American Communist Med Students graduate

[Johnd]

I would strongly advise using...

Jfyi furrycute, imho a post such as yours could very well shut this thread down. I don't want that. You may want to delete it quickly. imho

 

[furrycute]

Jfyi furrycute, imho a post such as yours could very well shut this thread down. I don't want that. You may want to delete it quickly. imho

Thanks for the warning. Mods, for some reason I can no longer edit that post of mine, can one of you guys please delete that post for me? Thanks.

 

[Johnd]

Are you sure you're clicking on your post? If you can post, it makes no sense that you can't delete.

 

[avaserfi]

Thanks for the warning. Mods, for some reason I can no longer edit that post of mine, can one of you guys please delete that post for me? Thanks.

Maybe its just me but you weren't trying to be offensive, I think, you stated an actual medical fact...

 

[furrycute]

Maybe its just me but you weren't trying to be offensive, I think, you stated an actual medical fact...

Maybe it's just a knee jerk reaction, whenever I hear the "h" word, I think of you know what...

 

[Davemcc]

Why sould it be respected,one good reason that applys to the violence in Iraq reason if you will.

This is where you & i differ,i believe that respect is earned not owed,i respect or trust nobody until they prove they are worthy of my respect,until then i treat all people the same & keep a close eye on them,blindly trusting or respecting people will get your wife raped,home robbed,children molested or a bullet in the head.

There are mini wars that have been going on for lifetimes over that religion,weather you call it a turbin,rag,towel or a helmet its the same thing,in that religion the feuds between clans & differences between beliefs can be so small as how many times a day each sect prays,the way they wear their towel or even at what time they pray,doing any of these activities differently than another sect can & has cost people their life.

Now tell me again why i should respect a religion who's members will kill over how many times a day their neighbor prays or how they wear their turbin.

Respect that religion i think not,its nothing more than a witch hunt.

I think you are mistaking Sikhism as some sect of Islam. In fact, the two are unrelated. Sikhs are primarily from India and are a peaceful community which has, in fact, earned respect. For your general reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism

Quote from that page: "Worldwide, Sikhs number more than 23 million, but more than 90% of Sikhs live in the Indian state of Punjab, where they are close to 65% of the population. Large communities of Sikhs live in the neighbouring states, and large communities of Sikhs can be found across India. However, Sikhs are only about 2% of the Indian population."

Just a couple of points to add. India is not a terrorist supporting nation. It is a democratic, capitalist state and an ally of the U.S. Further, Muslims don't wear turbans. Sikhs do. The next time you see a person wearing a turban, you can rest assured that that person, nor his family, friends or religious counterparts has caused harm to an American soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan or any place else. Sikhs are wholly innocent of the issues you raise.

 

[Davemcc]

You continually insist that the correct spelling (in Latin) is hominum. I was taught hominem. I've written that to you. This is about correct spelling and Latin...not what you want to make it into.

It's more than a spelling mistake. It is a grammatical error. When using the preposition ad, the noun takes the accusative case. In this case, from the phrase argumentum ad hominem, the word homo declines to the accusative case hominem.

Declension of homo
singular plural
nominative homo homines
genitive hominis hominum
dative homini hominibus
accusative hominem homines
ablative homine hominibus

 

[furrycute]

Just a couple of points to add. India is not a terrorist supporting nation. It is a democratic, capitalist state and an ally of the U.S. Further, Muslims don't wear turbans. Sikhs do. The next time you see a person wearing a turban, you can rest assured that that person, nor his family, friends or religious counterparts has caused harm to an American soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan or any place else. Sikhs are wholly innocent of the issues you raise.

No creed or nationality is completely innocent of bloodshed. To deny this is to preach belief in the impossible.

India has had its share of bloodshed violence in these last couple of years.


And oh, on the matter of India. It was reckless of India to detonate those nuclear bombs several years ago, in clear violation of international treaties banning the testing of atomic weapons.

 

[Johnd]

It's more than a spelling mistake. It is a grammatical error. When using the preposition ad, the noun takes the accusative case. In this case, from the phrase argumentum ad hominem, the word homo declines to the accusative case hominem.

Declension of homo
singular plural
nominative homo homines
genitive hominis hominum
dative homini hominibus
accusative hominem homines
ablative homine hominibus

Thank you. The professor has spoken.

 

[Tomorrow]

It's more than a spelling mistake. It is a grammatical error. When using the preposition ad, the noun takes the accusative case. In this case, from the phrase argumentum ad hominem, the word homo declines to the accusative case hominem.

