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:
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?

I claim it takes Tom Clancy or a professional politician to come up
with a scenario in which a nuke in Riyadh _prevents_ gas rationing.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.