Re: [ZION] NMD: fact or fiction?
I think there's been enough exposure to reports from two respected reports now to support my claim that the tests were a failure. You're free to disagree, but I'm going to drop it. If you want a last word, be my guest. Dan R Allen wrote: Marc: You didn't. As I said, this is from my understanding of the technology involved, which has come from other sources than the two articles we both cited. It's not hard to destroy a balloon with a shock wave. Even a bit of shrapnel would puncture it. Dan: Your understanding of the technology involved then is flawed. These tests were of a hit-to-kill vehicle. A shock-wave was never designed, planned, or expected in the test results. Destroying a decoy is a failure, destroying the booster interface is a failure, only striking the target is considered a success. Marc: It's not the visual aspects that are the issue, but the aerodynamical ones, and balloons behave differently than cones. Dan: In the environment that these intercepts are taking place aerodynamics are not an issue. The intercept is taking place _before_ the MIRV goes atmospheric. That's why the aerodynamic differences between the target and decoys are irrelevant. Marc: I didn't get that in either article -- I saw all the references to decoys and assumed that the MIRV had already released its payload. You don't have to wait to get to exoatmospheric levels to establish a good trajectory. The first few minutes are the critical ones, and it's at that point that you need this 3rd party information asap. Dan: Yes, I finally figured out that we were talking about two different things too. And you're right that you don't need to get to the coast phase to establish a good trajectory, but you can use that time to get your defenses in place. A missile attack involves three basic phases: boost, coast, and drop. Ideally you destroy a missile during the boost phase, before anything is deployed. The problem is that you might have destroyed a legitimate payload. The next phase is better because you now know exactly where that payload is headed, and where it will come down. It's also better because you can still catch it while all of the warheads are still in the same basket. The drop phase is the most difficult because not only do you have multiple warheads, but you also have to find these multiple, _small_ items against an increasingly noisy background. Just knowing the point of origin, and the type of booster provides an awful lot of intel without needing to know specifics about the payload. The trajectory will provide other types of knowledge. Marc: I realized that -- it works on infrared. But it still has to distinguish between a valid target and decoys. Dan: But you don't need a cone-shaped decoy to fool an IR sensor, it doesn't even need to _look_ like the target; it just has to have the same IR signature - the actual physical shape is irrelevant to that task. That was the point of my contention with that part of the article. And the seeker head being tested is consistently showing that it can distinguish between multiple objects and the target. Dan: It _is_ biased. I attempted to show where the bias is with the ALL CAPS parts, but I guess it didn't work, sorry. Marc: No, it didn't work. I didn't see that as bias at all. Dan: Straight from the article followed by my interpretations. THIS time, nobody could accuse the Pentagon of building up unrealistic expectations. - The insinuation is that the Pentagon has built up unrealistic expectations before. But politically, of course, it was a pleasure to hit the target,... - So it was politically expedient that the test succeed - technical success was secondary. In any case, the promotion of a culture of failure has a purpose which goes far beyond this month's experiment. - I'm still trying to understand what (s)he's trying to say here, but it sounds like (s)he's trying to suggest that someone is attempting to justify repeated failures as success. What's your take on that sentence? And if the Pentagon is sincere in saying that its main concern... - Suggests that statements by the Pentagon is somehow untrustworthy. From top to bottom the author has challenged the Pentagons' statements, suggesting that there is an ulterior motive behind them to hide continued failure. Simultaneously, a decoy balloon was fired in a similar direction. - This sentence was injected in the middle of the paragraph describing the test. It is a complete fabrication on the part of the author, whether intentional or not, and suggests a radically different situation than what actually occurred. Should American taxpayers be concerned, then, that not enough risks are being taken or envelopes pushed? In one sense, yes. - The taxpayer isn't their monies worth apparently. The target was cone-shaped...and they would be identical in shape to the real target. - As I've stated, this is not a
RE: [ZION] NMD: fact or fiction?
