Stussy88

Women ~ if they can keep the message down to under ten minutes as my attention span for this stuff is only so long.. Personally speaking, I don't overtly hide feelings by and large, I just don't need to share them. There is also the social pressure thing. It would probably be hard to go to a woman and tell her about your feelings. After the initial five minutes of surprise, you can't help but wonder if she wouldn't be thinking "will you just stop whining and man-up, its my feelings we need to talk about"

I quite agree and if I may give two concrete examples. I was watching Dawkins on Youtube and they were interviewing Alec Jeffreys. In 1984, this fellow was looking at some x-rays of a DNA experiment and the possibility of DNA fingerprinting struck him. It was wholly unplanned and unknown and not the point of the execise at all, but the spin-offs have been huge in terms of crime detection, paternity etc. Or, from the same video, this chap in Cambridge was trying to work out why genetic abnormalities formed on the eyes of some fruit flies. He believes he has identified a gene response to a certain protein (the science slightly eluded me at this point) but the upshot is, they believe that if they can fully understand this, it maybe possible to "switch-off" the gene in humans that causes and allows the growth of cancer! Not there yet, but quite an amazing, unpredicted spin-off technology So the quest for knowledge and understanding, good in itself, sometimes reveals quite amazing and unplanned for benefits for humanity.

Okay, specific, on context example. When the Argentine Junta grabbed the Falkland Islands in 1982, they were clearly the aggressors, despite flimsy teritorial claims. In addition, being a military government, Argentina had less respect for human rights and freedom than the UK. Could we then have bombed Argentine cities flat in an attempt to bring down the Junta and force a surrender? I think no, yet going back to the primary definition, viz, The primary moral factor is who is initiating force, and which side is a more rights respecting nation. 1982 UK was both moral and did not initiate the force, but bthat still didn't give us the right to engage in area civilian bombing. So the definition is inadequate as I suggested. Further, say we had killed a few hundred thousand Argentines, smashed up the country and forced out their government, wouldn't that have caused more problems and enshrined Argentine hatred of the UK for generations to come?

I promise you I was not trying to be rude and certainly not evasive, so let me try to address the points in order. 1. You are suggesting that the Hamas leadership being anti-freedom wouldn't trust its wider populace with advanced weapons. Probably true, but it doesn't mean that their particular 'praetorian guard' wouldn't like better weapons. By definition these people benefit from the regime and so have an interest in seeing its continuance. Even if they could acquite say 50 stinger-type missiles, these would be no real threat to the regime (no airforce) but they would be a threat to IDF aircraft and I believe they would like the propaganda victory of seeing a downed F-16 or gunship in Gaza. I agree they could neither build nor design advanced weapons because that requires advanced production facilities. Something that would almost certainly come to light and in turn draw a visit from the Israelis. Thus they could not build the stuff. Suggesting they could not afford the stuff misses the point I think, if it was available their various sponsors would buy and supply. 2. You rather seem to make my point for me. I draw no moral or philosophical distiniction between Hamas and Iran, quite the contrary. I was suggesting such a philosophy is present in Iran and they want to acquire advanced technology such as Nukes, so the mere presence of such a philosophy is not a bar per se, to the aspiration for advanced weapons for the regime. 3. I think you are suggesting that the West and Israel needs a better ideology (althought you maybe suggesting that we fail to understand the ideology of our enemy) or maybe both, this is slightly unclear? But to draw the conclusion that everything would be better in the middle east if we did understand this better, rather lets off the various governments in the middle east from their responsibility. I agree our foreign policy has been muddled, but the reason for the stagnation of the middle east is in the small part, local tribalism and in the large part, the most stupid of all the Abrahamic monotheisms, Islam. I hope this had addressed your points, again, I was not trying to be evasive in any way. Neither did I merely refer you to other work without explanation.

There is some truth in this but the explanation is too simplistic. For instance if say New Zealand found itself on the wrong end of an attack by Singapore because some Kiwi fishing boats had seized some Singaporean cargo, then by your definition, Singapore being marginally more free, and the initial victim of aggression could destroy NZ carte blanche, slaughter its civilians en masse and be the "good guy" Thus it is an inadequate definition.

Then if I may, you are proposing the following Weapons Dealer: "Would you like some longer range rockets, something to take out IDF tanks, good anti-aircraft missiles to bag a few F-16's etc" Hamas: "Nope, our primitive ideology means were quite happy with 40 year old AK's and home made explosives thanks" I put it to you, this is not credible. Now if you are saying they lack the technology to devise or manufacture better weapons, this is true. But if you are saying there is no aspiration for better weapons, this is palpable nonsense. Iran has a similar ideology to Hamas, and yet would you not agree they rather fancy Nukes? They cannot develop an advanced weapons manufacturing facility for many reasons, not all ideological by any means and they struggle to import better weapons because not many people (save Iran) are selling and the Israeli blockade discourages weapons imports. Surely this is a more likley explanation than an ideological one?

Don't be absurd. The reason Hamas doesn't have more advanced weapons is not because they are committed to remaining primitive, it's because they can't get them. Do you imagine for one instant they would reject more advanced weapons? It is true that in open combat, most if not all Arab states would struggle against the IDF, certainly Hamas almost regardless of their weaponry. It is true also that it is insane to make historic religious claims to land (regardless of your monotheism) ~ both sides palpably do this. Some rabbinical debates question whether the Ammonites represent a biblical injunction for genocide today I agree, a rational, moral man wouldn't attack civilians, my posts up to this point have suggested that doing so, is often not moral. I do not regard Hamas as moral.

