Add a Comment

Comment by sesport on December 7, 2009 at 0:31

lol, I need to make you work harder? Looks like you worked plenty hard to post that with all the cut & paste, addressing my post point-by-point. And I feel special ... you honored me with a link.

As for what China MAY do for the US, well... they've been helpful in the past gaining Pakistan's cooperation against terrorism & the Taliban in Afghanistan. And Russia assisted similarly with Central Asian republics after the 9/11 attacks. And I think they both wish to continue enjoying economic links to the US-led west.

Exactly what is it that you prognosticate the "heathens" in China, with the "grubby little theiving paws," are going to do to the US anyway? 80)

Comment by essay on December 6, 2009 at 19:11

"essay - How long are you going to be preoccupied with this "hobby" of yours?"

for as long as i please, thanks for asking.

"As for your question(s) ... "do [I] personally believe the USA would be safe in such a world?" I don't have to even entertain that thought as I don't believe that there will eventually be a world without nukes (at least not in my lifetime). We helped create the monster, the best we can do at this point is try to contain it."

good to know you don't agree with obama about everything.

"As for national security, I don't believe either the US or Russia NEED as many nuclear weapons as are stockpiled. After all, it only took 2 to mangle Hiroshima & Nagasaki. Gee, I wonder how Japan ever forgave us, talk about disregard for human life."

why do you make me repeat myself? "early japanese surrender saved hundreds and hundreds of thousands of lives from violent death, by any estimation" since you like links so much, here is a good synopsis of why we'll never put the genie back in the bottle.

"The ME, Iran in particular, may think they can take us, but again at this point Russia & China are pretty much in accord with us in that matter. I'd be more inclined to be concerned about a cyber threat today. So, in that aspect, I do lean toward agreeing with your thoughts about "lights out.""

i know i'm repeating myself again, but china and russia's words are as the wind. anyway, what are you even talking about? "take us"? "lights out"?

"If the ME can't/won't come to reason re. their resources and their regard for the Western world, I've no doubt that Russia, China & the US can tell them to "talk to the hand" by cooperating to develop & produce our resources. And, regardless of which side of the fence one sits on "Climategate" issues, we sure could use some new industries (that consume a lot of energy) to employ Americans because, as you also know, one of our biggest, the auto industries, have just taken a big hit.

"Now, China getting it's "grubby little thieving paws on American technology," hmmm, still stuck on an old recording, are we? Guess what, our economy has been tied to others globally for awhile now, but you know that. I believe the President is going to let the American citizens, by way of their elected representatives, sort out the future of our own energy demands. It's kind of a different approach, to let stakeholders have their say & decide, but the old style of a patronizing executive office wasn't cutting it, IMO."

lumping those three countries' motivations together is... not very good logic. you do realize russia is a net energy exporter, right? iran isn't even really all that important to their armament exporting industry, but it's getting there. the best thing iran could do for russia is further destabilize the middle east and spike energy prices. ironic that you bring up climategate...

and why not bring up china reverse engineering technology, "old recording" or not, is it true? of course it is. and just as relevant to the current discussion as the observation that our economies are joined at the hip. a better topic by my estimation is who needs who more. from my previous link "technology, as it becomes cheaper and more abundant, will inevitably flow outwards, to smaller and weaker states and downwards, to sub-state actors." we can't stop it, so we may as well let companies get paid for it. anyway, that argument is a sideshow, and as now i've already addressed it twice, and won't do so a third time.

obviously you're ok with GM taking billions in taxpayer money and moving more fabrication operations to china, since you gave us that link you seem to think supports your argument. you also seem to be saying that you're fine with our president being more concerned with helping sort out foreign countries' energy demands than he is our own? we borrow money from china to help brazil drill offshore, and announce initiatives to aid china in developing the exact same resources we have at home... i'm just not sure how that jives with what you're saying about needing to create jobs in the united states.

and really, letting americans sort it out for themselves? yeah what a novel concept. kinda like the health care "reform" we're currently facing in congress, right? i mean everyone knows we're all going to have way more choices after it gets passed. oh and ask GM bondholders how much say they had in that whole debacle... what did they get, like 10 cents on the dollar? scary.

this president sold a bill of goods to a bunch of sucker voters, and is exactly the kind of puppet president that people accused dubya of being. beholden to special interests and slave of international banking and corporations. but don't take my word for it, ask michael moore

at least you're making arguments. they may not be very good ones, but hey i guess you can't have it all. keep giving me material, and i'll keep up my hobby. the least you could do is make me work a little harder at it.

Comment by sesport on December 6, 2009 at 14:38

essay - How long are you going to be preoccupied with this "hobby" of yours?

As for your question(s) ... "do [I] personally believe the USA would be safe in such a world?" I don't have to even entertain that thought as I don't believe that there will eventually be a world without nukes (at least not in my lifetime). We helped create the monster, the best we can do at this point is try to contain it.