Declension of homo
singular plural
nominative homo homines
genitive hominis hominum
dative homini hominibus
accusative hominem homines
ablative homine hominibus

You are correct that "ad hominum" (I didn't use argumentum) is an improper use of correct Latin grammar. (My grudging nod to John. I guess 45 years since my last Latin class was too long!) I would suggest, though, that the idiomatic use of the genitive case following prepositions is liberally sprinkled among some eloquent, if ancient Latin writers. Of course, that doesn't make it right. At my age I'm lucky if I can avoid random solecisms and use English semi-correctly!

Now that we've determined I suck at proper Latin, back to my point. John, how about not ducking this again? Sell us on your points of view rather than ...ahem...attacking some of these fellow AH'ers.

 

[highfihoney]

I think you are mistaking Sikhism as some sect of Islam. In fact, the two are unrelated. Sikhs are primarily from India and are a peaceful community which has, in fact, earned respect.

Hi Dave,nope,im not mistaking Indians for Iraqi's,i have no problem with Indians,they act nornmal & go about life in their own way & dont bother anybody.

The whole point is not to focus on what im mistakingly calling a turbin, Im talking about what seperates the different sects or tribes in Iraq & what makes them hate each other,the differences are based mostly on religion,several neighboring tribes religious belifs can be distinguished by how their chosen way to wear their head gear differs from other tribes.

My naming of the Iraqi head gear as a turbin is incidental.

 

[Davemcc]

No creed or nationality is completely innocent of bloodshed. To deny this is to preach belief in the impossible.

India has had its share of bloodshed violence in these last couple of years.


And oh, on the matter of India. It was reckless of India to detonate those nuclear bombs several years ago, in clear violation of international treaties banning the testing of atomic weapons.

I stand by my statement that no Sikh has harmed an American soldier in Iraq, Afghanistan or any place else. To be sure, at some point since the 16th century, some Sikhs must have drawn some blood somewhere, but Sikhism as a religion is wholly innocent of the issues raised here.

I did not, nor would I, say that India is entirely free of violence. India and Pakistan have fought over control of the Kashmir region, a longstanding point of contention between the two nations. Also, Indian troops have fought beside British troops in many conflicts.

I fear that no matter what I say, you will disagree, but your replies don't even rise to the level of pithy. I've come to the conclusion that your username was chosen as a description of your ability to process logic. I still don't think that you've clicked the links I provided earlier because you haven't posted anything to indicate that you have. It seem like intellectual laziness on your part. Ignorance is forgivable. It is the state we are born into. Deliberate ignorance is another matter.

But as a last comment on the China matter (that you will brush off as trivial and post some less that pithy comment about), China has recently demonstrated that it can destroy orbiting satellites from land launched rockets. What purpose would the development of this technology have? To destroy the Fox Network's satellites? Not. In reality, it is a demonstration that China can threaten the whole American military's command and control communications satellite network in the event of conflict. While you undoubtedly do not realize the gravity of the event, I rest assured that the United States Strategic Command has taken notice and will treat the threat seriously.

Hey, there's a nose on your face. Care to dispute that, too?

 

[Davemcc]

Somewhere around Chiang's death in the 70's and the empowerment of the Carter administration, we stopped supporting Taiwan not because of anything that Taiwan did, but because of China...our continued support of Taiwan would thwart ties with China.

I hear what you're saying, but you're apparently not hearing me (or all of my message). I think Chiang was a noble man and a great leader. But Mao certainly had his attributes as well. We did not wholly support the rebellion, nor the takeover of Taiwan...we did what served our best interests at the time. And we have vacillated. Our continued non-support of Taiwan for the past thirty years is an indirect endorsement of China's takeback of Taiwan. Like it or not.

You speak of democracy and supporting democracies throughout the world. Where has our support of Taiwan been for the past three decades (other than being a main purchaser of all those things they produce)? It is narrow-minded to not realize this, and that our support now for an independent Taiwan would most likely prompt China to sever all ties with us (would you like that?) and take back Taiwan by force.

I understand what you've written and I empathize. I even agree with some of what you've written. But politicking is not as simple as "supporting democracy".

Johnd,

I am quite happy to say that I entirely agree with this post. I would like to make a few comments, though.

