bobbo,

We're talking past each other as usual. You just don't see the cause and effect of arming a country to the teeth and then having to disarm them. I do. You also don't see that the world has a certain amount of arms-making capacity. I do. You also don't see that however much we make in dollars from arms sales, we spend many times that much when we go to war. I do. You also don't see that human life has value. I do.

Let's agree to disagree, shall we?

It is fun to recognize how every oil rich nation in the World fails to develop any other technologies.

I know you are ready for this:.................silly hoomans!

Of course I agree humans are silly at best and horrifically dangerous at worst. Regarding the other comment above, you're just bringing up the concept of the resource curse. Yes, this has long been recognized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse

Scott==I agree we don't see what the other sees or fails to see.  However, I do see and posted directly on the issues you raise as me not seeing them.  The truth then is I do see the issues, and you don't event though I have posted the germane issues as clearly and expressly as possible.....so there is more than "not seeing" going on.  As you say:  "as usual?"  Why is that?

But for continued practice, let's parse:

We're talking past each other as usual. You just don't see the cause and effect of arming a country to the teeth and then having to disarm them. ///  Of course I do and I say they will get armed elsewhere if not by us-A and further than since they are going to be armed, better by us so that we get the money, know their systems capabilities inside and out, and control the supply of parts and maintenance.  How can I point that out THREE TIMES NOW and you say "I don't see it?"  when clearly I do at a pragmatic, fiscal, and engaged level far above your own?

I do. ///  No, you have it all abysmally wrong as pointed out repeatedly.  Why can't you budge off being miopic, short sighted, unimaginative, totally assuming, and wrong?

 You also don't see that the world has a certain amount of arms-making capacity. // Ha, ha.  Name one thing people want to spend their money on that is not OVER PRODUCED?  No special rare earths involved for most of it--maybe some titanium and soon carbon fiber?  But all production can be ramped up when the demand is there.  Down right silly to think not.

 I do.  /// No you don't.  Why would weapons of war be the only consumer product that does not get production ramped up to meet demand?  Can you give any reason why rather than just an assumptive conclusion?  Link?  I agree there could be a time lag when the worlds top producer pulls out==but China is putting men on the moon.  Russia copies our models or competes directly in a ping pong manner.  Down right silly to think not.

tYou also don't see that however much we make in dollars from arms sales, we spend many times that much when we go to war. ////  The decision to go to war is independent and separate from the decision to arm.  And the key here is that if we-USA did not arm, others would so the "cost" of going to war would only be higher as presumably the target supplied by non-USA providers would not have parts and maintenance embargo as USA provided targets would.  What don't you understand about this common observable fact?

I do. ///  No--you think a vacuum will exist between supply and demand.  When UK attacked the Falklands, the Argentinians were supplied with French weapons.  Down right silly to think not.

You also don't see that human life has value. ///  Now, you are just making up arguments out of thin air.  Or maybe!!!!!===all your arguments are made up out of thin air since you don't respond to what I have actually posted.  Very repetitive on your part.  Where is the learning, the give and take, the responding to points made?

I do.  ///  No you don't.  You won't even allow for smallpox to be erradicated because you think other life forms are more worthy than your own kind.  Really Scott--part of arguing is to maintain a point of view, not flit around like a butterfly.  You plan on running for Political Office or what?

Let's agree to disagree, shall we? ///  No.  I disagree with your arguments substantively and meritoriously.  You only repeat, are non-responsive, and now evasive.

You don't even have to admit it.  Plain for all to see.

bobbo,

I merely meant that I see things differently than you do. It's an expression. I see cause and effect; you understand what I mean; you see it differently. It's an expression that means that you believe differently than I do. That's all.

As usual means that this happens between us quite often. Do you disagree that we often disagree and talk right past each other?

As for being repetitive, yes. I was summing up our differences. You just repeated your whole argument for some unknown reason.

As for agreeing to disagree, how can you not? You re-re-restate your disagreement with me precisely as you claim not to agree to disagree. And, you claim I am non-responsive ... to what? What the fuck?

Give it up. You will not convince me. I will not convince you. Plain for all to see.

Neither of us has any new content.

Hence, let's agree to disagree.

Wars make rich people Richer.

After each war, the returning warriors, cant find work..its all taken by those at home.

The corps that sell Goods to the GOV, charge 100 times what they would get on the commercial market.

The military demands that goods NOT be workable without US/WE using it.  that 1 point adds COST to goods.

Oil countries only make WHAT they need..and they dont see a reason for much of anything else..as they can PAY US to be the bully.

We needed a reason for war, for many reasons.
1. distraction over what was ABOUT to happen in the market. it was easy to see, as there is ONLY so much money to PUSH the market.
2. MORE money to gov companies..  PRIVATE corps.  that have been sitting on the HOG to long. paying them for doing nothing, NOT even bidding on contracts(which should have been BID by more then  company)

The game is hide and seek...you can only hide things for so long.
AS in a lie, it only lasts longer IF no one knows it..  To many INCUMBENTS, and few with enough money to run against them..

is an election proper when <50% vote?  not in my eye.

Scott--I don't know why being aggravated with YOU still cracks me up from time to time.  A focus on words, and what they mean, and what they don't mean.  We are not agreeing to disagree.  While somewhat idiomatic, what those words means is fairly just a straight read.  People can agree to disagree on what the application of differing "values" does in a disagreement.  Failing to address the factual components of a disagreement is NOT agreeing to disagree.

You present "arguments" that are refuted.  You simply present the same response again.  That is NOT agreeing to disagree, its an evasion.

