- #316
Sea Cow
Frame Dragger said:It may be trite, but frankly without the security of NATO, the UK wouldn't exist anymore. .
I reject this utterly. why wouldn't it exist any more?
Frame Dragger said:It may be trite, but frankly without the security of NATO, the UK wouldn't exist anymore. .
Sea Cow said:I reject this utterly. why wouldn't it exist any more?
As bad as this logical flaw in the conclusion is, the hypothesis about why it should happen is even worse: there are more teen births and violent crime in the US because they are dissatisfied with the inequality (as opposed to simply being dissatisfied about being poor)? Well why would the dissatisfaction stop at national borders? People come from all over the world to strike it rich in the US: Sergey Brin, co-founder of google, is a Russian immigrant and he's worth $17 billion. Why doesn't his existence cause a huge "dissatisfaction" problem in Russia - why would it only dissatisfy Americans? What logical reason is there for jealousy to cause more dissatisfaction than poverty?russ_watters said:We had quite a lengthy discussion of that topic and though the author of that makes what looks like a compelling point at first glance, one doesn't have to go much deeper to see the point is clearly flawed. The most obvious and damning fact against his point is that inequality is increasing in most western countries, yet most of those measures are improving.
Frame Dragger said:You don't care to explain your position beyond, "I reject this..."? Do you expect to engage in a meaningful conversation, or to be taken seriously if that is the sum total of your point? You've deflected enough... time to answer the questions posed to you, or... quit the field.![]()
Sea Cow said:You're the one making the big statements such as the UK probably wouldn't exist without NATO that need justifying.
Sea Cow said:OK, here's a bit of history for you:
NATO was formed in 1949.
WW2 ended in 1945.
With a severely reduced military capability beyond UK borders. Without NATO, the UK has little http://c-17-globemaster-iii-screensaver.smartcode.com/images/sshots/c-17_globemaster_iii_screensaver_27639.jpeg" capability, little satellite sensor capability, etc, though the UK is in better shape militarily than the rest of Europe.Sea Cow said:I reject the thesis entirely. I would dearly love it if the UK were to break with NATO entirely. We'd be a safer, more peaceful place.
No I'm not, not at all. NATO was formed with one clear enemy in its sights – the Soviet Union and its allies. The Soviet Union was the UK's ally in WW2. The pattern of allegiances changed.Frame Dragger said:You're still dodging the issues with pure sophistry.
While you might be "more peaceful" (by a weak/broad definition) today if NATO went away, you wouldn't have been safer or more peaceful 20-40 years ago and the rest of Europe most certainly wouldn't be either. NATO has had some extremely important missions in Europe such as dealing with the Balkans crisis. IMO, those countries with the means to deal with such problems are morally bound to do so.Sea Cow said:I would dearly love it if the UK were to break with NATO entirely. We'd be a safer, more peaceful place.
Sea Cow said:No I'm not, not at all. NATO was formed with one clear enemy in its sights – the Soviet Union and its allies. The Soviet Union was the UK's ally in WW2. The pattern of allegiances changed.
Frame Dragger said:1.) How would WWI, and II have gone without US assistance?
Sea Cow said:How would WW2 have gone without Soviet assistance?
So what.
Doubtful. The Battle of Britain began June 10, 1940 with the Soviet-Nazi non-aggression pack still in place. The Nazi pre-invasion air attack was more/less abandoned long before the Nazis attacked the Soviets. The Brits won the air war with a lot of grit, and one couldn't cross the Channel en masse without air superiority.Frame Dragger said:You would be speaking German, instead of Russian.
mheslep said:Doubtful. The Battle of Britain began June 10, 1940 with the Soviet-Nazi non-aggression pack still in place. The Nazi pre-invasion air attack was more/less abandoned long before the Nazis attacked the Soviets. The Brits won the air war with a lot of grit, and one couldn't cross the Channel en masse without air superiority.
Non-sequitor. That has little or nothing to do with your point on the outcome dependency of the Soviets entering or not entering the war.Frame Dragger said:...And none of that would have mattered in the long haul. Britain was decimated by WWI, and frankly history has shown just how much that non-agression pact was worth, eh? You don't need to cross the Channel, if you simply STARVE them. What do you think would happen to the UK, cut-off from the rest of Europe, AND the USA? No one would leave the UK alone in such a situation, and one way or another they would be killed, besieged, or conquered. The fact that it would take time, would be largely irrelevant to my point.
mheslep said:Non-sequitor. That has little or nothing to do with your point on the outcome dependency of the Soviets entering or not entering the war.
Here:Frame Dragger said:What? I didn't make that point...
Sea Cow said:How would WW2 have gone without Soviet assistance?[..]
Frame Dragger said:You would be speaking German, instead of Russian. ...
mheslep said:Here:
ok, missed itFrame Dragger said:You just sort of ignored my edit... from... well before you posted.![]()
mheslep said:ok, missed it
russ_watters said:We had quite a lengthy discussion of that topic and though the author of that makes what looks like a compelling point at first glance, one doesn't have to go much deeper to see the point is clearly flawed. The most obvious and damning fact against his point is that inequality is increasing in most western countries, yet most of those measures are improving.
Um, ok...but do you still base that opinion on a study with clearly specious logic?Nusc said:Actually what I meant to say was fettered capitalism with socialist elements.
Not socialism.
russ_watters said:Um, ok...but do you still base that opinion on a study with clearly specious logic?
brainstorm said:Everything you type oozes with anti-Americanist, anti-capitalist propaganda.
brainstorm said:Don't call people "you guys," if you don't want to sound like an uber-nationalist.
You say, "you guys" are "still" fighting over basic healthcare, as if your superior people have progressed beyond that primitive issue.
brainstorm said:Take all the profit out of US health industries and see if the Canadian system would avoid bankruptcy.
russ_watters said:Um, ok...but do you still base that opinion on a study with clearly specious logic?
Nusc said:Man if congress consisted of only philosophers that would be very annoying.