You mention Carter, the quintessential diplomat and negotiator. Going back to part of the earlier discussion here, re: negotiations (it's been a winding thread, I know), it would seem that Carter tacitly gave away the sovereignty of Taiwan for diplomatic reasons, but in exchange for what, exactly? It leads back to my argument against compromise between good and evil. In this case China still gets Taiwan even after the U.S. has compromised its position and has received zero in return. Compromise only strengthens the party with the least morality.

It would have been better had all western nations supported Taiwan as an independent nation and had Taiwan sit in the UN assembly. Perhaps that was not a feasible solution even for as skilled a negotiator as Carter, but I still believe that Taiwan's de facto existence is a merit based argument. I wouldn't expect the Chinese to negotiate, compromise or even budge on the issue, as it is in their interest to remain firm. But it is also in the interest of Taiwan that western democracies hold firm on the issue and not simply surrender or negotiate away the lives of free people. In this case, the status quo is acceptable to me.

Realistically, if China felt that it's claim to Taiwan was entirely legitimate, they would have taken it by now. It is not a fait accompli. China does expect resistance, both from Taiwan's western friends and from the Taiwanese people themselves, hence the massive military buildup with a focus upon taking Taiwan by force and deterring the U.S. from interfering when it does.

China's leadership has been traditionally deliberate and patient, while unyielding. I do believe that China will take Taiwan and that it will be anti-climactic when it happens. But I will not say that it's right.

 

[Johnd]

You mention Carter, the quintessential diplomat and negotiator.

Good catch Dave. I actually wrote "Somewhere around...Carter administration". Something of a seed.

Nixon was the one responsible for commencing diplomacy with China...kind of a double-edged sword, isn't it? Foster relations with a huge up and coming nation, while having to sever ties with that little island if there is any hope of the former. I'll be interested in continuing this discussion later...I'm off to work. Good day.

 

[Davemcc]

Good catch Dave. I actually wrote "Somewhere around...Carter administration". Something of a seed.

Nixon was the one responsible for commencing diplomacy with China...kind of a double-edged sword, isn't it? Foster relations with a huge up and coming nation, while having to sever ties with that little island if there is any hope of the former. I'll be interested in continuing this discussion later...I'm off to work. Good day.

Nixon was up to his eyeballs in alligators with China until he gave Vietnam to the communists. He was only one stray pilot away from a war nobody wanted.

A quick look reveals that Carter ended diplomatic relations with the Republic of China (Taiwan) shortly after Deng Xiaoping visited the White House in 1979. So it seems that Carter negotiated away the lives and freedom of the Taiwanese people at that time. So it seems. And for what? But it seems that Carter's skill as a negotiator is separate from his foreign or domestic policy results. I offer as evidence, Taiwan (obviously), the Iran hostages, stagflation, fuel rationing and price caps. Although, I will give him credit for negotiating the Israel-Egypt Peace Accord in 1979.

 

[furrycute]

I fear that no matter what I say, you will disagree, but your replies don't even rise to the level of pithy. I've come to the conclusion that your username was chosen as a description of your ability to process logic. I still don't think that you've clicked the links I provided earlier because you haven't posted anything to indicate that you have. It seem like intellectual laziness on your part. Ignorance is forgivable. It is the state we are born into. Deliberate ignorance is another matter.

Pithy? I see, only my Indian friends use this term.

Let me state this once again, China's annual military expenditure is only 1/10 that of the U.S., to claim that in the next few years China can build up a naval force that will surpass the U.S. navy in number and in strength is not only ludicrous, it defies logic and common sense.

By the same logic I can point the finger at India for inciting an unprecedented arms race in Asia by detonating those nuclear bombs, by purchasing tens of billions of the latest military hardware (MiG 35's, missiles, destroyers, aircraft carriers, tanks, subs, etc.) from Russia and the U.S.


As to the satellite incident, it was unfortunate that China chose to conduct such a test at a time of rising international tensions. But both the U.S. and the then Soviet Union successfully launched rockets that destroyed their own orbiting satellites in the 1980's. This is outdated technology, hardly ground breaking.

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

In reality, it is a demonstration that China can threaten the whole American military's command and control communications satellite network in the event of conflict.

In conjunction with an EMP device you could effectively disable any US Military technology more advanced than the rifle. Our troops aren't very effective when the tanks, subs, aircraft carriers, and airplanes won't work.

The soviets had an entire science of building electromagnetic-proof vehicles, but our lowest-bidding subcontractors have written the whole idea off as proftitless coldwar paranoia tech.

