Intellectual Ammo

[[email protected]]

Get some here: http://www.americanthinker.com/

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From:
Date: Sun, Feb 26 2006 8:01 pm
Email: " >

nob, wanting desperately to appear smart, opened a box of 'intellectual
ammo,' only to find that it (and his magazine) were completely empty.

>From nob's box of intelluctual ammo:

************************************
Will Iraq join NATO?

Iraq the Model reported yesterday that the new Iraqi Department of
Defense may recommend that the country seek to join NATO, once the
contending political factions agree on a Parliamentary government. That
would be an extremely important move.

1. It would put Iraq under the NATO nuclear umbrella, to protect it
against Iranian nukes.

2. It would mean converting the Iraqi military to NATO standards in
equipment and tactics, but also in other important ways, such as NATO
codes of military conduct and civilian control over the military.

3. It would engage NATO in modernizing Iraq.

4. It would set an example to other Arab countries of the best way for
them to survive in a new nuclear age in the Middle East.
****************************************
Typically, stable nations with functioning militaries are brought into
NATO and similar international treaty organizations. You do not take a
state with a dysfunctional military and have them suddenly 'convert' to
NATO standards. There must be baseline standards military and
otherwise, in place before allowing someone to join.

Research why, for example, most of the Former Yugoslavia, while
interested in joining the EU, are not members. I think Slovenia is the
only one that has been allowed to join to date. Part of the reasoning
has to do with lawlessness, human rights (there's lots of human
trafficking there, for example) and other reasons.

I, for one, would welcome Iraq into NATO, assuming that their
government and military were functioning (there is little evidence to
show that they are), that the Iraqi government's militias and the
sectarian religious militias were not murdering those that oppose them,
and so on.

While NATO member nations also keep their own state and military
secrets, there are 'NATO secrets' that would be available to any member
nation's military. I would not advocate having a nation join and have
access to those military secrets until that nation had proven
themselves capable of guarding them, and not using them for their own
advantage.

This may be just a conservative wish, (#3 the telling point) which
would potentially bring in more 'coalition' partners (and look awfully
good politically). I highly doubt that the other members of NATO would
agree to Iraq joining until there was a track record of stability. I
sure wouldn't if I were them.

As an intermediate step, the US could enter into a nuclear defense
treaty with Iraq. And there's no reason the Iraqi military could not
adopt and meet NATO standards on its own.

nob, you not only need intellectual ammo, you need a firing pin in your
weapon. Otherwise, it will continue to misfire on you.

"Shhhhit! I'm Being Uneasonable!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From:
> Date: Sun, Feb 26 2006 8:01 pm
> Email: " >
>
> nob, wanting desperately to appear smart, opened a box of 'intellectual
> ammo,' only to find that it (and his magazine) were completely empty.
>
>>From nob's box of intelluctual ammo:
>
> ************************************
> Will Iraq join NATO?
>
> Iraq the Model reported yesterday that the new Iraqi Department of
> Defense may recommend that the country seek to join NATO, once the
> contending political factions agree on a Parliamentary government. That
> would be an extremely important move.
>
> 1. It would put Iraq under the NATO nuclear umbrella, to protect it
> against Iranian nukes.
>
> 2. It would mean converting the Iraqi military to NATO standards in
> equipment and tactics, but also in other important ways, such as NATO
> codes of military conduct and civilian control over the military.
>
> 3. It would engage NATO in modernizing Iraq.
>
> 4. It would set an example to other Arab countries of the best way for
> them to survive in a new nuclear age in the Middle East.
> ****************************************
> Typically, stable nations with functioning militaries are brought into
> NATO and similar international treaty organizations. You do not take a
> state with a dysfunctional military and have them suddenly 'convert' to
> NATO standards. There must be baseline standards military and
> otherwise, in place before allowing someone to join.
>
> Research why, for example, most of the Former Yugoslavia, while
> interested in joining the EU, are not members. I think Slovenia is the
> only one that has been allowed to join to date. Part of the reasoning
> has to do with lawlessness, human rights (there's lots of human
> trafficking there, for example) and other reasons.
>
> I, for one, would welcome Iraq into NATO, assuming that their
> government and military were functioning (there is little evidence to
> show that they are), that the Iraqi government's militias and the
> sectarian religious militias were not murdering those that oppose them,
> and so on.
>
> While NATO member nations also keep their own state and military
> secrets, there are 'NATO secrets' that would be available to any member
> nation's military. I would not advocate having a nation join and have
> access to those military secrets until that nation had proven
> themselves capable of guarding them, and not using them for their own
> advantage.
>
> This may be just a conservative wish, (#3 the telling point) which
> would potentially bring in more 'coalition' partners (and look awfully
> good politically). I highly doubt that the other members of NATO would
> agree to Iraq joining until there was a track record of stability. I
> sure wouldn't if I were them.
>
> As an intermediate step, the US could enter into a nuclear defense
> treaty with Iraq. And there's no reason the Iraqi military could not
> adopt and meet NATO standards on its own.
>
> nob, you not only need intellectual ammo, you need a firing pin in your
> weapon. Otherwise, it will continue to misfire on you.
>

I simply allowed people who didn't know about it to find different points of
view that theymay not have available otherwise.

Out of all the essays available there, it's telling that you could only find
one to criticize.

Looks like there might be more ammo there than you would care to admit.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: >
Date: Sun, Feb 26 2006 10:17 pm
Email: >

>I simply allowed people who didn't know about it to find different points of
>view that theymay not have available otherwise.

Just post instructions on how to Google 'extreme right-wing political
positions' or the RNC.

>Out of all the essays available there, it's telling that you could only find
>one to criticize.

That's an area (the military and NATO) that I happen to have
considerable expertise in. I did not need to critically examine every
one of them to see where they were going. It's telling that you took a
serious review of one of the positions there as evidence that there is
only one that is in serious error.

>Looks like there might be more ammo there than you would care to admit.

Yeah, like this article:
http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=4530

Or this one:
http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=4531

These are all evidence of a vast left-wing conspiracy. Your promoting
it as 'intellectual ammo' reminds me of the people on late-night AM
radio talking about conspiracies in whispered tones. You never know,
after all, who might be listening in on a 50,000 watt AM station,
right?

LOL! No, nob, as usual your ultra right-wing rants do not hold up to
even the most cursory examination. Your firing pin is still missing...

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: >
> Date: Sun, Feb 26 2006 10:17 pm
> Email: >
>
>>I simply allowed people who didn't know about it to find different points
>>of
>>view that theymay not have available otherwise.
>
> Just post instructions on how to Google 'extreme right-wing political
> positions' or the RNC.
>
>>Out of all the essays available there, it's telling that you could only
>>find
>>one to criticize.
>
> That's an area (the military and NATO) that I happen to have
> considerable expertise in. I did not need to critically examine every
> one of them to see where they were going. It's telling that you took a
> serious review of one of the positions there as evidence that there is
> only one that is in serious error.
>
>>Looks like there might be more ammo there than you would care to admit.
>
> Yeah, like this article:
> http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=4530
>
Yep.

> Or this one:
> http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=4531
>
Right again.

Ooops I keep forgetting, the Left is never too extreme or even wrong. And
the NYT is completely unbiased.

> These are all evidence of a vast left-wing conspiracy.

And that's different than you and the other lefties shouting aobut the Right
wing conspraicy how?

Your promoting
> it as 'intellectual ammo' reminds me of the people on late-night AM
> radio talking about conspiracies in whispered tones. You never know,
> after all, who might be listening in on a 50,000 watt AM station,
> right?
>
> LOL! No, nob, as usual your ultra right-wing rants do not hold up to
> even the most cursory examination. Your firing pin is still missing...
>
That's why the Left is in charge of so much of the government, becuase the
other side is so extreme.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

>Yep.

LOL! So illegal immigration is a *good* thing.

My bad!

Let's look at the article the propaganda was taken from:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/25/international/africa/25hostages.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

>Right again.

>Ooops I keep forgetting, the Left is never too extreme or even wrong. And
>the NYT is completely unbiased.

So a group of people in a region that has generated 'hundreds of
billions of dollars' and have not seen much improvement in their lives
('Despite generating hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue since
oil was discovered here in the 1950's, the Niger Delta is one of the
poorest and least developed parts of the country'), fight back, and
this is a 'fine example of the phenomenon of Third World
revolutionaries learning and regurgitating the rhetoric of their First
World intellectual patrons.' and is a hugely left-biased view of the
world.

You, meanwhile, would not allow any of that money back to help the
population that is in the region. You'd rather that it stay in the
hands of the oil companies and the government. You make me proud to be
on the left.

And you wonder why I call you 'nob.'

>> LOL! No, nob, as usual your ultra right-wing rants do not hold up to
>> even the most cursory examination. Your firing pin is still missing...

>That's why the Left is in charge of so much of the government, becuase the
>other side is so extreme.

In English this time, please.

[Bret Ludwig]

http://www.freedomparty.org/consent/cons30_4.htm


Intellectual Ammunition: Verbal bullets for Objectivists who want to
shoot their mouths off. (Blank-out cartridges also available.)

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
>>Yep.
>
> LOL! So illegal immigration is a *good* thing.
>
> My bad!
>
?????????????

> Let's look at the article the propaganda was taken from:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/25/international/africa/25hostages.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
>
>>Right again.
>
>>Ooops I keep forgetting, the Left is never too extreme or even wrong. And
>>the NYT is completely unbiased.
>
> So a group of people in a region that has generated 'hundreds of
> billions of dollars' and have not seen much improvement in their lives
> ('Despite generating hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue since
> oil was discovered here in the 1950's, the Niger Delta is one of the
> poorest and least developed parts of the country'), fight back, and
> this is a 'fine example of the phenomenon of Third World
> revolutionaries learning and regurgitating the rhetoric of their First
> World intellectual patrons.' and is a hugely left-biased view of the
> world.
>
> You, meanwhile, would not allow any of that money back to help the
> population that is in the region. You'd rather that it stay in the
> hands of the oil companies and the government. You make me proud to be
> on the left.
>
I would have never done business with a country like Niger. The U.N. should
have been involved in setting up some sort of democratic government instead
of teh one party rule they had for such a long time, followed by more
corruption. Unlike you I don't see some new form of socialism as the cure
for what ails them. It's capitalisn and capital that will hyelp them lift
themselves up from where they are. The oil companies are not the real bad
guys here it is the corruption of the people who have been running the many
governments they've had since they stopped being a French colony.

> And you wonder why I call you 'nob.'
>

No, I know it's what you and others like you do when you want to belittle
somebody rather than discuss anything. It's part of that elitism people
always talk about.

>>> LOL! No, nob, as usual your ultra right-wing rants do not hold up to
>>> even the most cursory examination. Your firing pin is still missing...
>
>>That's why the Left is in charge of so much of the government, because the
>>other side is so extreme.
>
> In English this time, please.
>
Pointless to talk with you in any language.