Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
J. Clarke wrote:

Given the choice between gas rationing and some loon setting
off
a
nuke in NYC the US will take the gas rationing. Given the
choice
between cooperating and some loon setting off a nuke in
Riyadh,
OPEC
will cooperate.

Given the choice between gas rationing and some loon setting
off
a
nuke in Riyadh, the US will choose the nuke.

Please explain the circumstances under which a nuke in Riyadh
avoids gas rationing.

Sorry, you pretty much have to be a professional politician to
come
up
with that scenario. Or maybe Tom Clancy.

But if the scenario occurred, I know which the US would chooce.

You haven't answered the question.

I'm not Tom Clancy or a professional politician. I don't have an
answer.

In other words you agree that a nuke in Riyadh equals gas
rationing.

No.

So you claim that it takes Tom Clancy or a professional politician to
come up with a scenario in which it does _not_ result in gas rationing
but now you say that it doesn't regardless. So what is your
reasoning, or are you just being a pain in the ass?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)