| Times: Who will be Person of the Year 2009? | |
|---|---|
| Dec 7, 2009 20:32 | #21   |
 | <<However, as you rightly point out some good has been achieved, but at a huge cost. On this subject we will just have to agree to disagree.>> Bob, the ideal conditions allows one person rational decision. However it's not realistic, we become associated for variouse reasons with various conflicts among us. Hence a game begins. If each of us plays strong, none of us is better of,which is nash equilibrium which results from human nature and happens the most. Another situation is like one side plays coorperatively, the other side reason that it will still play strong getting more pay off than that when it will choose coorperation. However, this situation won't last long. The best game with both parties better off (max. pay off) is compromising and cooperatiive between with agreement and enforcement of rules, The war (game)you just mentioned is Nash Equilibrium with too much cost. <<I believe that if the commercial profit was removed from the selling of drugs, and by that I mean, hand it out for free, it would kill the trade overnight.>> Dodger, you hit the nail. ''the profit-the money (pay-off) is the roots of evil. I should say there definitely exists complicated cause and effect relationship among 911, realestate bubble, financial system collapse, fighting for oil in middle east and war against terrorism. |
| Dec 8, 2009 01:35 | #22 |
| Quote:Originally Posted by BOBERT JIMMYB. If Japan threatened to attack China would you feel justified to invade them first?Well, If Japan just thtreatened and we didn't find any proof, I would not invade Japan first. You couldn't invade a country just because he threatened or you felt that it would attack you. Anyway, just be ware and prepare for defence. I might be too naive. Politicians and leaders are very complicated. They deal with such problems differently. |
| Dec 10, 2009 22:00 | #23 |
| GUESTAMMY | If its Obamarama i will be burning my Times subscription. |
| Dec 11, 2009 17:43 | #24 |
| This is the same man who just collected his Nobel Peace Prize. The same man who just sent 35,000 extra troops to Afghanistan. Here he is promising his first job if elected president will be to "bring the troops home and bring an end to this war". He then adds "you can take that to the bank". Keep your matches handy GUESTAMMY. http://www.youtube.com/ |
Last edited by BOBERT: Dec 11, 2009 17:46 |
| Dec 13, 2009 14:02 | #25 |
| 'Other reasons' for invasion: Blair/HENRY CHU, LONDON December 14, 2009 . FORMER British prime minister Tony Blair has said he would have found another justification for invading Iraq even without the now-discredited evidence that Saddam Hussein was trying to produce weapons of mass destruction. ''I would still have thought it right to remove him. I mean, obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat,'' Mr Blair said yesterday. His comments were denounced immediately by critics who accused him of using false pretences to drag Britain into an unpopular war that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of allied troops and thousands of Iraqi civilians. Speaking to BBC broadcaster Fern Britton, Mr Blair insisted that ousting Saddam had improved the situation in Iraq by laying the foundation for a more democratic country. He described the coming Iraqi elections as ''probably the single most significant thing that's happened to that region for many years. ''I can't really think we'd be better with him and his two sons still in charge,'' Mr Blair said of Saddam. The interview with him comes just a few weeks after Britain launched an inquiry into the decision to go to war. Mr Blair is expected to make a public appearance before the inquiry early next year. The committee has heard statements from former government officials that Mr Blair was willing to join then US president George Bush in toppling Saddam with or without the claim that the Iraqi dictator was developing weapons of mass destruction. The WMD claim was the primary justification for the war, but it proved untrue. Hans Blix, who led the United Nations team of inspectors looking into the claim, said Mr Blair's remarks gave ''the strong impression of a lack of sincerity. ''The war was sold on the weapons of mass destruction [claim], and now you … hear that it was only a question of a 'deployment of arguments','' Mr Blix told the BBC. ''It sounds a bit like a fig leaf that was held up, and if the fig leaf had not been there, then they would have tried to put another fig leaf there.'' Mr Blair is under mounting pressure to give to charity his £90,000 ($A160,000) fee for a speech in a former Soviet republic widely criticised for human rights abuses. The former prime minister flew to Azerbaijan, where he met the country's President and visited a methanol factory owned by a millionaire businessman. Opposition groups within Azerbaijan and British MPs have complained that although Mr Blair had every right to visit, he missed a golden opportunity to criticise the regime's human rights record. They have insisted he should give away his fee. LOS ANGELES TIMES, TELEGRAPH |
| Dec 14, 2009 04:00 | #26 |
| “the now-discredited evidence that Saddam Hussein was trying to produce weapons of mass destruction.” OK, so now I’m confused (again) Chemical Ali will be executed some time in January. He was found guilty by an Iraqi court of using VX gas and Mustard gas on both the Iranians and his fellow citizens, the Kurds. Do these two weapons, now illegal, not constitute destructive weapons on a large scale? Or was Chemical Ali really just making chicken soup and it was a simple case of miscommunication. Dodger. |
| Dec 14, 2009 13:36 | #27 |
| "destructive weapons on a large scale" are not the same as "weapons of mass destruction".I guess what the world is now objecting to is the lies, the manipulation and the lack of contrition. Nobody likes to be conned or used. Nobody likes to be patronised. If we were given the truth as a justification for war, it would have never happened. Standing armies are not supposed to be the playthings of deceitful heads of government. There are countless despots and dictators in the world who murder their citizens on a grand scale. One was even a member of the commonwealth. Not much compassion is shown for them and no war is waged for their protection. The difference is of course ..oil...and money. This is obvioulsy a subject we will never agree on Dodger. I see your argument but I can't accept your logic. No doubt you feel the same. I sincerley hope the end does eventually justify the means, but it rarely has in the past and I can't see it happening now either. |
Last edited by BOBERT: Dec 14, 2009 13:47 |
| Dec 14, 2009 22:39 | #28 |
| If a person experience a trauma, the psychological self-protection is to choose forgetting or to become insane. It's understandable to choose revenge after somebody setting a fire in your backyard. And it's understandable to get refreshed thru an encouraging partucular event. It is reflected in the things that have happening with US since 911. The speculations on oil in Wall street that had meant to cover the huge costs from fiscal policy failure, unfortunately worsen and speed up the the broke of economic chains one end of which is the refreshing event -realeste-after 911. |
| Dec 17, 2009 20:37 | #29 |
| Well analyzed, Marrie. Personally, I don't think invasion to other countries is self-protection. |
| Dec 18, 2009 21:23 | #30 |
| Well, I still can't figure out why Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. It is said that five judges who selected Obama as the Nobel Peace Prize winner disappeared on the day when the Nobel Prize awarding ceremony was held. Did they also feel ashamed? |
Post a Reply to: Times: Who will be Person of the Year 2009?
Copyright © 1998-2024 All rights reserved.