Runyan99
-
Posts
1,304 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Runyan99
-
-
It wasn't really a very interesting game until the last 8 minutes or so when Detroit scored.
-
I started watching football because of Barry Sanders, but ever since he retired the entire Lions franchise has been dazed and confused.
-
Maybe Fleury should stop kicking pucks in the net.
-
Are hockey players required to spit on the ice?
-
Was that image photoshopped?
-
Eagle against the Sun
-
I spent some time in Minneapolis lately, and the talk radio stations were abuzz with Favre talk. There was a lot of optimistic talk about getting to the Super Bowl with Favre. I think that is crazytalk.
-
Did the ref blow the whistle before the puck went in? Otherwise, I don't see why they would not have called that a goal on review. Looks like the Ducks stole one.
-
Winning game 2 in triple OT is a huge lift for the Ducks and a deflator for the Wings just in time for two games in California.
-
Sharks drown at the pond.
-
Is this a flower, lips, or a female body part?
-
Ducks dominated last night.
-
Hockey has always made an ideal video game, and it's the video games that drive my interest.
When I was in college we used to play NHL 94 on the Sega Genesis or some such system. We'd play like mad, we'd play for money. It was very competitive. That got me interested in real hockey at the time for about a year.
But with my recent purchase of an XBox 360 I decided to relive the old days and am now trying hard to get better at NHL 08. This has prompted me to watch the real thing again, so I am interested in the playoffs this year.
-
Why are they called the Habs?
-
Even if it is true, nobody is going to act on the information.
-
I think Billy was channeling Bad Santa.
-
In reference to the first post, how do identity theives use basic info like name and address? They could get this kind of information out of a phone book.
-
These guys are from the Far Ost Battalion.
-
This is the problem that Israel already has. Going all the way back to the War of Independence, they went too far in pursuing what at first might have appeared to be legitimate goals. In so doing, they aroused implacable hatred against themselves.
Michael
You used the word implacable, not me. How to deal with implacable foes?
In any case, it's clear that many in the Middle East believe the Israelis 'went too far' as soon as the war started, and that the state should not exist. For these people no concession, and no redrawn border, will bring peace.
-
If the War of Independence is going to be an Arab/Persian causus belli for all time, then the Israeli course is clear. They must lauch the airstrikes.
The discussion is explicitly about striking Iran and it's weapons develoment sites. As for North Korea and Pakistan. Pakistan's government is unstable, and the country is indeed a growing security concern. North Korea is already nuclear armed to some degree, so there can be no discussion about preventing them from gaining the technology.
-
Well, the international community can certainly not interfere miltarily, and hope for the best. That feels good for now, but if this approach is wrong, if the Iranian regime isn't peaceful or moderate, then the consequences will be staggering. At the moment, we cannot possibly know the future.
Preemtion and non-intervention are both gambles. Neither is clearly the right course.
-
Advocating delaying tactics means that you are ok with the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons, just not this year. Or maybe next. After the airstrikes, and assassinations.
I'm not okay with Iran having weapons, but I acknowledge in the long run it probably cannot be prevented short of full scale invasion. Regardless, if strikes can delay that date to 2012 or 2020, or whatever, I think that's worth doing. Delay means there cannot possibly be nuclear exchange in the interim.
How do you see it?
-
Well, I might point out that even in the case of Hitler's Germany, there were no 'easy' solutions, no consensus, and no coalition troops massing on the German border. The coalition only formed after the fact once the military situation had become a crisis. Perhaps that wasn't wise. Arguably preemption wasn't realistic. It is debatable.
Preemption, like poker, is always going to be a game of partial information. It is never going to be obvious what the right choice is beforehand. Sometimes however it can be pretty clear after the fact that finger crossing and hoping for the best wasn't an effective strategy.
In any case, the words 'war' and 'invasion' are getting thrown around. I'm not advocating either. If limited means like air strikes or assassinations are effective as delaying tactics, then I think they should be employed, given that Iran's strategic interests seem to be opposite those of the USA/Israel alliance. If these limited means would not be effective, then I wouldn't use them either, and preemption is off the table.
-
FAI - Your argument seems to be that since the USA aided Israel in achieving nuclear weapons, Iran is bound to obtain them too, since our plan wasn't to give them to everybody from the start. So the inherent unfairness in our policy will be it's undoing. Presumably then, had the Western powers not seen fit to arm Israel, the entire world community would now be united in it's efforts to prevent Iran from arming, since there would be no unfairness or hypocrisy to the policy. I can't agree with you there. From my perch, outside of the USA, the 'world community' is pretty passive and toothless in these matters. Iran would arm unmolested, but for American and/or Israeli intervention.
JonS - You certainly present an eloquent perspective. I am challenged by your informed and nuanced analysis of the situation.
Anyone played one of the "World at War" boardgames?
in General Discussion Forum
Posted
I'm interested in the eastern front computer wargame they are working on, it should be out this year I think.