As for national security, I don't believe either the US or Russia NEED as many nuclear weapons as are stockpiled. After all, it only took 2 to mangle Hiroshima & Nagasaki. Gee, I wonder how Japan ever forgave us, talk about disregard for human life.

The ME, Iran in particular, may think they can take us, but again at this point Russia & China are pretty much in accord with us in that matter. I'd be more inclined to be concerned about a cyber threat today. So, in that aspect, I do lean toward agreeing with your thoughts about "lights out."

If the ME can't/won't come to reason re. their resources and their regard for the Western world, I've no doubt that Russia, China & the US can tell them to "talk to the hand" by cooperating to develop & produce our resources. And, regardless of which side of the fence one sits on "Climategate" issues, we sure could use some new industries (that consume a lot of energy) to employ Americans because, as you also know, one of our biggest, the auto industries, have just taken a big hit.

Now, China getting it's "grubby little thieving paws on American technology," hmmm, still stuck on an old recording, are we? Guess what, our economy has been tied to others globally for awhile now, but you know that. I believe the President is going to let the American citizens, by way of their elected representatives, sort out the future of our own energy demands. It's kind of a different approach, to let stakeholders have their say & decide, but the old style of a patronizing executive office wasn't cutting it, IMO.

You want to continue with this "hobby" of yours?
80)

Comment by essay on December 6, 2009 at 13:46

yeah john i thought "americans owned the technology." guess that explains why i never got any checks in the mail? i dunno, sometimes i'm doing good not to drool on myself.

again it's funny how you can frame me as incapable of having a discussion when all you appear able to do is chase your own tail. if it's so important that we be energy independent, why has our president not begun discussions about how we're to exploit our own massive gas reserves?

you seem jazzed up about cutting israel loose, i'm sure poland can scootch over and make a little more room under the international bus! and john, north korea already has nukes. according to... well, almost everyone.

and guy, for somebody that did a tour in vietnam, do i really have to answer that last question? seriously? maybe you were attached to kerry's outfit, i dunno.

Comment by John Avatar on December 6, 2009 at 10:37

Essay, I could have defined you or labeled you or commented on your thought processes, but that would be pointless as I don't know you. "Nobody can tell me.........." sums up your willingness to engage in real dialogue.
The United States does not own the technology, the companies do and they're not all American companies. America is using technology owned by Schlumberger, a French company.
As far as Iran goes, only Russia and China know what they will do about it. Since they are both a sovereignty, one would assume they would act in their best interests. If we weren't shackled to Israel and dependent on oil from the mideast, what would we care about Iran? That's like worrying about North Korea, as if China, South Korea or Russia would let them have a nuke.
Iran is a threat to the neighborhood, not the world. We don't live in that neighborhood, Russia and China do. Maybe we should figure out a way to stay out of that neighborhood.

What exactly is the point for owning or using nuclear weapons. In the end it's still MAD and what's the point?

Comment by essay on December 5, 2009 at 21:39

it's ok john, i know a challenge to your world-view can be unsettling. as i've stated previously, i'm far less concerned whether or not you liberals like what i have to say than i am about decent people getting infected with whatever it is that plagues the 'progressive' thought process.

i like how nobody can tell me what russia and china are going to do about iran, and instead we are talking about china getting it's grubby little thieving paws on american technology. what a shocker, like they haven't been reverse engineering our stuff for decades? no matter how they obtain it, legally or otherwise, the end result is they benefit at our expense. at least through exxon somebody would be getting paid for it, cause i'm sure the chinese could just steal it or otherwise figure it out on their own without too much trouble.

sesport i was amazed to hear obama actually repeat the whole "world without nuclear weapons" shtick at west point. i mean really now. do you personally believe that the united states of america would be safe in such a world?

Comment by sesport on December 5, 2009 at 20:22

Two Dogs - I beliieve Exxon is more interested in offshore drilling with regard to the US. As for producing & supplying other countries, they're like the Chinese ... they'll do what it takes to take care of Exxon.

http://www.exxonmobilcat.com/topics/entry/senators_send_letter_to_i...

Comment by Two Dogs, Pirate on December 5, 2009 at 14:50

If Exxon falls, I would think that to be the greatest bust-up ever? Where is Exxon on land in the continental USA? Sure they could swallow Chesapeake, Petrohawk and a few others with one gulp, and then share these companies tech with the Chinese. The Chinese could swallow these companies, but it would look better if Exxon did it, then gave all the tech to the Chinese. Me, I don't buy Exxon gasoline.

Comment by sesport on December 5, 2009 at 7:00

Now Exxon has sung "Kum Bye Yah" with Sinopec to get resources to China. And, it's thought that next week's Copenhagen tete-a-tete may bring more talks between Russia and US re. nuclear reductions. So, would the contentious ME be thinking, "Let's be stubborn," or "Let's rethink what we're doing?"

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/12/03/financi...

I'm inclined to think the latter result will develop over time. 80)

Comment by John Avatar on December 5, 2009 at 6:21

Essay, give me one reason why I should care what you think.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 7
• Next ›
• Page