WWlll Is Being Televised

The organism's survival traits are the results of expressed genes. Evolution is acting on genes. It is true that's it's a big batch of success and failure, insofar as a good gene in the organism goes down with the "bad" ones when the organism dies, but it is the individual gene that's "trying" to be copied by producing traits that are desireable in that environment.

It's interesting to make a distinction for selecting for and acting on, but if we allow an equality to exist between receiving an action and being acted on (which I think we can all agree on), then being selected for is still being acted upon.

Alright, I'd like to stop talking about this. I'm just repeating myself and everything I'm saying can just be looked up in a text book anyway.

For what it's worth, there's a lot of discussion among biologists over what evolution is more specifically, but really, it's just another semantics argument, like "what is life?" (which is, life is whatever we call life...it's an abritrary definition). I mean, you can't even get all biologists to agree on what exactly a gene is in the first place. I do think looking at individual phenotypes is the most effective perspective on evolution and will yield the results that most closely match our observations.

My initial conclusion does of course, still stand, to bring us back to the initial topic. Suicide is not always genetically unfavorable.

Okay, really. Back on topic now. I have to study this constantly, so having to discuss it outside of class in addition to inside can be really frustrating.
 
as far as suicied not bein unfavorable there are always black widow spiders and preying matises
 
Esav Benyamin said:
I have no sympathy for their embittered misery, brought on solely by their own genocidally bigoted intransigence.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid we will have to disagree on this. My perception is different.

Best,

Norm
 
On Diplomacy:

Does anyone think diplomacy will help Israel stop rockets?
Does anyone think the UN an organization capable of intervening in world crisis? Where?
Did diplomacy stop Saddam?
Has diplomacy stopped Iran, or N Korea from pursuing nuclear weapons?

What is diplomacy? Is diplomacy agreeing with Europe on Terrorism?
When so many people disagree with the US, does that make the US wrong?

I have no further use for diplomacy.
Diplomacy will be redefined, to a definition most the world will agree upon, after the first nuclear strike in Europe. Then we will have something in common to disguss with our European partners.
We will, 'agree upon terms."

Why we must wait for that is beyond my comprehension- but they do say history must be repeated.

Why is the world making excuses for Islamic terrorism?

Such a world is not capable of reason- not yet.


WWlll may be the last one. The world waited too long. It yammered for diplomacy while tryants grew strong.

At the end of all this, if we're still alive, will we be like France at last?


munk

PS- Hollowdweller, it will not be like the Cold War. Russia did not wish to be destroyed- you must have self preservation for a stalemate to exist. Islamic Terrorists want to die. End of stalemate.
 
munk said:
On Diplomacy:

What is diplomacy? .
Click to expand...

IMHO, in the case of felonious behavior by a nation or political entity, it is issuance of the advisory: "Halt or I'll shoot." The UN just repeats this warning too many times.

Aggression is the process of cold-cocking them without the warning, and neither George Bush nor Israel are guilty of this.
 
IMHO, in the case of felonious behavior by a nation or political entity, it is issuance of the advisory: "Halt or I'll shoot." The UN just repeats this warning too many times. >> Cliff355

Civilian gun ownership reduces crime by the fear of trespass.
What was the UN doing all 6 years in Lebanon turning a blind eye to Hezbollah arms emplacements? That is more than just a warning; that is actively aiding the enemy.


munk
 
Amen Munk. They are complicit. I saw a picture somewhere of their flag flying side by side beside the Hezbola flag. Unexcusable. They should be brought before their own Security Council and forced to disband.
 
The security council is run by an idiot madness of France, Germany, China and Russia. Any questions?

Let's wait for the first nuke to fall in Europe. That is the only way we will have concensus.

In the meantime, the US should run a minority, aggressive, disent of the UN within the body. We know we are outvoted and disliked. Let us behave accordingly. Don't expect agreement- just say no.


munk
 
I suggest that we quit funding the U.N. altogether, and hope they go away angry. They have been, and are now, a millstone around the neck of progress. Even NATO makes more sense (and that's a lot to say). At least NATO does send troops that shoot when fired upon. Think of all the people who could have been fed and treated for all the money wasted on the U.N.
 
jurassicnarc44 said:
I suggest that we quit funding the U.N. altogether, and hope they go away angry. They have been, and are now, a millstone around the neck of progress. Even NATO makes more sense (and that's a lot to say). At least NATO does send troops that shoot when fired upon. Think of all the people who could have been fed and treated for all the money wasted on the U.N.
Click to expand...

I wish more people saw this. The $ squandered on these pampered career diplomats is staggering, and yet they scream for more. And then Annan and his ilk are caught in the oil for food scandal, and attempt to cover that one up. Cushy jobs to his friends, analysis paralysis, money squandered with no accountability, "peacekeepers" caught in rape, assault and sex scandals, etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum. Thank God for John Bolton anyway who seems to understand the value of the organization, or lack of it I should say, and at least how to kick some butt to get anything done at all.

