On Friday, October 8, 2021 at 11:58:19 AM UTC-6, chris wrote:

> I've been monitoring the climate change issue for over a decade, and
> it's not so clear cut as those with an agenda would claim. Climate
> change ?, yes, but no evidence for a climate emergency.

Although I haven't crunched the numbers for climate change myself,
my understanding is that climate change is the outcome of an
increased carbon dioxide level changing the Earth's equilibrium
temperature.

The Earth's _actual_ temperature has, at this time, increased enough
to lead to noticeable changes in our climate.

As it takes a considerable _time_ for the Earth's average temperature to
move to a new equilibrium value, this leads me to suspect that if
present-day carbon dioxide levels stopped increasing, the world would
still continue getting warmer for quite some time to come, and, thus,
the ultimate result of today's carbon dioxide levels will be more serious,
likely much more serious, than anything we see today.

Plus, I *don't* define a "climate emergency" as, say, having to evacuate
New York City because it is about to be undersea due to rising sea
levels. Instead, multiple famines in tropical countries due to crop
failures caused by a warmer planet is enough of an emergency to me
to justify drastic measures to avoid it.

John Savard

On Friday, October 8, 2021 at 12:28:11 PM UTC-6, MitchAlsup wrote:

> Only let those with an IQ above 120 vote !

I suppose I *could* tell you to Google
"literacy tests" voting "United States"
for how that might work out in practice.

Not that I don't share the sentiment, even if some might call it
elitist. I'd settle for something achievable, though:

1) Only let people who have graduated high school vote, and
2) Ensure the high school curriculum once more educates
graduates to at least the level that was expected back in the
1950s or 1960s.

John Savard

On Friday, October 8, 2021 at 1:06:32 PM UTC-6, MitchAlsup wrote:
> On Friday, October 8, 2021 at 1:57:10 PM UTC-5, Stefan Monnier wrote:

> > AFAIK in cases of crisis what tends to happen is war.

> Which, after a short period of time, reduces the population to where
> that population is sustainable.

Historically, the amount by which even the most major wars reduced
the population sizes of the countries involved can best be described
as "negligible", with the exception of the War of the Triple Alliance
against Paraguay.

Of course, if the war is of the "global thermonuclear" variety, significant
reductions in the human population could be achieved, but they would
be accompanied by additional reductions in the carrying capacity of
the planet. Thus, it might be that most of the credit would go not to the
war itself, but to the mass famines that happen afterward.

John Savard

antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote:
> Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> wrote:
>> On 10/8/2021 1:56 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 08/10/2021 03:31, Branimir Maksimovic wrote:
>>>> On 2021-10-08, MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> <
>>>>> Greed is what got all those industries into China !
>>>>> What motivation will get us out ?
>>>> Not needed. As greed drives China as well, there would
>>>> be no interrest conflict except that China firms as
>>>> China firms are not welocome in the west :P
>>> Don't mix up "the west" and "the USA". Most of the west is happy to
>>> work with China, albeit carefully and with quiet mumblings about "human
>>> rights" as long as the complaints won't affect business too much.
>>>
>>> The USA likes to define itself as "the good guy" in the world, and that
>>> means that they always need a "bad guy" - an enemy worthy of them. The
>>> real threat - military, economic, diplomatic, etc., is less important
>>> than the image of threat they can conjure in people's minds.
>> Or, to look at it the other way, Europe tends to ignore real threats
>> until they get really bad, then rely on the USA to "bail them out". See
>> Nazi Germany, or ask the many former communist block countries if the
>> Soviet Union threat was real or only an image.
>
> If you look at actions threat was USA. In period of 1950-1990 USA
> conducted several military interventions:
>
> Korean War
> Gwatemala 1954 intervention
> Bay of Pig invasion
> Dominican 1965 intervention
> Wietnam War (with bombing of neigbours)
> Grenada 1983
> Panama 1990
>
> In that period I know of 4 soviet intervention:
>
> Soviet air force in Korean War
> intervention in Hungary 1956
> intervention in Czechoslovakia 1968
> Afganistan War
>
> And while USA happlily threatens and attacks other countries to this
> day, soviet system collapsed after (and partially due to) Afganistan
> War: important part of "soviet package" was preserving peace.
> With Afganistan war this was broken and caused significant drop
> in popular support for sovoer regime.
>
> Of couse, soviet block had plans to attack "west". But realistically,
> west and USA in particular always had much stronger forces.
> And reality of modern war is that army which refuses to attack
> looses. Soviet block could hope that in case of war western
> losses would be high enough to deter attack and that apparently
> worked, we had peace in Europe for long time.

