Prometheus98876
-
Posts
1340 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Posts posted by Prometheus98876
-
-
There is no way to make answering the second question optional or something? Heh, no a big deal, but I did not consider that I had to answer it and got an error the first time around.
As I expected, a decent portion in the 80-85 category. I certainly know a hell of a lot of active people around this range and the 85-90 range. Shouldnt be surprising that young adults in these categories will dominate this poll ( obvioulsy it is not a sure thing though).
-
When you watch Transformer's 3 do you say the movie sucks because of the acting is poor and the plot doesn't always make sense. No you say the movie was awesome because of the action and CGI.
Unless of course you do not go to the movies primarily to see [ often OTT ] action scenes and CGI and instead want to see a good story in conjuction with a plot that does not make your eyes roll. With actors that actually play the character in a beleivable fashion , without making it harder to accept whats going on. These preferences describes me and probably a lot of other people reading this thread, for what it is worth.
If I want good action scenes and CGI, I will go play a video game. Im not paying between 12-20 ($NZ) to see some [ I grant probably amazing looking] CGI wizardry kind of tied together by bad writing / acting that pisses me off. If I go to the movies, I want a good story, preferably something reasonably well executed ( that does not constantly make me irrirated) with a theme I can agree with. But I will settle with something well executed. Something that is not just robots punching each other , with something about something thrown in at the last minute so it seems the movie is about something ( I am alluding to T1, which I have no seen in ages and I have not really seen T3), but something which is not really well integrated into the movie.
Though why you would go to see a movie like Transformers 3 if that was the case, eludes me. However, I have not seen T3, so maybe it is a lot more than CGI and action scenes? I seriously doubt that though...I would almost be willing to say that based solely on the fact it is a Micheal Bay movie.
-
For that matter, how do you know that any argument we give you is valid? Maybe you have not perceived how it isnt, so nothing we could say could be assumed to be true?
Whooops, Dreamweaver already kind of asked this. Oh well!
-
You think that they are not mad, but just the scapegoat of the non Western world? Umm..what? I have not read everything in this thread since I last posted, so maybe this has been covered : What you clear to explain that rather absurd assertion?
-
Iran has a proven history of fighting proxy wars. All other things being equal, if they have a nuclear sheild I am completely certain that they would step up those proxy wars. I think it is plausible that they would use a nuke if they had one, but I don't regard it as anything close to completely certain. Either way, plausible is certain enough to justify full-scale military action when the result in question is a nuclear firestorm directed at the US or its allies.
For sure : Something has to be done in any case. Even if they do not get nukes.
By some accounts, the US won the Vietnam war as a result of the Tet Offensive, which was a collosal failure. Only weak American resolve allowed the NVA to win. It is true that nobody has stopped Islamist terrorism by brutally waging a war to crush Islamist resolve. But the biggest reason for this is because nobody has tried, it isn't because the strategy lacks merit. In any case, Islamism has generations of infrastructure that must be dismantled. That means years of uncompromising action, the type of which we haven't yet seen, toward clearly defined enemies.Of course, this was the point I was making. It can ( and should be done), but has not worked because nobody has done what I ( and the book I mentioned) say needs to be done.
-
Maybe in the case of Israel vs Iran some of those wars among nations could apply (ony that Iran always uses proxy groups by now probably independent from their source)
But it certainly wont help, as you admitted, to curb terrorism or "post modern warfare". Both Pakistan and the UK would have to be destroyed to be saved.
No, I admitted it would not help as much to curb other sorts of terrorism. But that it would help eliminate state-sponsoered terrorism.
-
You seem to be confusing State and their subjects. Who is going to be much too dead? the state that sponsors terrorism?
Terrorism is carried out increasingly by private individuals who can move, reside and be citizens of different and multiple countries. That's what I meant by the complete opposite situation as in WWII.
*rolls eyes*. You seem to entirely miss the point, I am talking aboug STATE-SPONSOERED TERRORISM, NOT ALL ACTS OF TERROISM. In which case we obviously want to stop them doing that ( amongst all the other things they want to do , like invade Isreal, nuke places etc ). That is the context I am talking about. Stop evading / trying to change the context or I will not continue to argue this with you.
Read the damn book, if you have : Read it again and think until you understand. Else this is a futile debate.
-
Of course it often falls back to WW2, it is one of the BEST wars which can be used to provide evidence for the thesis of the book.