-Marc- I think there's been enough exposure to reports from two respected reports now to support my claim that the tests were a failure. You're free to disagree, but I'm going to drop it. If you want a last word, be my guest. And Dan has brought up evidence that the respected reports were biased, which you are intently ignoring. I don't understand why all your sources are respected and unbiased, but all his are right-wing and extreme. You may indeed be right, but Dan pointed out (correctly, imo) that the article you cited was slanted. Why are you apparently so loathe to acknowledge his rather obvious point? Stephen / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Iraq and War
September 11th was a defining moment in history, it showed that America could be attacked within her own borders; it didn't need an ICBM as has been the thinking. It would be tragic that when (not if) it happens again; and what could be the outcome (will cities not buildings lay waste)? Lastely, could it have been prevented? Will the thinking of no war still be present? Vic --- Marc A. Schindler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just read over Elder Nelson's talk when it comes out in the Ensign. I mysel= f have a difficult time seeing how people can still, with all due respect, = not get it after hearing this talk. He said as a CHURCH we should renounce wa= r and emphasized that it would be the descendants of Ishmael and Jacob who= would be the peacemakers in the region. I think it's pretty hard to wriggle out o= f that one. And to your BoM reading I hope you add some selective DC read= ing, too, especially a revelation given at the height of persecution of the Sain= ts. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Within the first chapters of the Book of Mormon it talks about Nephi chop= ping off the head of Laban. Toward the end of the Book of Mormon it talks about Mormon and Moroni war= ring against the Lamanites. In between, there is bloodshed and it gives me the impression as long as = one is fighting for ones homeland and ones family, than war becomes accepta= ble. Osama and is band of terrorists are warring against the U.S. It appears to me that is only a matter of time before Saddam does the sam= e. I've foreborn specific comment on your questions -- I have a general questi= on at the end -- but it seems to some people to be only a matter of time be= fore N. Korea wars against the U.S., so why isn't the US government amassing arm= aments in that area? Also, if you're concerned about military dictatorships= with WMD, why continue to give billions every year to Pakistan, which *already h= as* nuclear weapons -- tested ones, ready to use. Seems to me you should bo= mb Pakistan back to the stone age before you worry about Iraq. Should a nation sit back and let it happen or should there be a response? As LDS, and with what the contents of the Book of Mormon says, in all hon= esty; is there such a thing as a pacifist Mormon? There can be nothing BUT a pacifist LDS. And for what it's worth, I think a= lmost every one of your implied assumptions in your question is wrong. Vic But perhaps I've been too shy in expressing my opinion ;-) -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and= falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark. --Michelangelo Buonarroti Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the auth= or solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author=92s employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associ= ated. ///= // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// ///= // =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D _ Washington DC's Largest FREE Email service. --- http://www.DCemail.com --- A Washington Online Community Member --- http://www.DCpages.com _ Select your own custom email address for FREE! Get [EMAIL PROTECTED] w/No Ads, 6MB, POP more! http://www.everyone.net/selectmail?campaign=tag / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Iraq and War
-Marc- Just read over Elder Nelson's talk when it comes out in the Ensign. I myself have a difficult time seeing how people can still, with all due respect, not get it after hearing this talk. And I have a difficult time seeing why people are so eager to twist an apostle's words into supporting their political tastes, rather than try to glean the truth and wisdom he was teaching. I suppose we both should work on our ability to understand. He said as a CHURCH we should renounce war and emphasized that it would be the descendants of Ishmael and Jacob who would be the peacemakers in the region. And therefore...? There can be nothing BUT a pacifist LDS. From The American Heritage Dictionary (1985): 1. The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully. 2a. Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes. b. Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action. #1 does partially apply to Saints, of course, but it is so obvious that even the most hawk-like Saint agrees that disputes *should* be settled peacefully. Disputes involving aggression by enemies against you obviously *cannot* be settled peacefully. Both parts of definition 2 are anti-Mormon. From Merriam-Webster's online (www.m-w.com): Main Entry: pac·i·fism Pronunciation: 'pa-s-fi-zm Function: noun Etymology: French pacifisme, from pacifique pacific Date: 1902 1 : opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds 2 : an attitude or policy of nonresistance Neither of these definitions describes the Church's position. The definion at www.dictionary.com is word-for-word identical to that of the American Heritage definition quoted above. So you're wrong, Marc. Mormons are *not* pacifist, or at least they should not be. Quite the contrary. Stephen / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] NMD: fact or fiction?