Son:  you need more facts.  Facts, not assumptions.  There is a big difference.  Absent facts, one can still argue, and even argue to an agreed disagreement by way of hypotheticals, but you don't like those either.  Not your assumptions.  Let's do a simple one:
     If China could provide all the arms not sold by the USA and would do so and the USA decided to make war on all the same countries we would have supplied arms to absent China what would be the different economic, military, and moral differences compared to if USA had also sold those attacked countries the weapons they use in their defense?  I say/said all the differences would be disadvantageous to the USA.  How am I wrong?

How am I wrong?

Well, for starters, you're stating opinion as if it were fact. Your opinions are no more fact than mine. We do not have an alternate earth on which to see what happens when the U.S. stops selling arms.

If China could provide all the arms not sold by the USA and would do so and the USA decided to make war on all the same countries we would have supplied arms to absent China what would be the different economic, military, and moral differences compared to if USA had also sold those attacked countries the weapons they use in their defense?  I say/said all the differences would be disadvantageous to the USA.

Well, since China produces less than 17% of the arms that we do, you're assuming China can ramp up by a factor of 6 overnight. So, you're wrong right from the start. Second, you're assuming China produces the same quality arms we do. So, you're wrong again.

But, those are just facts. My opinion is that with fewer arms on the market, there would be fewer arms in the world. It's not a foregone conclusion that if the U.S. were to become sane that other countries would go insane in the same way that the U.S. is today.

Scott==that is so inadequate, I do assume that for about the last year you have been pimping me.  But, you aren't grinning, so maybe you simply don't know how to argue within a hypothetical which is really quite close to incorporating a specific definition into your argumentarium.  We never have really matched wits on that level.  I suppose it might be like juggling?  I understand the principles, vaguely, and I suppose I could learn to do it with a few hours of practive, but I have never taken the time.  The result?  I can't juggle.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I have no idea what you mean by "pimping you" bobbo. If you're a whore and I'm your pimp, either you owe me a lot of money or you suck at prostitution ... and not literally.

Sorry you feel it inadequate to point out that your "facts" are opinions. But, they are. As for arguing a hypothetical, I think I'm holding my own. The difference is that you believe your hypothetical situations are facts but mine are opinions. You're wrong. They're both opinions. They have to be because the situation is hypothetical.

If anyone else is reading this, they can say which of us is holding our own in the argument. Neither of us is competent to say. Or, perhaps neither of us is holding our own since neither has convinced the other of anything at all.

Scott--Hypotheticals contain no facts.  Only assumptions.  Thats why they are useful.  When you characterize a tool for the very thing it is designed not to be, you reveal a complete failure.  Its a way to "think outside of the box" of normal conventions or ruts or dogmas and other contexts making communication difficult.

Just a tool.  I think everyone benefits when they bring as many tools to a problem that they can.  Course, you can't really choose not to use a tool if you don't know what it does or how to use it.

Yea, verily.

Scott--Hypotheticals contain no facts.  Only assumptions.  Thats why they are useful.

Exactly. So, why did you claim to be presenting facts when you are really presenting your assumptions?

Scott--please copy and paste the words you think I stated as facts and how where I did that is even relevant once we devolved to posing hypotheticals?  I would find such examples myself but most likely I would miss what you latched on to.  Fact, opinion, assumptions, guesses==they all share some attributes I suppose but they are mostly identified as being different from one another.  I'm seriously interested in what you will come up with.

Son:  you need more facts.  Facts, not assumptions.  There is a big difference.  Absent facts, one can still argue, and even argue to an agreed disagreement by way of hypotheticals, but you don't like those either.  Not your assumptions.  Let's do a simple one:
     If China could provide all the arms not sold by the USA and would do so and the USA decided to make war on all the same countries we would have supplied arms to absent China what would be the different economic, military, and moral differences compared to if USA had also sold those attacked countries the weapons they use in their defense?  I say/said all the differences would be disadvantageous to the USA.  How am I wrong?

Bingo. Here's your statement that led to mine.

You state that I need facts, ergo my opinions are assumptions. The obvious implication on your part is that you have some facts, rather than assumptions.

This is total bullshit.

Your opinions, like mine, are just that, nothing more.

Whats bullshit Scott is that you mix and match words as if they were all synonyms for whatever point you are trying to make.

Facts, assumptions, opinions==each one has a different meaning YET YOU MIX THEM ALL UP and use them interchangeably.

You miscommunicate GROSSLY by this lack of discipline.  Your post is an excellent example of the fubar that results.

You said I was stating my opinions as if they were facts.  I said to copy and paste an example.  What you have copied and pasted does not show me stating opinions as facts but rather shows what motivated you to post.  Not the same thing at all.  What you copied and pasted shows me recognizing you don't know what a fact is or that you disagree with what you assume to be facts so resolutely that you can't think straight so I moved the discussion to a hypothetical to remove that obstacle.  But you remained mired in your first impressions.  Unstick yourself.

Want to try again?

Or try answering the hypothetical.

Imagine how you might fly combining your love of research and reading with a more disciplined vocabulary?  Who know where you could go?

((EDIT:  since it is historically relevant, the "facts" I was referring too that you needed was the war material manufacturing capability of various countries that would be willing to do so should the USA ever decide to stop this activity.  I made no direct mention as I was moving on to a hypothetical where facts are not required.  I try to keep my facts, opinions, values, assumptions separate but can always make a mistake so I am open to that idea.  But as stated:  the conversation had moved on to a hypothetical.  You know how to move on when one line of analysis fails to develop the discussion?  Its like asking for the definition of a word, a link to a fact, or the analysis of a hypothetical or analogy.  Otherwise, all you can do is agree to disagree.  Who wants that?))

bobbo, you ignorant slut. Based on the quote I posted, you obviously think you stated some facts. What were they?