Western countries always short changed their millitary and depended
on nukes as a fall back. The US neutron bombs were specifically designed
to enhance neutron radiation giving a lethal dose to Soviet tank crews.
This would force the Soviets to break up their tank attack
but also forces the US to go nuclear almost immediately.

Soviets knew, as did everyone else, that if they attacked that the West
would be forced to resort to nukes within 48 hours, probably on west
soil at least at first (which many West Germans figured out and
therefore were none too pleased with this tactic, thus the protests).

So the US saved gobs of money by putting themselves in a position
where they were forced to use nukes almost immediately in West Germany.
This effectively neutralized the 10,000 Soviet tanks because when Soviets
asked themselves 'Are the Americans willing to sacrifice West Germany
to stop our tanks?' the answer was yes they would.

And since everyone knew the Soviets would probably respond to nukes
with nukes, and everyone assumed it would escalate to US vs Russia ICBMs
(because both sides viewed their arsenals as "use it or lose it"
and had launch on warning policy (because the flight time of a submarine
launched missile from Atlantic coast to Washington DC is 5 minutes so
the whole launch decision has to be made within that 5 minutes))
it was a Mexican standoff and no one was going to cross that border.

There is a wonderful 2013 documentary called "The Man Who Saved the World"
about a Soviet nuclear missile commander who in 1983 refused to launch
a counter attack against the US because he believed the launch detect
warning systems signaling an attack were giving false signals (they were).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Saved_the_World

> In Poland, where I live we do not have much sentiment for Soviet
> Union, it was percevied as foreign force exploiting Poland and
> forcing Soviet interest on Poland. But now we replaced this
> by USA forcing their interest on Poland. Of couse, dependence
> on USA has some advantages compared to dependence on Soviet
> Union. but USA policy is not so nice as USA propaganda tries
> to claim.

But no more Lada's so that's a plus.

EricP wrote:
>
> There is a wonderful 2013 documentary called "The Man Who Saved the World"
> about a Soviet nuclear missile commander who in 1983 refused to launch
> a counter attack against the US because he believed the launch detect
> warning systems signaling an attack were giving false signals (they were).
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Saved_the_World

After the fall of the Soviet Union the former missile commander
Stanislav Petrov goes to the US to meet Kevin Costner and tours about.
The documentary is about the almost launch, the aftermath for him,
and that trip to the US and tour his old adversary.

There is a full copy on youtube. 1h 45m
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TNdihbV5go

According to Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>:
>> Which, after a short period of time, reduces the population to where
>> that population is sustainable.
>
>Historically, the amount by which even the most major wars reduced
>the population sizes of the countries involved can best be described
>as "negligible", with the exception of the War of the Triple Alliance
>against Paraguay.

World War I wiped out a generation of young men in Europe.

Out of a total German population of 67 million, 11 million were in
the military, 1.7 million died, 4.2 million wounded, 1.1 million
prisoners or missing

France, population 41M, 8.4M in military, 1.3M killed, 4.2M wounded,
..5M prisoners or missing. Similar for Britain, Austria-Hungary, Russia,
and other smaller countries. US casualties were much less since we
skipped the first 3/4 of the war.