Stephen Beecroft wrote: -Marc- I think there's been enough exposure to reports from two respected reports now to support my claim that the tests were a failure. You're free to disagree, but I'm going to drop it. If you want a last word, be my guest. And Dan has brought up evidence that the respected reports were biased, which you are intently ignoring. I didn't ignore them. I just didn't feel they were evidence of bias. I don't understand why all your sources are respected and unbiased, but all his are right-wing and extreme. You may indeed be right, but Dan pointed out (correctly, imo) that the article you cited was slanted. Why are you apparently so loathe to acknowledge his rather obvious point? Actually I was using Dan's own source -- I didn't believe it said what he said it did. Stephen -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark. --Michelangelo Buonarroti Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] Dove-breeding as a gospel hobby (was: Iraq and war)
Stephen Beecroft wrote: -Stephen- The US maintains that the actions against Iraq do not constitute a war of aggression, but are a defense of family and freedoms. -Mark- Saying it doesn't make it so. That's beside the point, which is that an argument can be made to justify the US actions. The US government is not proclaiming a war of vengeance or a jihad or anything of the sort. You may think that's what they're doing, and you may be right, but it's hardly obvious on the face of the matter. Let me ask you the same question I've been asking others, than. If the criteria that the U.S. are using were to be applied to other countries in the area, a much better case could be made for invading Pakistan. Yet instead the US pours billions into military aid for Pakistan. Why the difference? When someone sees this difference, is it any wonder that one asks whether there's more here than meets the eye? Yes, I'm saying it is not so. That is, there is certainly corruption in the US government, but that is not the only force present. Americans have great failings, both domestically and in foreign affairs (though no more so than Canadians, or any other nation), but they also have an abiding sense of fairness. Often this leads to interference in matters better left untouched, which constitute what Washington (you know, that evil invader of Canada, much vilified by all Church leaders since Joseph Smith) termed entangling alliances and are at least partially responsible for the current mess the US finds itself in. Of course, there is plenty of self-serving behavior in the US government and its policies, but any impartial review of 20th-century history should demonstrate that the US does not seek only for its own good, regardless of the needs of the rest of the world. There is nothing here that I have said regarding corrupt governments (actually I believe I said militaristic; corrupt is a vaguer term) that doesn't also apply to all Western governments. Specifically in America, none of us has kept to the contract of Zion recorded in the Book of Ether. You do have a sense of fairness. So does everyone in every country I've ever been to. It's what constitutes fair that begs the question. Different people put emphasis on different values and situations. -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark. --Michelangelo Buonarroti Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] Dove-breeding as a gospel hobby (was: Iraq and war)
Stephen Beecroft wrote: -Marc- Let me ask you the same question I've been asking others, than. If the criteria that the U.S. are using were to be applied to other countries in the area, a much better case could be made for invading Pakistan. Yet instead the US pours billions into military aid for Pakistan. Why the difference? I don't know. That doesn't seem to stop you from having strong opinions on the issue. Or am I misreading you? When someone sees this difference, is it any wonder that one asks whether there's more here than meets the eye? No. You're not the least bit curious? There is nothing here that I have said regarding corrupt governments No, I believe either Mark or I introduced that term. I also do not believe I claimed that you had done so. You do have a sense of fairness. So does everyone in every country I've ever been to. It's what constitutes fair that begs the question. Different people put emphasis on different values and situations. True enough, but that's beside the point, which was that Elder Nelson was not making a pointed condemnation of the US actions against Iraq, despite yours and John's opinion to the contrary. That is not my opinion, as I've already shown. I don't mind taking heat for what I've said or written, but I get my knickers in a knot when I'm taken to task for what someone *thinks* I've written. Stephen -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark. --Michelangelo Buonarroti Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] Iraq and War