Every time I hear the UN screaming that we haven't paid our "fair share" of the 22% funding that we cover yearly, something over $1 BILLION annually, plus supply the building and all funding for that, while the other 100+ member nations cover the other 78%, I just become apoplectic. That is enough to build an entire new space shuttle orbiter every year, or as pointed out buy one hell of a lot of food and goodwill. This doesn't even count the special additional programs that are always being suggested and floated about that we are expected to contribute to.

Actually, I kind of find this analagous to a bunch of boorish backwoods kin imposing themselves on your good nature and hospitality, coming into your home, raiding the fridge and ruining all your stuff, and then complaining that you're all out of beer.

Speaking to the efficacy of the UN troops, the US does all the heavy lifting in any engagement where they are present. The useless politically filtered Pakistani "support" in the battle of Mogadishu comes to mind.

As to Munk's observation, I was amazed to see how strong Hezbollah has become, and how well funded. They say their army is just 10-15,000 men, but they are extremely well equipped and well trained, and are giving the much larger Israeli forced fits. If Lebanon and Syria had been taken firmly in hand years ago by the impotent overpaid fools at the UN I doubt that much of what is taking place would be happening.

The one thing that you can say about the Israelis is that they are not the types to dither while the UN diddles away their security. I recall a few years ago when the UN was in a tizzy because Iran was building a nuclear reactor to process weapons grade fuel. "OH what shall we do!", the UN diplomats met and considered resolutions and meetings and slaps on the wrist.

Meanwhile Israel got tired of waiting for a decision they knew would never be made, and just scrambled a bunch of Mirage jets and blew the living s*&t out of it. Problem solved. I've always felt that it's better to ask forgiveness than permission anyway...


Norm
 
Beauracracies have one answer to how much of your money they want - more - always more. After all, they are so much wiser than you are regarding how your money should be spent. Jefferson understood this.
 
Sun Tszu
All warfare is based on deception

Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable;
when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we
are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away;
when far away, we must make him believe we are near.
Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy's
troops without any fighting; he captures their cities
without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom
without lengthy operations in the field.
 
We seemingly agree upon the UN. Why then, do the Democrats call for more UN intervention? Is this not the future? Action by world bureacracy? It is sold as somehow being fairer, democratic, just. Like a bad Star Trek ll plot.

That's basically it; we want a world government like Star Trek, the next generation.

What happened to the food for oil scandal? Records gone, Kofi still in power. France silent. It does not matter. The UN sat and watched Hezbollah for 6 years? But the Bush lied about WMD? America invaded Iraq for oil? 6 years in Lebanon and the UN could not pick up the phone and say; "Uh...looks like missiles being brought in...."

I believe the UN looked the other way. I think the UN is anti semite.
The truth does not matter. It is the perception, it is 'concensus' that matters to the Public- European public anyway. We have a UN Security council that wanted to issue a statement condeming Israel for 'invading' Lebanon. The US vetoed that and changed the language. How much longer will the US do that? Will they still do that in another generation?

I'm sorry, but aperatchiks run policy. The New York Times is our future. What they say will be reality to a majority soon.

rant over

munk
 
bingo the UN is against Isreal, yep thats not news. When they "keep the peace" they amke sure the side they want to win wins, not news either, that they lie and cheat and steal to do so, not news to me, I kind of expect that from polititions. That they hate the guts of the one true super power left to thwart their antisemite adgenda well 1+1 =2. I would sday for the most part the UN has out lived its usfulness much like the league of nations did before WWII.
 
The most serious problems facing the United Nations are its structure and mission.

The Security Council was established as a brake on the ability of the General Assembly (the membership at large) to involve itself in precipitous action it would later regret. After all, the GA votes on the democratic principle that every sovereign nation is equal, although some are smaller than the county I live in and others are despotic polities with no appreciation for democracy in their own societies.

Political questions should never have come before the General Assembly.

The UN as a whole should never dispose of troops, even as observers, let alone peacekeepers.

The Security Council should be expanded to include several more major nations, many more temporary/rotating members, and ad hoc membership for any nation whose actions are under consideration.

The specialized agencies, like World Health and World Trade, are about the only reasonable function the organization can serve.

The entire organization should be relocated to Geneva.
 
Moving it to those places is the equivalent of re-introducing the Grizzly in Central Park.

(Just a reverse analogy; the bear eats the liberals, and the liberal institution gets eaten by the locals.)

Move it to France amidst great fanfare; then kick them out of the security council.


munk
 
Munk:

Diplomacy is something that is conducted to the detriment of the U.S. and it's allies.

There may be a WWIII someday, but there will always be another one after that. It is mankind's nature to fight.

The current situation between Israel and Lebanon will not lead to WWIII because at some point the U.S. will stop Israel as always. Then the anti-American organization called the UN will go in and pretend to be doing something. That will give the terrorists plenty of time to regroup and rearm as always and cause war again in the future.
 
Steve, there is a lot of truth in what you say.
I wish Israel had moved more forcefully while it 'could'.



However, I do think this is WWlll; we just don't recognize it because it's without borders and uniforms.

Can anyone tell me if Iran's nuclear sites are too deep and reinforced to destroy?

munk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top