Sorry, warfare has not changed such that t he lessons of the book become invalid when appliede to modern warfare. If you think that, then you dont understand the nature of warfare, its root causes, how to morally and properly end a war and did/do not understand the book.
I never said warfare of any sort "curbs terrorism". However I did say that waging war against *state-sponsored* terrorism would if done properly, be an effective way to eventually stop this happening. Obviously terrorism is not completely stopped, but at least states would not be knowingly funding it anymore.
-
Yes. Evidence that supports the claim that is how you end *state-sponsored* terrorism. Read "Nothing Less Than Victory" by John David Lewis ( there are other books that help with this, cannot remember the names off the top of my head, I think one is "Winning the Unwinnable War " by [ I forget the name]).
http://www.amazon.co...e/dp/0691135185
What I am talking about here is how to wage a war which has the long-term effect of removing the will of the people of a nation ( this includes the leadership by t he way ) to engage in such actions. You know, like what was done to Germany at the end of WW2. Different situation I know, but I see every reason why the principles discussed in the book would apply here.
The book talks about in the context of starting wars etc, but if you read the book you can easily see how this applies here too.
If anyone has failed to make such nations do this in the past, I bet its because they did not do it properly. As detailed in the book.
-
Of course terrorism cannot be stopped that way. State sponsorship of terrorism can however be stopped by oblierating the ability of any State that does so attempts to do so. Invade, destroy any infrastructure required to do this and generally wreck unlimited havoc , until that State realizes that if they do not stop this, they will not only fail, they will die. But of course the prospect of death will not stop all of them. The prospect of the utter destruction of their nation / political structure might. If it doesnt? Oh well, they will be too dead to do much.
Rinse and repeat until there are no such States left and until nobody dares try set up another one.
-
That is why in your hypothetical situation, it might be about oil. I wanted evidence for why in reality this *is* largely about oil.
And no, it is not withing reasonable doubt that the Iraqi invasion was about oil. The fact that the Iranians worry about protecting their oil is certainly not a reason to think this.
Even though if Iran is invaded, the invaders might decide to take advantage of the oil resources there anyway. But that will not a primary motvating factor behind the conflict. / invasion.
-
I am not ignoiring the "geopolitical' situaton. I simply want us to confine ourselves to Iran or facts clearly relevant to Iran and whether or not it is a [potential] nuclear threat. Pakistan really has nothing / little to do with it.
Care to prove the speculation about oil or to provide a reason to think oil has much to do with it?
If you know I am not my country, then how does what my country thinks in this regard have anything to do with this discussion? Beyond the fact that we are unlikely to want to be of much help, even if NZ was able to (though we have one of the best SAS forces in the world apparently, and this could potentially be a big help).
-
Ok sure, Saudi Arabi is another country that I might consider to be a [potential] threat as well. However we are not talking about Saudi Arabi and other Middle Eastern nations that might need to be taken out , we are talking about Iran.
So what if "my country" takes that attitude? I am not my country nor do I generally agree with the political decisions the leaders of my country makds. Nor does my country being in the position it is , prevent me from taking a rational stand on what America ( or other countries for that matter) should do in response to the threat Iran poses.
-
fact, Pakistan has nuclear weapons and they haven't been hijacked by the fundamentalists that run half that country. at least yet
Another case of the argument by false analogy fallacy rearing its head. Iran is not Pakistan, nor is very comparable in this context.
I have already stated that I believe it to be illogical to assume that these mullahs etc are NOT picking a president that for the most part accurately reflects upon their fundamental political views and aspirations. In any case, do you feel like taking the risk ? Why should we?
I also think it is evasive/ignorant to try claim that Iran is not a threat to the US ( it is already one in the sense that it apparently funds terrorist acts against America and helps some of these attacks to be possible ) or that it could and would not become one if nobody stops it.
Of course, nobody said anything about sacriciing "Kiwi" blood to stop Iran. NZ has no army of sufficent strength to try such a thing and it knows that. The best NZ could do is to involve some of its SAS ( special forces ) troops in some sort of military strike/campaign. Which is arguably a reasonable step if Iran is a credible threat to New Zealands allies.
And more importantly. Does anyone here consider that the middle east conflict might be a zero sum game for protection of hydrocarbons veiled by religion and politics? Just consider what just "happened" in Libya.Why on Earth would we think this?