Stephen Beecroft wrote: -Marc- Stephen, I'm not going to engage in point-by-point games here. Life's too short, Not that I necessarily disagree with the above, but if that's how you feel, why are you so willing to engage in point-by-point games at other times? I'm human. I'm inconsistent. So sue me. Seriously, as I answered in another post, I don't have enough information yet, I don't believe, to address this talk directly to the Iraq situation per se. I believe that in general prophecies tend to be broader than just one issue, and it's we members who narrow them down (all of us, or most of us). and Elder Nelson's words were, as far as I'm concerned, very clear and unamibiguous. And he clearly, unambiguously did not mention Iraq. As I did not. It's my personal belief that his words can be considered a criticism of US foreign policy, but I'm not trying to put words into Elder Nelson's mouth. Incidentally, it's a bit ironic, because I'm not so sure there's actually going to be a war with Iraq. I think Bush's tactics are not direct here. I have an inkling of what I think he might be up to, but I can't read his mind and it's too soon to tell. Let's just say that I think he's trying to kill more than one bird with one stone, and there'll be little violence on the streets of Baghdad in the near future. The Economist article, which I used (not having anything to do with Elder Nelson's talk -- this occurred before conference weekend) was specific and it was unbiased. Seems I recently critiqued an Economist article you referenced and demonstrated its tremendous bias. So, if the Economist article used emotional words, then I can take what you just wrote and say, because you used an emotional word like tremendous that you're biased, and I don't have to listen to you? Actually I value your input, even when I think it's biased and even when I'm arguing against it. And fwiw, I think you're giving yourself too much credit. I think you'll have a hard time maintaining that the Economist's articles are unbiased. But maybe I'm wrong. Can you give a URL to the specific article you're citing? I actually posted the whole thing here. It was only a week ago. But wait a minute. You claim to have already critiqued the article. Why do you need a URL to it again? There seems to be some confusion between using emotional words and bias which it seems you and Dan both need to clarify in your own minds to improve your critical reading skills, imho. Well, it's easy for you to claim my critical reading skills aren't where they should be. You certainly might be right. But I notice you never bothered responding to my dismantling of your extraordinary claim that Latter-day Saints are necessarily pacifists. In several senses of the definition you gave. Not all of them. I don't mean to imply that LDS have to be conscientious objectors, but we are members of a church whose official policy is to proclaim peace and renounce war. That can certainly be said to be a pacifist point of view. You don't have to fit ALL definitions of a word (not in English, a notoriously ambiguous language at best) to be able to use it. Else why bother even to try using words? Let's communicate in source code. Anyone paying attention to the thread could have figured this out, and seen that Dan and I were interpreting data differently. Apparently that's not the case. I was indeed paying attention to the thread, and it looked to me like you were dismissing his sources as biased and proclaiming your own to be unbiased. As I've said several times, I dismissed his source as careless and therefore biased. That's an important distinction. His source said that according to the Israeli military intelligence (no citation given), Jane's (no citation given) said such-and-such. I did a search of Jane's website (I can't afford the hard copy -- their subs are hundreds of dollars a year, but I did occasionally look at it in the provincial government library, so am familiar with the publication) and found not a single reference to *any* Israeli military intelligence reference to anything. So what am I supposed to think about an article that uses vague and 2nd hand sources? At least the Economist cites its sources. I thought I could ease myself out of this by leaving the last word to Dan and he abused what was meant to be a gentlemanly gesture by calling me a liar. I don't believe Dan was calling you a liar, though of course I could be wrong. That would be out of character for Dan. I think he was applying that term to those who author slanted news articles and present them as unbiased. And fwiw, I don't think it's particularly gentlemanly to say, in effect, I'm right and you're wrong, and if you can't see that then you're blind as a bat, but I'll give you the last word. You put that in quotation marks. That implies I wrote those words. Please retract that accusation. I didn't. Okay, I also see that
RE: [ZION] Dove-breeding as a gospel hobby (was: Iraq and war)
-Marc- Let me ask you the same question I've been asking others, than. If the criteria that the U.S. are using were to be applied to other countries in the area, a much better case could be made for invading Pakistan. Yet instead the US pours billions into military aid for Pakistan. Why the difference? -Stephen- I don't know. -Marc- That doesn't seem to stop you from having strong opinions on the issue. Or am I misreading you? Indeed you are. I don't believe I've stated any opinions on this subject at all. I am interested to hear thoughts on all sides; however, I am most concerned about the integrity of the arguments. -Marc- When someone sees this difference, is it any wonder that one asks whether there's more here than meets the eye? -Stephen- No. -Marc- You're not the least bit curious? Sure. -Stephen- the point ... was that Elder Nelson was not making a pointed condemnation