• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Time to kick Iran

Ion said:
swim·ming,
–verb (used with object)
Click to expand...
:D

IT'S STILL A VERB. Swimming could also be a noun.

The word "value" can be both a noun and a verb but nouns and verbs are not values.

Is there something that you don't get about that? Did you superior education fail to clue you in on logic?
 
Ion said:
My post was censored.

I posted that Poincare made my demonstration.

Your education comes from Google, not from real education.
Click to expand...

How did you find that article about topology and special relativity? Because as far as I can tell, the only way you could have found it is by googling "topology" and "special relativity". And surprise, surprise, it's the first link. And did you manage to understand the article you linked to? No, you didn't. It explicitly contradicts the claims you were trying to make. Let me quote (again) from your own link:

"The space–time of special relativity is assumed to be a four-dimensional manifold M.... In fact, what is at the heart of all experimentally observable predictions of special relativity is this metric structure, and not the topological structure of M, which is Euclidean."

Poincare's contribution to special relativity was in the development of the metric. It's not possible for him to have contributed to special relativity via topology, because the topology of special relativity isn't any different than classical physics, as your own source points out. You continue to deny the obvious facts spelled out by your own source. And you've got the nerve to claim that I'm the one who can only figure things out via google? Hell, you can't even get that far.
 
Ziggurat said:
In what respect did I criticise Russia?
Click to expand...


I quote what you wrote:
Russia has a long history of throwing its weight in its neighborhood, going back well before the USSR even. They are an ambitious nation, always have been.

Ziggurat said:
You were the one who took their recent actions as this terrible sign of a failure of American policy, not me.
Click to expand...

Not of failure of American policy, of lack of collaboration between American and Russia ( unilateralism ), and it was not only my criticism, it was also Putin`s
 
RandFan said:
You are just asserting this. I don't know to what extent we can. I'll concede that we can do more.

This is an argument by personal incredulaity. I respect your opinion but I'm not going to base a conclusion on it solely.
Click to expand...

OK

RandFan said:
Who says they would sell it back to the US?
Click to expand...

I thought this iｓ is what you meant

RandFan said:
There's a lot of problems with this. If we say we are against nukes and don't get rid of our nukes won't that make us hypocrites? If we get rid of Nukes will Iran stop it's nuclear program? Will Russia get rid of all of it's nukes? How will we know?
Click to expand...


Mmmm..
Just what is the problem of oging to the UN and say:
" OK, we are in favour of making a plan, to get rid of nukes ASAP "
What is the problem?
About Iran, you are keeping nukes to stop their nuclear program?
Does that mean that you are taking into consideration of using them?
 
Matteo Martini said:
I quote what you wrote:
Russia has a long history of throwing its weight in its neighborhood, going back well before the USSR even. They are an ambitious nation, always have been.
Click to expand...

And why is that necessarily a criticism? It's not. It's merely a statement.

Not of failure of American policy, of lack of collaboration between American and Russia ( unilateralism ), and it was not only my criticism, it was also Putin`s
Click to expand...

Putin's a big boy. He knows that Russia isn't going to get everything it wants (the US sure as hell doesn't). He may complain about this, but that's as far as it's going to go, because it's not actually worth it to him to push the issue any further than that. He knows that, we know that, but apparently a few people haven't clued in yet.
 
Matteo Martini said:
Mmmm..
Just what is the problem of oging to the UN and say:
" OK, we are in favour of making a plan, to get rid of nukes ASAP "
What is the problem?
About Iran, you are keeping nukes to stop their nuclear program?
Does that mean that you are taking into consideration of using them?
Click to expand...
Thanks Matteo,
  • I would never say that disarmament. Nor would I say that working for disarmament is wrong. It's a complex issue and I don't know what the answes are.
  • America should be very careful of empty gestures. We have already shot ourselves in the foot.
  • As to Iran, yes. It's a very freightening prospect. Given the religious element and those who believe that America must be conquered and the infidel vanquished and an apopoliptic holy war It's very frieghteining.
  • Yes. Of course. The willingness to use the bomb is the only thing that makes it of any use. Why would anyone ever go to the trouble and expense of having something like a nuclear weapon if they refused to even consider using them.
Now, having said that, consideration doesn't mean that we expect to use them or hope to use them.

I'm as much a fan of Dr. Stragelove as the next guy. I've seen Fail Safe 1964 and Fail Safe 2000 and even The Day After.

I'm not pro nuclear weapons. I wish the Atomic Bomb had never been created.
 
Ziggurat said:
And why is that necessarily a criticism? It's not. It's merely a statement.



Putin's a big boy. He knows that Russia isn't going to get everything it wants (the US sure as hell doesn't). He may complain about this, but that's as far as it's going to go, because it's not actually worth it to him to push the issue any further than that. He knows that, we know that, but apparently a few people haven't clued in yet.
Click to expand...

Apparently few people have a clue that you need Russia to, let` s say, succeed in isolating Iran, and the current stance of the US is not what you really need in order to get this collaboration
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom