Peter Dow
The war on terror is a quick and easy win but only if our armies listen to good leadership. If they don't listen, the war on terror is long, difficult and with many innocent victims being killed, sadly.
You know, Dow, I actually considered you fairly tolerable until this very sentence.
Now I frankly think you're a waste of good air. Sorry for the depth to which I sink in making that comment but the ignorance of it your own incredibly profound. You heap the blame for worldwide dissaffection upon armed services for what? The validation or your own idealisms? You speak of an unpredictable and, as accepted by all men of reason,
undefeatable concept. Please, show a sebalance of sanity or intellect before asking for amorphous "good leadership".
Let alone this, your OP rightly ruffled feathers. As it should with royalists; republicans or the simply non-partisan. You have outright blamed a horrific act upon the Royal Family with absolutely no proof. Thus much devalidating and deprecating the actuality of the situation. An act disgusting at the least.
Quote:
The UK has good relations with the Saudi monarchy and are not at war with the Saudi royals, are not taking out their satellites, not supporting democratic republican revolution against the Saudi royals, are trading with the Saudis etc.
Here, to shriek and complain that the UK doesn't act to change Saudi Arabia, beggaring for war. War to do what? Displace a monarchy? Sure, I can see the merit by your own ideals but one must be pragmatic as opposed to completely stupid. Such invasion would be illegal by any international convention. Let alone you would see us attacked by other nations for the act itself. An consequence making such action in vain. Further yet, it must be highly considered that the status quo of Saudi Arabia could not exist without there being a populace support. This point seems especially prevelent in the wake of the Arab Springs. Especially Syria and Libya wherein one sees citizens standing up to armed forces. There is literally no casus belli to justify your statements here except the idealism that a monarchy must always be removed. And even then that's ideology for ideology's sake - frankly moribund.
Quote:
As far as the Japanese Emperor goes by standing in the way of a Japanese republic and president, the Japanese emperor is to blame for the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster because a Japanese president could well have acted to dismiss the Japanese government that was allowing such poor management of this nuclear power facility.
No, he couldn't. Because a president would not possess the neccessary power of divination to forsee a huge natural disaster would break a nuclear power station (please, avoid power plant - it is an Americanism and a silly one; buildings are not plants). The reality is that the government acted well within its best capability on analysis; excluding perhaps overt posturing on the safety of water in the area which it later seemed they weren't entirely of faith in.
Quote:
I mean what would be the point in monarchs and dictators employing a "secret" agent who names his or her employer? It would not be a secret if it is obvious to everyone who the agent is working for.
If one is to entertain your frankly fallacious logic for five minutes; one struggles. You claim for secret agents being secret to develop a reason to claim, without
any proof; secret agents exist in Riyadh. A further point stands; if they're secret, what mercurialism grants you the special power and right proof to claim their existence and it must be so? Sources are demanded strongly.
Sources are demanded to all your claims in this thread. Or at least a valid and developed mechanism to show that a president could overthrow international dictat, logic and self-preserving reason to enter war with a nation on ideology.
Quote:
Thanks High Gravity, I can always rely on you to keep the debate at a quality level here on Gaia.
It's not a debate if it's with yourself in a dialogue of sycophphancy.
Quote:
You will condemn one more Condi fan out of millions.
No, we will condemn you because frankly, without any adhom or bitterness to this; I think you have a clinical obsession with the woman.
Ahh, that was much needed to relieve oneself. Dow, once again - your lack of sanity has provided me an easy venting target.
100
100
200