of the US actions against Iraq, despite yours and John's opinion to the contrary. -Marc- That is not my opinion, as I've already shown. As you've now stated, you mean. -Marc- I don't mind taking heat for what I've said or written, but I get my knickers in a knot when I'm taken to task for what someone *thinks* I've written. Having one's meaning mistaken is always a danger, and is usually irritating, even frustrating. I understand. Nevertheless, you clearly *were* criticizing the US policy vis-a-vis war with Iraq; and you *did* say that you have a difficult time seeing how people can still, with all due respect, 'not get it' after hearing [Elder Nelson's] talk. I am curious to know what the antecedent to it is in the phrase not get it, since you now say it isn't the evils of pursuing a war with Iraq. Also, you did agree with John, who clearly condemned US actions toward Iraq. So if you now claim that you never meant that, I'll believe you, because I don't think you're a liar (and I rather like you). But I really don't think you have much cause for knotting your knickers over my taking what seems to me to be the most obvious interpretation of your very own words. Stephen / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] media sources: The Atlantic Monthly
Marc Schindler: ... what made me think about this was the attack on the French supertanker that's spilled thousands of litres of oil into the waters of the coast of Yemen; almost certainly an act of deliberate terrorism. Why attack a French supertanker? Why not a U.S. one? Ahinteresting question. I don't think the target was picked at random ___ What attack? Has it been confirmed since this morning that it was not just an accident, albeit a serious one? The captain has given two conflicting stories about what happened. And the attack theory is based on a crewman whose story has not been corroborated. Larry Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Dove-breeding as a gospel hobby (was: Iraq and war)
Stephen Beecroft wrote: -Marc- Let me ask you the same question I've been asking others, than. If the criteria that the U.S. are using were to be applied to other countries in the area, a much better case could be made for invading Pakistan. Yet instead the US pours billions into military aid for Pakistan. Why the difference? -Stephen- I don't know. -Marc- That doesn't seem to stop you from having strong opinions on the issue. Or am I misreading you? Indeed you are. I don't believe I've stated any opinions on this subject at all. I am interested to hear thoughts on all sides; however, I am most concerned about the integrity of the arguments. -Marc- When someone sees this difference, is it any wonder that one asks whether there's more here than meets the eye? -Stephen- No. -Marc- You're not the least bit curious? Sure. -Stephen- the point ... was that Elder Nelson was not making a pointed condemnation of the US actions against Iraq, despite yours and John's opinion to the contrary. -Marc- That is not my opinion, as I've already shown. As you've now stated, you mean. No. As originally stated. I have never, since the thread turned to discussion of Elder Nelson's talk, specifically try to link his remarks to Iraq solely. -Marc- I don't mind taking heat for what I've said or written, but I get my knickers in a knot when I'm taken to task for what someone *thinks* I've written. Having one's meaning mistaken is always a danger, and is usually irritating, even frustrating. I understand. Nevertheless, you clearly *were* criticizing the US policy vis-a-vis war with Iraq; and you *did* say that you have a difficult time seeing how people can still, with all due respect, 'not get it' after hearing [Elder Nelson's] talk. I am curious to know what the antecedent to it is in the phrase not get it, Well, either you know what the antecedent is or you don't. Which is it? You seem to want to criticize me regardless of which interpretation you read into my comments. I've already said that personally I'm against pre-emptive military action against Iraq. I have also said I do not believe Elder Nelson's comments were specifically directed at Iraq. It is church policy regarding aggressive wars. I think he's quite clear on that, but his timing could be purposeful, indirectly directed at Iraq, or it could be coincidental. I don't think there's enough information to tell, and in any case I think it would be out of character for the Church to get that specific. They prefer to teach us correct principles and let us govern ourselves. since you now say it isn't the evils of pursuing a war with Iraq. Also, you did agree with John, who clearly condemned US actions toward Iraq. I've answered this already. A one-to-one correspondence is not necessarily for an agreement to take place in human conversation. Your insistence on reading in something I did not say is, I find, if not perverse, at least a bit obsessive. I can understand your concern over the integrity of the arguments but your statements regarding that integrity has to be backed up with more than opinion. So if you now claim that you never meant that, I'll believe you, because I don't think you're a liar (and I rather like you). But I really don't think you have much cause for knotting your knickers over my taking what seems to me to be the most obvious interpretation of your very own words. I think there's a third option, which I honestly believe is more likely. Given what you know of my beliefs, you assumed that what I was agreeing with in John's post was his application of Elder Nelson's talk to Iraq specifically. That was, if I can stand back from myself for a moment, not an unreasonable assumption. But as it turns out, I believe there's an important distinction to be made, which I think I've explained above (and in other responses). Hope that helps. If I exhibit impatience at times know that I at least appreciate you keeping me on my toes. Stephen -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark. --Michelangelo Buonarroti Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n Or send an email to: [EMAIL