Well in Europe, (though not Japan when the nukes were used), it is self-evident that Germany was beaten finally when it's capital was occupied and surrender followed. So area bombing failed in Europe. I think my viewpoint really comes down to this. You either try to destroy an enemy's ability to wage war by targeting his resources to that effect (which may include people), or you randomly target people in the hope to break his will. I have to choose the former, becaue if I choose the letter I would find myself in the same camp as Hamas who have no problem with civilian attacks.

Yes, clearly true, if threatened, I would of course do my best to resist. I was thinking of conventional European bombing but it is true, nukes did bring about a rapid end to the war.

Just keep a bottle of evening primrose oil in your desk Seriously, it could be factors external to work and she is projecting hostility into work ~ maybe a calm quite talk to get to the root of it? Alternatively, a leading type question such as "I appreciate you are busy so when would be the best time to talk to you about one or two issues so that I can get some feedback" If you get the "Never" response try "Should I speak to your boss about it instead, or is there some time you could allocate me" Just watch a slot open up.

That's not entirely true. The USAAF more or less targeted military targets as per daylight bombing from more armoured bombers often (but by no means always) with escort fighters. The RAF tried that early on, but the more robust German response early in the war, combined with planes that sacrificed armour for bomb load, meant night time, inaccurate bombing. Even though we were notionally 'de-housing' people, we were actually just blowing up their cities at random, kids and all. And when all is said, civilian bombing did not win the war quickly as its advocates initially claimed. At best it had a marginal affect by killing munitions workers. The break in morale, leading to peace never came.

You will get me in serious trouble with the now heavily pregnant and sometimes hormonal Mrs Stussy88

It would depend if he was my enemy or the enemy of my country. That said, I would be such an awkward, useless soldier, I could never see myself being trusted with a gun! I wonder if Franz would have let an RAF bomber go? The USAAF were more or less the most honourable air force of any major combatant, targeting mostly military targets. The night time RAF by contrast tended to aim (of necessity) at cities, which was somewhat less honourable, albeit we had no real choice at the time.

A very interesting question. I read Robert Massie's book "Dreadnought" about the construction of the world's first all big gun battleship (i.e. dreadnought class!) and it was set against the back drop of the lead up to WW1. The whole time I found myself highly sympathetic to Sir Edward Grey (Britain's foreign secretary). The sad conclusion I reached was that German militarism made WW1 inevitable as well as pointless.

Yes, fair point, my assessment was purely visual.

Some of the early George Romero stuff freaked me out, so I can sympathise. I think it was the 1980's version of "Dawn of the Dead" A decent low-budget movie, but probably not one to watch alone, or anytime soon for that matter.

Not trying to be willingly contrarian here and maybe it's because I am more familiar with these things being European, but I see them as archaic pieces of junk?? Now an e-type jag, I get E-type A 1960 Ferrari, I get Ferrari even a Jensen Interceptor, I get Jensen But the Elan? A modest little car which doesn't inspire much passion or enthusiasm in me

My shameless plugging of this fine work of literature Single acts of tyranny

Great blog, you also got a stalker (in the cyber, reading the blog sense, as opposed to corporeal 'hanging around in the bushes outside your house' sense that is!). Any comments from me will be posted under the name "single acts of tyranny"

Proof of the old proverb that people with guns starve last

I really think the key is to have a very clear idea of what it is you want to do, when you graduate. Then really research course content. This is not always easy at 18. In the UK, quite a few kids wait a year or two before going to college. This makes sense to me. It is true a great many courses royally suck, but you have to take a degree of personal responsibility here, (though I am certainly not trying to suggest you are at fault for the content).

Mrs Palin? really? I would find it hard to vote for someone who hears voices "God "began to speak" to her about going into politics" Also her position on abortion "abortion should be banned in nearly all cases, including rape and incest" Sorry honey, daddy may have raped you, but your having the kid??? As well as opposing stem cell research ~ stay in your wheel chair, it might annoy god to experiment on 150 cells???? She is a mystic nutcase quite unworthy of office.

Could be, as well as a decent naval architecture program, they had a QB who could really launch some deep bombs, really tricky wide receivers, and a defensive line that seemed to mangle our side at every opportunity. Why this sport hasn't really caught on over here escapes me? ~ it's so much better than Rugby. Inertia I suppose.

Some years ago, whilst in college in the UK, I played (American) football, as a linebacker. In our first match we played Southampton, who for some reason had a large number of American students. Anyway, due to the fact they had played the game for much of their lives and it was our first competitive outing, we lost 51-0. (There is nothing like hearing the opposition quarterback shouting 'blue 26' in a broad Texan accent, to make you think "this could be a long, long day") However, as the season went on, we improved, and in the return match, we still lost, but by a slightly more competitive 31-21. No-one complained about the shut-out defeat (and certainly no-one apologised for it on the winning side), but it did make us take training a lot more seriously in the following weeks, thus the improvement. This is the lessone to take from such a defeat ~ get better ! (I must point out, UK college football, is amateur and voluntary; Pretty much, if you wanted to play, you could. I would guess that it would have been about the equivalent standard of a small high school, it is not at all like American college football in terms of standards)

Battle Royale Battle Royale You have to get past the subtitles, but it details how different people approach the most serious challenge of all ~ their impending deaths. It is truly a sensational movie, and one to get if you've not seen it. (Also, I took it as a metaphor for wider life, but from what I can see of it, this is a minority interpretation).