Boy who cried wolf.

[The Don]

Those pictures would be equivalent if they were either of a wall built within the United States to separate, say, the blue states from the red states or if they were built in Mexico to allow United States citizens to settle in parts of Mexico and not be subject to attack from Mexicans who were cross at losing their land.

 

[BPSCG]

Those pictures would be equivalent if they were either of a wall built within the United States to separate, say, the blue states from the red states or if they were built in Mexico to allow United States citizens to settle in parts of Mexico and not be subject to attack from Mexicans who were cross at losing their land.

Oh.

Well, Matabiri said

Having to build great big walls across sections of your land to maintain internal security doesn't sound that stable to me.

So if these walls aren't there to maintain internal security, then what are they for? Decoration?

I'm sorry, but the fact that you have a wall across your border to keep people out does not disqualify you as a "stable democracy."

 

[Matabiri]

I'm sorry, but the fact that you have a wall across your border to keep people out does not disqualify you as a "stable democracy."

So Israel recognises the Palestinian border as the border to another country?

Isn't that what the violence is about?

 

[BPSCG]

[Non sequitur]

So Israel recognises the Palestinian border as the border to another country?

[/Non sequitur]

Huh?

What in the world does that have to do with your allegation that Israel is not a stable democracy?

 

[geni]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Boy who cried wolf.

It already does have one.

Which does have nuclear weapons that can probably reach my country.

 

[geni]

Re: Re: Boy who cried wolf.

If Europe thinks for one second that Iran will stop developing nukes then I have two words for you; "Neville Chamberlain".

Huh? Makes no sense. Europe has no need to buy time to undergo a massive rearnerment program.

 

[Tony]

The recent record is not too good.

You still trust the palestinians after all the times they've cried wolf. Judging by that, I have confidence you'll still trust the US government.

 

[Dorian Gray]

BPSCG, he said ACROSS sections of your land. The border, by definition, is not ACROSS your land, and also is not for internal security.

You have a fence/wall like that INSIDE the US? Then we'll talk. And no, having the fence a few yards inside your border doesn't count.

 

[BPSCG]

BPSCG, he said ACROSS sections of your land. The border, by definition, is not ACROSS your land, and also is not for internal security.

You have a fence/wall like that INSIDE the US? Then we'll talk. And no, having the fence a few yards inside your border doesn't count.

So you also maintain that Israel is not a stable democracy? What, then, is your definition?

ETA: BTW, this has gotten insanely off-topic.

 

[Kopji]

Walls - Mexico and US have a well defined border, agreed upon by both sides. If the US built the wall south of Tijuana there might be a problem.

The problem with Iran & their ilk is that we pay a whole lot of attention to countries that have nuclear weapons, and diss and abuse those that don't. With nuclear weapons comes RESPECT.

So the trick is to get the weapons without being caught first. Chanting 'Death to America' while approving continued peaceful research in reactor technology could probably be taken as a clue. But a clue to what? That they already have a nuke and don't care? or that they are just stupid enough to use one?
...dark choice.

Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people do.

 

[Matabiri]

So you also maintain that Israel is not a stable democracy? What, then, is your definition?

ETA: BTW, this has gotten insanely off-topic.

You're right. I'll stop sniping after this...

My first comment was very tongue in cheek, as was my use of "democracy". But for what it's worth, no, I don't think that the Israel/Palestine mess is a stable democracy. There's a large subsection of the population that doesn't just not feel represented, but is actively trying to bring about separation. Israel, excluding Palestine, may be a "stable democracy", but as Israel itself doesn't recognise that separation, I don't think the whole set-up can be regarded as "stable".

 

[TragicMonkey]

But for what it's worth, no, I don't think that the Israel/Palestine mess is a stable democracy. There's a large subsection of the population that doesn't just not feel represented, but is actively trying to bring about separation. Israel, excluding Palestine, may be a "stable democracy", but as Israel itself doesn't recognise that separation, I don't think the whole set-up can be regarded as "stable".

If it's a stable, it's an Augean one.

 

[varwoche]

No way Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. They desperately need their nuclear program to supply power to that country after their oil runs out in 150 years or so.

Prediction: Iran will have nukes within a few years, and the Euros will blame the USA for letting it happen.