It's not Paraguay but it was a huge chunk of the working age population.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

On 10/8/2021 2:06 PM, Terje Mathisen wrote:
> Stephen Fuld wrote:
>> On 10/8/2021 1:56 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 08/10/2021 03:31, Branimir Maksimovic wrote:
>>>> On 2021-10-08, MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> <
>>>>> Greed is what got all those industries into China !
>>>>> What motivation will get us out ?
>>>>
>>>> Not needed. As greed drives China as well, there would
>>>> be no interrest conflict except that China firms as
>>>> China firms are not welocome in the west :P
>>>
>>> Don't mix up "the west" and "the USA".  Most of the west is happy to
>>> work with China, albeit carefully and with quiet mumblings about "human
>>> rights" as long as the complaints won't affect business too much.
>>>
>>> The USA likes to define itself as "the good guy" in the world, and that
>>> means that they always need a "bad guy" - an enemy worthy of them.  The
>>> real threat - military, economic, diplomatic, etc., is less important
>>> than the image of threat they can conjure in people's minds.
>>
>> Or, to look at it the other way, Europe tends to ignore real threats
>> until they get really bad, then rely on the USA to "bail them out".
>> See Nazi Germany, or ask the many former communist block countries if
>> the Soviet Union threat was real or only an image.
>
> Norway and the rest of NATO all depend on having the US as the big
> brother in the group, that's obviously correct.
>
> OTOH, the only time the common defense part of the NATO charter has been
> used was after 9/11 when all the NATO countries came to the aid of USA.

Yes. And I, for at least one, and many others are most appreciative.
And for what it is worth, I think President Biden handled the pull out
from Afghanistan very poorly, particularly with regard to consultation
with our NATO allies. We owed you better than that.

> A "funny" side effect of that was the American general who revealed the
> existence of the FSK, a Norwegian elite special force that had existed
> since shortly after WW2, hiding in plain sight among the "regular"
> well-known special forces, like the navy underwater demolition divers.

I did not know about that. Then shame on us.

> (I believe they trace their history & inspiration back to the group that
> blew up the heavy water plant in Rjukan, without firing a single shot.)

You may recall some years ago I sent you a link to an American
documentary about that. It was great work.

--
- Stephen Fuld
(e-mail address disguised to prevent spam)

On 10/8/2021 6:16 PM, antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote:
> Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> wrote:
>> On 10/8/2021 1:56 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 08/10/2021 03:31, Branimir Maksimovic wrote:
>>>> On 2021-10-08, MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> <
>>>>> Greed is what got all those industries into China !
>>>>> What motivation will get us out ?
>>>>
>>>> Not needed. As greed drives China as well, there would
>>>> be no interrest conflict except that China firms as
>>>> China firms are not welocome in the west :P
>>>
>>> Don't mix up "the west" and "the USA". Most of the west is happy to
>>> work with China, albeit carefully and with quiet mumblings about "human
>>> rights" as long as the complaints won't affect business too much.
>>>
>>> The USA likes to define itself as "the good guy" in the world, and that
>>> means that they always need a "bad guy" - an enemy worthy of them. The
>>> real threat - military, economic, diplomatic, etc., is less important
>>> than the image of threat they can conjure in people's minds.
>>
>> Or, to look at it the other way, Europe tends to ignore real threats
>> until they get really bad, then rely on the USA to "bail them out". See
>> Nazi Germany, or ask the many former communist block countries if the
>> Soviet Union threat was real or only an image.
>
> If you look at actions threat was USA. In period of 1950-1990 USA
> conducted several military interventions:
>
> Korean War
> Gwatemala 1954 intervention
> Bay of Pig invasion
> Dominican 1965 intervention
> Wietnam War (with bombing of neigbours)
> Grenada 1983
> Panama 1990
>
> In that period I know of 4 soviet intervention:
>
> Soviet air force in Korean War
> intervention in Hungary 1956
> intervention in Czechoslovakia 1968
> Afganistan War

If you want to say that the US is far from perfect; that we sometimes
don't act in ways consistent with the image we have of ourselves and try
to project to others, and that we make mistakes, then I certainly agree.