Re: [ZION] media sources: The Atlantic Monthly
Well, the Yemenis are still saying it was an accident, but from the article in the latest Economist, according to an eye witness ship's officer, and the preliminary comments by some experts, it's going to be very difficult to show that it was an accident. The ship's officer saw a small boat heading for them at very high speed just before the explosion, the explosion was at the waterline -- and an accidental internal explosion would blow out the ship's weakest points, which are not at the waterline, but at bulkheads, the deck's edge and places like that. A Yemeni official said the metal plating was blow outwards, and indeed it appears that way, but according to the bomb expert, that's because typically the full force of the explosion is carried into the hull of the ship. Let me see if I can illustrate, and this even assumes the small boat was just a zodiac, without any hull-piercing capabilities, because in any case the ship was built to the latest safety standards, including double hull. The explosion will start at the instant the zodiac hits the hull, typically (they're often set off by dead man switches, and the person holding the switch would have lost control at the moment of impact, assuming proper training -- that is the discipline to wait, and not let go of his own accord). That beginning of the explosion pierces the hull, but the momentum of the zodiac carries it through the hole, by which time the explosion, which is, after all, a rapid but not instantaneous oxidation (strange term, but the point is it's not instantaneous, although it may appear that way to the human observer) is like a force vector which is moving in concert with the zodiac, so its full power isn't present until after the zodiac is inside the ship. That's my speculation, and I'm not an expert -- I'm just thinking out loud. Does it make sense, do you think? Also, I think it was very clever of the terrorists to target a French ship, and here's why. France, like the US is one of only a handful of countries that has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. France, Russia, and iirc, China, are waffling in their support of Bush's Security Council strategy (that's separate from whatever military strategy he may have, and separate from the process of getting allies on board, although it feeds into that). France also has a more acute security supply than the US does. Contrary, perhaps, to what most US think, most of your oil no longer comes from the Middle East. In fact, in my letter that appears in the same issue of The Economist, I listed the sources, and they are (for crude alone), 1.Saudi Arabia, 2. Mexico, 3. Canada, and they aren't that far apart (I think Canada supplies a bit under 500m barrels a year -- I'd have to look at my own letter -- and Saudi a bit less than 600 m, with Mexico in the middle. But when you include all petroleum, incl. natural gas and refined petroleum, Canada is by far the US.'s largest single supplier. The US is, in effect, paying a surcharge for the security of having a safe supplier (something the author of the article I commented on failed to mention, which is why I wrote the letter; the letter-writer after me makes a similar point). So why is the US still paying the military premium, the money to protect the Middle Eastern source? I think there are a number of reasons, but they are probably, in descending order of importance: 1) it feels an obligation to protect allies' sources [EU, Australia and Japan primarily]; 2) the secure sources are in place but not yet big enough players. Saudi is still #1 in crude, for instance, so the US still needs more time to do things like figure out how to get more Alaskan oil to the Lower 48, and tap into Venezuela's heavy oil as it already has Alberta's. It makes sense, if you have a choice, to subsidize a close ally's technological development of an otherwise uneconomical supply (like the Maracaibo and Athabasca tar sands in Venezuela and Alberta, respectively; and the Mackenzie Valley/Beaufort Sea/Alaska north shore supplies, which require expensive pipelines), than to provide military protection in an area where, for your efforts, you get bitten on the butt by locals who resent your very body odour, so to speak, and you have to do odious things like prop up regimes like Iraq, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. So I think putting pressure on France's supply forces France to waver in its UN Security Council commitment to Bush's plan, and it also puts some pressure on the US to maintain that military cordon a bit longer, which gives more time for the local hatred to simmer and stew. Just another spanner into George III's crown, that's all. That's what it's all about. That's my take on it, fwiw. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marc Schindler: ... what made me think about this was the attack on the French supertanker that's spilled thousands of litres of oil into the waters of the coast of Yemen; almost certainly an act of deliberate terrorism. Why attack a French