I am extremely suspicious of Iran. That said, the "they must be building nukes, seeing as they have so much oil" argument seems lacking. Oil is not sand; it's a global commodity. For this argument to make sense, nuclear energy would have to be more expensive than oil. Is it?

 

[AtheistArchon]

Oil is not sand; it's a global commodity.

- You mean... all that sand I bought...

- Damn!!

 

[BPSCG]

I am extremely suspicious of Iran. That said, the "they must be building nukes, seeing as they have so much oil" argument seems lacking. Oil is not sand; it's a global commodity. For this argument to make sense, nuclear energy would have to be more expensive than oil. Is it?

Well, seeing as how they have oil right under their feet while they have to do all kinds of research to build a nuclear reactor, I suspect the oil is a lot cheaper.

And in any case, why do they need to do all this research? France has a highly-developed nuclear power system. Why don't they ask the French to come over and build a few reactors for them? The French are very good at it. It would have to be a lot less expensive than reinventing the wheel. Note: I know French-bashing is popular here, so this might be taken as being a facetious comment, but I'm in dead earnest.

 

[Grammatron]

Well, seeing as how they have oil right under their feet while they have to do all kinds of research to build a nuclear reactor, I suspect the oil is a lot cheaper.

And in any case, why do they need to do all this research? France has a highly-developed nuclear power system. Why don't they ask the French to come over and build a few reactors for them? The French are very good at it. It would have to be a lot less expensive than reinventing the wheel. Note: I know French-bashing is popular here, so this might be taken as being a facetious comment, but I'm in dead earnest.

Well you are sort of right. Russia and not France built some reactors in Iran few years ago. Here's a link to a news story, halfway into the article under "Nuclear Competition."

 

[varwoche]

Well, seeing as how they have oil right under their feet while they have to do all kinds of research to build a nuclear reactor, I suspect the oil is a lot cheaper.

And in any case, why do they need to do all this research? France has a highly-developed nuclear power system. Why don't they ask the French to come over and build a few reactors for them? The French are very good at it. It would have to be a lot less expensive than reinventing the wheel. Note: I know French-bashing is popular here, so this might be taken as being a facetious comment, but I'm in dead earnest.

Like I said, I'm highly suspicious.

But, you miss the point re cost. It doesn't matter how much oil they have, so long as there remains demand. Every barrel they consume is $X not earned on the global market. (Still, it may be cheaper than nuclear. I don't know.)

 

[Silicon]

I believe Secretary Powell.

I believed him last time, when he trumpeted "false, misleading and inaccurate" data to the American public and the world.

But I DO actually believe him now.


The problem is, nobody wants to help us anymore, now that we have egg on our faces.


America cried wolf.

But there ARE real wolves out there, and Bush has made us more vulnerable to them, not less.

 

[BPSCG]

Well you are sort of right. Russia and not France built some reactors in Iran few years ago. Here's a link to a news story, halfway into the article under "Nuclear Competition."

Oh Gawd, you really don't want the Russians building nuclear plants for you, do you?

Cripes, that's like being a fan of British engineering and German cooking (Q: How do you spot the British-made laptop? A: It's the one with the oil leak.)

The French, AFAIK, have never had a significant nuclear power plant incident, which is remarkable considering have you ever driven a Renault 10?

 

[BPSCG]

Like I said, I'm highly suspicious.

But, you miss the point re cost. It doesn't matter how much oil they have, so long as there remains demand. Every barrel they consume is $X not earned on the global market. (Still, it may be cheaper than nuclear. I don't know.)

So pay the damn Frogs fifty billion euros to build ten nuclear power plants and you're all done. Then you still have all the oil you can sell. It's simple capitalism; you sell what you can sell for cheaper than anyone, and you buy the rest from someone who can sell it to you cheaper than anyone else. You don't see Hong Kong building factories so they can go into automobile production, because they can buy cars a lot cheaper than they can manufacture them themselves.

And Iran can buy all the nuclear reactors it wants, good high-quality reactors, for a lot cheaper than it would cost them to do all the research and make all the mistakes and end up with their own home-grown Chernobyls.

Of course, all this assumes they really want nuclear power plants. If they have some other, more nefarious purpose in mind (any ideas?), then maybe it makes perfect sense for them to roll their own.

Jeeze, I can't believe we're having this discussion...