> And while USA happlily threatens and attacks other countries to this
> day,

I disagree with the characterization of "happily". And I don't think we
have attacked any country in the last say 15 years (Since Iraq, which
was a bad blunder for us). And I think we really aren't threatening
anyone today who isn't threatening us or our allies.

> soviet system collapsed after (and partially due to) Afganistan
> War: important part of "soviet package" was preserving peace.
> With Afganistan war this was broken and caused significant drop
> in popular support for sovoer regime.

Agreed.

> Of couse, soviet block had plans to attack "west". But realistically,
> west and USA in particular always had much stronger forces.
> And reality of modern war is that army which refuses to attack
> looses. Soviet block could hope that in case of war western
> losses would be high enough to deter attack and that apparently
> worked, we had peace in Europe for long time.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what point you are making here. Clearly
the deterrence of NATO prevented the Soviet Union from expanding their
dominance in eastern Europe to western Europe.

> In Poland, where I live we do not have much sentiment for Soviet
> Union, it was percevied as foreign force exploiting Poland and
> forcing Soviet interest on Poland.

OK.

> But now we replaced this
> by USA forcing their interest on Poland.

In what way is the US forcing its interests on Poland? I confess to not
a lot of knowledge about the subject. My impression, drawn mostly for
western media, is that Poland, after a period of growth of democracy and
its economy, is experiencing a period of more populist, anti democratic
positions, and that both the US and western Europe are "concerned".

You are obviously much closer and more knowledgeable about the
situation, so please tell us what we should know.

> Of couse, dependence
> on USA has some advantages compared to dependence on Soviet
> Union.

How is Poland dependent on the US?

> but USA policy is not so nice as USA propaganda tries
> to claim.

I wouldn't doubt that, but I don't have much knowledge. What are we
doing that isn't "nice"?

>>> Currently,
>>> China is the favourite enemy of the USA. I don't mean that China does
>>> /not/ pose a threat, economic, diplomatic and military, to the USA or
>>> other countries - merely that the USA exaggerates it for its own purposes.
>>
>> Or, conversely, Europe downplays it for its own purposes. It's a matter
>> of perspective.
>
> I read recent article about increase of China naval forces. According
> to ariticle China is a threat because now US Navy no longer is stronger
> in sees surrounding China. In other words, USA can no longer
> realistically threaten China with naval intervention on China shores,
> so China is a threat to USA.

I don't think anyone in the US is worried about naval intervention on
China's shores, unless they attack Taiwan. On the other hand, there is
evidence that Australia is worried about China's navy. Clearly China is
building up its Navy. The question is why and what are they planning?

BTW, I am aware that this is all very OT for comp.arch. I am willing to
pursue it further, (I enjoy learning other's perspectives.) but if
others object, I understand and will stop.

--
- Stephen Fuld
(e-mail address disguised to prevent spam)

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> schrieb:
> On Friday, October 8, 2021 at 1:06:32 PM UTC-6, MitchAlsup wrote:
>> On Friday, October 8, 2021 at 1:57:10 PM UTC-5, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>
>> > AFAIK in cases of crisis what tends to happen is war.
>
>> Which, after a short period of time, reduces the population to where
>> that population is sustainable.
>
> Historically, the amount by which even the most major wars reduced
> the population sizes of the countries involved can best be described
> as "negligible", with the exception of the War of the Triple Alliance
> against Paraguay.

Thirty Year's war, that reduced the population of Germany by 20-45%.