 

[Davemcc]

Let me state this once again, China's annual military expenditure is only 1/10 that of the U.S., to claim that in the next few years China can build up a naval force that will surpass the U.S. navy in number and in strength is not only ludicrous, it defies logic and common sense.

Let's examine your statement, shall we. The U.S. has a base military budget of $439.3 Billion, not including the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.

China's official budget is $35.3 Billion, but is it really? The U.S. government believes that figure is close to $90 Billion. Also, not included in the budget is military acquisitions, such as destroyers and aircraft, nor research and development costs, revenue from arms sales, etc. Even a modest estimate of comparable budget terms to the U.S. puts the Chinese budget at $65 Billion, making China the second largest military spender in the world, behind the U.S.

Further, China's military spending has posted double digit percentage increases nearly continuously since the early '90's with no likelihood of slowing (even as high as 28.8% in 1994). Even in China's official budget, 30% is allocated to new weapons systems, on top of the non-budget weapons systems sourced from foreign suppliers. Now, China is well known for outproducing manufactured goods less expensively than other countries including the U.S. and has virtually shut out several whole sectors of the American economy in the process. The point being that China can produce things much cheaper even within their budget than the U.S., so one must be cautious to weigh the purchasing power of the Chinese military when considering that budget for building new weapons systems domestically, if your sole source of criteria is published budget figures.

What does all this mean?

China already has the largest military in the world (2.5 million strong), spends potentially 20% of the U.S.' budget, spends more outside budget for weapons systems acquisitions and, here's the fun part, while the U.S. divides this budget defending the globe with standing forces in Europe, et alia, all of China's military budget is directed and kept within China to use for it purposes in Asia, where the American military presence is limited. So, can China achieve parity with the U.S. given its understated budget, off-budget spending and double digit annual military spending growth? You better believe it.

Some links for you not to read.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/budget.htm

And from a lefty source, if that's what you need to believe.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4773358.stm

Intelligent comments or or useful information to add are welcome.

 

[Davemcc]

I held back my most compelling argument regarding China expecting that somebody would Pshaw what I've already shared.

China currently has roughly $1.33 Trillion in Foreign Currency Reserves and no national debt to speak of. To put that in perspective, if China wanted to match America's Nimitz class carrier fleet @ about $6 Billion each, they could take that from petty cash, then decide what to do with the other $1.27 Trillion in foreign cash money. But why pay for it out of their cash reserves when they can spend that from current income. Those reserves are growing at over $20 Billion/month and nothing to spend it on? China currently has more currency reserves than any other nation (Thank you Wal-Mart shoppers). Ludicrous? Defies logic and common sense?

China's ability to build or buy any level of military hardware is not in question. It is a function of how much SHOULD they buy. In China's case, their only potential adversary is the United States. They do not need to match outright the capability of the American military, except in their own sphere of influence. To that end, they have started with missile defense, a fleet of DDG/FFG's, littoral ships and dipped a toe in the water with a single carrier. But their current military buildup of current technology hardware can be sustained, even accelerated, without any strain whatsoever on it's domestic budget.

One compelling reason for China to continue this slow buildup is that it expects that the U.S. will not interfere with it's plans in Asia because of these foreign currency holdings. China currently holds about $350 Billion in U.S. Treasury Bills and more in currency, totaling about $700 Billion.

A quote from Hillary Clinton on MSNBC:
"Sen. Hillary Clinton told CNBC last week she sees “a slow erosion of our economic sovereignty,” and she singled out China’s big holdings of Treasury debt as an example.

As my MSNBC.com colleague Tom Curry wrote last week, Clinton is making America’s dependence on Chinese investors a central theme of her 2008 presidential campaign. When people ask her why the U.S. doesn’t get tougher with China on issues like trade, she says, her response has been: “How do you get tough on your banker?" "

Now this is the reason that I say China will take Taiwan and that it will be anti-climactic. But it is unwise to dismiss China's military potential, either in the short term or long term. China is banking (literally) on the fact that America cannot afford a conflict, but is ensuring that it can defend it's national interests against the American military if events escalate to that point.

edit - links for anyone who cares to look.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/business/10yuan.html?ex=1331182800&en=335d930937a411b1&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aRSQn4jZo0BU&refer=columnist_pesek
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_exchange_reserves
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17424874/page/2/

 

[Buckle-meister]

China is banking (literally) on the fact that America cannot afford a conflict, but is ensuring that it can defend it's national interests against the American military if events escalate to that point.

I think you just described the most desireable situation for any country!