Tom Watson wrote:
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 12:52:19 -0000, Art Greenberg
wrote:


Are you and "Watson" one and the same, BTW?
No. Tom has more poet and storyteller in his pinky than I have in my entire
body.


You give me more than I deserve Art, but I thank you for the kind
words.

He certainly does.


Mr. D has come to the point of Nol Pros that all neo-con others do
when arguing about the lack of signatory to the 1979 agreements.

It is a fact that we are outside of the world community on several
levels.

There are global emissions standards that we do not participate in.

Because there is no clear demonstration of their merit and the subject
remains in considerable debate between and among the actual experts.
Your naughty feelings about the matter notwithstanding, I'd rather
wait until there is a more rigorous and tenable model of the subject
involved instead of depending on models and claims that - to date -
have been entirely wrong or vastly overstated. This does have the
downside of preferring the authority of science to your warm droolings
on the matter. This is not unlike the fringes of the religious movement
whose warm droolings about the age of the earth are also subordinated
to scientific investigation. Perhaps you and your fellow earth-worshiping
pantheists should just get it over with already, declare yourself a religion,
as, in fact, you are, and at least get some tax breaks.


There is a lack of signatory responsibility regarding the Geneva
Conventions.

Because we are sovereign nation and morally obligated to first
act in our own enlightened self-interest. We have no moral obligation to satisfy global
statists of your ilk so you can feel warm and gooey about how
nicely we play with despots, kooks, and monsters around the world.


Mr. D likes to make hay about our currency with the 1949 agreements
but says very little about Article One of 1979.


If he would use the whip of 1949, I would also use the chain of 1979.

It would be an imaginary chain. The additional protocols came into being
in 1977. It may also come a surprise to you that, while the US signed
the documents in question, they have never been ratified - a necessary
step, as I understand it, for them to be binding upon us. So you would
have be "chained" by a protocol to which we are not yet party. What
a shocker.


There is a facticity here which is immensurable - are we a global
neighbor in the correct sense?

"Correct" according to whom? You? Your membership in the
"I Know What's Good For Everyone Else" Society is showing. I do *not*
know what is good for everyone else. I do, however, want what is
proper and good for my nation, and by extension, me. There is a legitimate
debate to be had there about just what that entails. But "being good global
neighbors" is an irrelevancyy except to the extent that it good for ... us.

Mr. D seems to be Wilsonian in his claims to independence.

Wilson was an isolationist. I am not. I believe we should have rich
commercial, cultural, and scientific trade with the rest of the world.
I do not, however, believe that we owe the rest of the world an explanation
for every single thing we do, nor do we have to play Mother-May-I prior
to doing so.

History has proven them both the fool.

History hasn't been around to demonstrate me a fool or otherwise.
You also attribute far more importance to me than I do. I'd
say the foolishness is on your part.


I thought to let this thread die.

No, you just waited until it settled down and got simplified sufficiently.


Now, I think that I will let it die - because I will no longer argue
with a fool.

Game, set, and match ... as usual.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/