-
We do know that they have a nuclear research body do we not and that they are trying to do *something* with nuclear technology. Should we take our chances with these madmen and wait till the evidence is *not* flimsy before we take out their insane leaders and become damn sure that they are never able to pursue the production of and use of nuclear weapons?
-
You think Steves (and my theory too if it would seem ) is LESS likely? Why is that?
But in any case, at least we are in agreement as to what must be done. Even if the reasons for thinking that may not be entirely the same.
-
Ahmedinejad could not have become the president of Iran without the approval of the mullahs as they approve every name on the ballot.
I can't imagine they'd pick someone that they considered nutty. So if Ahmedinejad is nutty, he must not be too different from them.
This is one reason why I said it is reasonable to assume that they are going to pick someone that agrees with them for this role. At least in terms of religous and political fundamentals. Fat chance they are going to pick someone that doesnt agree with them. And if they did, I guess we would hear about more dissent between their President and their wishes? Or maybe not, I dont know.
I just think the logical conclusion is that whoever *is* in power is accurately represented by the lunatic we hear from all the time.
-
Ok, that is true, he is only nominally the leader and the other guys opinions are not as entirely clear. But I think that it is pretty reasonable to assume that they are fundementally in agreement here. Given the chances to do some of the stuff the "President" claims to want to do , I think that they will be pretty happy to go along with it. Why should we take the risk , assuming it is a credible threat and we can do anything about it though? I think someone would be insane to take that risk in that context.
Hell, I would not trust the stragetic issues ( like the anti-nuke shields ) to do much to stop them trying. Certainly if they were to bomb say ..Isreal or other allies of America.
-
However, when a country is ruled by insane religious zealots, zealots that subscribe to a religion which calls for this very sort of thing : it is reasonable to assume that they will not be worried by the fact that certain of their actions are suicidal. Especially when some of these people openly express the willingness to die for such causes. Sure, it is not a reason on its own not to *allow* them nukes. Never said it was. It is however a reason to think that they will not necceasirly be put off by the prospect of being destroyed.
-
Orly. Ever read any quotes from Iran's leader?
And most importantly : That.
-
Well it's hard to say you're an Objectivist without knowing the ins and outs of it! I don't think you can get all that from just reading AR's books without studying/discussing them and how they apply to RL situations. I think more of a formal philosophy training would be beneficial to everyone.. just not most of the stuff they teach in college philosophy courses.
So your contention is that only those that go to the OAC ( or some equivalent ) should be calling themselves Objectivists?
-
That or the general sort of thing *Islam* preaches and which in any case many of these sorts of people are totally fine with anyway. Not just actual terrorists in Al Queda, but these sorts of [violent] religous extremists.
-
Ok Black Wolf : Things did not blow up in Americas face in either of t hose two cases. One can argue about whether or not Russia or China were / are actually credible threats, but that is not really the issue here. Just because it worked out that neither two countries have nuked America yet, is no reason to be any less worried about what Iran seems to want to do with any nukes it might acquire.
The facts make it blindingly obvious that Iran does not want just self-defense. And even if it did, SoftwareNerd is correct to question whether or not they are even entitled to this. Given that the government sponsors terrorism , their constant threats against America and other nations, etc.
False analogy fallacy anyway.
Edit : Do not expect madmen that cant wait to die for some "noble cause" ( they think nuking the USA etc would be noble) and get to those virgins, to be put off by the prospects of death.
-
My particular comment brought up Larry Summers and his comments about why there are not more women at the top of those professions and therefore employed by Harvard as faculty (that "therefore" clause is Harvard logic, not mine). I will affirm that at the top it is extremely useful to be a competitive asshole as well as a genius. Just to pick the name of the hour: witness Steve Jobs. Although smart, Steve Jobs was not even a genius.
Well, I suppose this has some degree of truth in the modern workplace ( the "asshole" bit). As far from ideal as this might be. *sigh*.
"Atlas Shrugged" Movie
in Movies, Shows, and Theatre
Posted
What possibly good reason is there to place it in 2016, when it is meant to be a "timeless" peice according to Ayn Rand? I guess the movie is not obligated to stick to this, but why change it? Seems it is better not to. By setting in 2016 it seems it would lose some of the important "hey, this stuff could happen to at any stage in history [ any point in time in which trains as in the book were possible anyway], not just in 2016".
Though in all fairness, the reasonably intelligent viewer should be able to make this connection anyway. Still, not everyone is going to do this..