[ZION] Another view of UN inspections
http://www.sluggy.com/daily.php?date=021009 Stephen / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Iraq and War
Stephen Beecroft wrote: -Marc- I believe that in general prophecies tend to be broader than just one issue, and it's we members who narrow them down (all of us, or most of us). I tend to agree with this. Interesting, then, that you wrote: and Elder Nelson's words were, as far as I'm concerned, very clear and unamibiguous. Generality of application implies some ambiguity, at least to me. I'm curious what you thought was the specific application of Elder Nelson's clear and unambiguous words. Then let me clarify what I mean by the two words. General to me doesn't mean vague, but rather refers to scope, either time-related, geography-related, whatever. Not limited to time, place or person, let's say. Ambiguous to me refers to the clarity of meaning. So one can have an unambiguous but general statement. They're not easy to craft, but I believe that's how prophets prefer to express themselves. It's my personal belief that his words can be considered a criticism of US foreign policy, His words can be considered any number of things -- a criticism of US foreign policy, an endorsement of expedient and necessary political actions, a recipe for walnut fudge. The more important question, I think, is what Elder Nelson actually meant. Perhaps you believe he intended to criticize US actions. I doubt it, but it's possible. But I'm still wondering what you meant when you wrote that the Saints still [do] 'not get it' after hearing his talk. I personally don't know any Saints, in the flesh or in cyberspace, who believe that war is generally a good thing; so what is it that you think the Saints don't get? That not only war, but militarism, are not healthy options. Militarism is the consideration of military actions before they ought to be considered, according to the scriptures, as I read it. I think I said something similar in another response, so I'll let it go at that. -Marc- So, if the Economist article used emotional words, then I can take what you just wrote and say, because you used an emotional word like tremendous that you're biased, My charge of bias was not based on a single occurrence of a term, but rather on the whole tenor of the article and the slant they gave it. But you didnt' say that. But thanks for clarifying your, er, general statement ;-) and I don't have to listen to you? Naturally you don't. And if you do wish to listen to me, I am quite sure you formulate in your mind's eye a vision of what you believe my viewpoint (or bias) to be, in order to better understand what I write. I happily (if admittedly, at times, somewhat impatiently) listen to you because there's something in it for me -- you help me hone my words and craft my arguments better, if nothing else. And fwiw, I think you're giving yourself too much credit. The curse of the responsible. If not me, who? But wait a minute. You claim to have already critiqued the article. Why do you need a URL to it again? To review it and see if my criticisms were justified. I don't remember it being only a week ago, and my memory of the particulars is hazy. It should be on the archives. If you really want me to, I'll repost it, but because it was premium material, I have to do more than post a URL (which I don't mind; a minor sin -- just in case y'all were labouring under the understandable but false assumption that I'm perfect) ;-) -Stephen- I notice you never bothered responding to my dismantling of your extraordinary claim that Latter-day Saints are necessarily pacifists. -Marc- In several senses of the definition you gave. Not all of them. We both know that the generally-accepted and understood meaning of the term pacifist is one who rejects warfare under all circumstances. Well, all it takes to demolish a general argument is one exception. You carefully avoided that kind of argument, but, no, I did not have the Quaker's definition in mind; I actually had in mind the definition given in DC (134 iirc; I'd have to look it up). to renounce war is definitely a pacific approach, I think we're now just arguing over connotations. After all, Elder Nelson didn't call for a jihad (or its English equivalent, a crusade). I am pretty sure you realized this when you wrote what you did. If you had another, narrower definition of pacifist in mind, it was incumbent upon you to define your terms. As I demonstrated, none of the dictionary definitions reasonably applied to Latter-day Saints. I disagree. I pointed out that in your first dictionary definition, it gave 3 meanings, and I said renounce war was in keeping with the first 2, but not necessarily the 3rd definition. And we can play dictionary games if you want. I have a few I could turn to, too. But to what end? If one doesn't understand what another says, the best approach is to ask, not throw a dictionary at him. I don't mean to imply that LDS have to be conscientious objectors, but we are members of a
