Posted By funny man On 15.05.2009 @ 22:47
our European allies are more important than Israel.
Michael and Manning,Comment Posted By funny man On 15.05.2009 @ 17:54
the two of you, ghosh (smile). Anyway, think for a second how the Russians feel about all of this (now to be honest, there is no 'Russian' opinion). For them, the Cold War ended by Gorbachev letting Eastern Europe go (but they were still respected in the world). Then comes Yeltsin and breaks up the Soviet Union and letting in some form of 'free market'. At the end of his reign, their economy has collapsed and they are the laughing stock of the world. All that with a long history of imperial conquest dating back past Ivan the terrible. The Russians also bore the brunt of the allied casualties in WWII.
Anyway, no wonder that they welcomed Putin who brings order and reestablishes Russia to some degree of importance. I don't think they have SU ambitions but want to be respected. Michael so I don't think they are a joke neither Manning do I loose much sleep over them.
B. Poster,Comment Posted By funny man On 13.05.2009 @ 22:35
Russia's invasion of Chechnya? That's still part of Russia as far as I know.
Have you ever been to Russia? What in the world makes you think we might be 'trailing Russia'. Don't you think they have other worries?
I don't think the United States is in danger of loosing their military advantage any time soon. However, I agree with you that just because we are currently fighting a counter insurgency doesn't mean all resources should be concentrated there. As in all government programs there is enormous waste in the military so I don't think cutting some programs is such a bad idea.
B. poster:Comment Posted By funny man On 12.05.2009 @ 23:03
India capable of beating the United States? Now, come on..
Dwight,Comment Posted By funny man On 13.05.2009 @ 12:10
of course horizontal gene transfer supports evolution. In contrast to small incremental changes due to mutations you can have the whole set of genes much quicker.
However, this makes phylogenetic trees much more complicated. I think we agree on most things, I just wanted to point out the difficulties you have to reconstruct life's pathway. For example did we really have a single common ancestor or was it multiple microorganisms swapping genes. These are all competing theories and we'll see.
person of choler,Comment Posted By funny man On 13.05.2009 @ 10:58
et is and that is correct. 'ad infinitum' means to infinity. However, if you say 'ad nauseum et ad infinitum' it might be correct because nauseum and infinitum are not causally linked. Sorry, but this is also many, many years ago for me. Fun though:
homo homini lupus est
obviously there were times when CO2 was higher (perhaps when Yellowstone erupted half million years ago; it's about time again..). However, as you know it's more and more difficult to measure the more you go back in time but for the immediate past (last 500 years) I think ice cores are probably reasonably accurate. In my opinion, CO2 is also not the worst of greenhouse gases, methane and N2O might do more damage.
About throwing a little monkey poo, guilty as charged (but so are you). As long as it doesn't get personalComment Posted By funny man On 12.05.2009 @ 18:47
Person of Choler,Comment Posted By funny man On 12.05.2009 @ 15:31
shouldn't it be 'ad infinitum'?
Person of Choler,Comment Posted By funny man On 12.05.2009 @ 15:30
we can talk about science, fine. However, your posts in this regard come very close to this conspiracy 'they are trying to hide the truth from us'. Sure the 'consensus' among most scientists can be wrong. Luckily, you can test the theories but for every 'later proven to be true theory' you have hundreds of totally absurd ones. So are you telling me that the satellite images of the arctic ice are wrong? I'm not saying that every scientific finding has to be believed but it is also true that some people on the right have already decided that global warming is a (liberal) hoax that only serves the purpose to allow more government interference. This is just nonsense (and I'm conservative).