On 08/10/2021 23:06, Terje Mathisen wrote:
> Stephen Fuld wrote:
>> On 10/8/2021 1:56 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 08/10/2021 03:31, Branimir Maksimovic wrote:
>>>> On 2021-10-08, MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> <
>>>>> Greed is what got all those industries into China !
>>>>> What motivation will get us out ?
>>>>
>>>> Not needed. As greed drives China as well, there would
>>>> be no interrest conflict except that China firms as
>>>> China firms are not welocome in the west :P
>>>
>>> Don't mix up "the west" and "the USA".  Most of the west is happy to
>>> work with China, albeit carefully and with quiet mumblings about "human
>>> rights" as long as the complaints won't affect business too much.
>>>
>>> The USA likes to define itself as "the good guy" in the world, and that
>>> means that they always need a "bad guy" - an enemy worthy of them.  The
>>> real threat - military, economic, diplomatic, etc., is less important
>>> than the image of threat they can conjure in people's minds.
>>
>> Or, to look at it the other way, Europe tends to ignore real threats
>> until they get really bad, then rely on the USA to "bail them out". 
>> See Nazi Germany, or ask the many former communist block countries if
>> the Soviet Union threat was real or only an image.
>
> Norway and the rest of NATO all depend on having the US as the big
> brother in the group, that's obviously correct.

Equally, the US depends on Norway and the rest of NATO for defence
against the old USSR (modern Russia is a lot less of a military threat
these days - they have found it is cheaper, safer and more effective to
manipulate elections and that kind of thing).

Europe can certainly be glad the USA eventually joined WWII, and that
they are in NATO. But don't imagine that the USA did it to be nice to
Europeans, or that we owe them anything - the USA did it because it was
best for the USA, and Europeans get nothing free here. Don't
misunderstand me - I think that is absolutely fine. A good agreement,
alliance, trade deal, etc., is when all sides get something good for
them. Just don't imagine that the USA is a kind big brother looking out
for us little people in Europe - the USA entered WWII and NATO for their
own benefit.

>
> OTOH, the only time the common defense part of the NATO charter has been
> used was after 9/11 when all the NATO countries came to the aid of USA.
>

You forgot the quotation marks around "aid".

> A "funny" side effect of that was the American general who revealed the
> existence of the FSK, a Norwegian elite special force that had existed
> since shortly after WW2, hiding in plain sight among the "regular"
> well-known special forces, like the navy underwater demolition divers.
> (I believe they trace their history & inspiration back to the group that
> blew up the heavy water plant in Rjukan, without firing a single shot.)
>
> I'm a reserve officer and I had never heard a single rumour about such a
> unit, which is pretty well done since every prime minister and his/her
> minister of defence all had to be briefed about them, over a 50-year
> time span.
>
> BTW, FSK are experts on long-duration missions in winter/cold/high
> altitude, they went into Iraq very early in the build-up to the invasion.
>

They also did a lot of recognisance and other missions in the
Afghanistan mountains, AFAIK.

On 10/9/2021 1:37 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 08/10/2021 23:06, Terje Mathisen wrote:

>> BTW, FSK are experts on long-duration missions in winter/cold/high
>> altitude, they went into Iraq very early in the build-up to the invasion.
>>
>
> They also did a lot of recognisance and other missions in the
> Afghanistan mountains, AFAIK.

reconnaissance?

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:

> On 08/10/2021 23:06, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>> Stephen Fuld wrote:
>>> On 10/8/2021 1:56 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 08/10/2021 03:31, Branimir Maksimovic wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-10-08, MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>> <

[..]

>
> Equally, the US depends on Norway and the rest of NATO for defence
> against the old USSR (modern Russia is a lot less of a military threat
> these days - they have found it is cheaper, safer and more effective to
> manipulate elections and that kind of thing).
>
> Europe can certainly be glad the USA eventually joined WWII, and that
> they are in NATO. But don't imagine that the USA did it to be nice to
> Europeans, or that we owe them anything - the USA did it because it was

I'm confused. here ^^ (who are we?)

> best for the USA, and Europeans get nothing free here. Don't
> misunderstand me - I think that is absolutely fine. A good agreement,
> alliance, trade deal, etc., is when all sides get something good for
> them. Just don't imagine that the USA is a kind big brother looking out
^^^^ (who are them?)

> for us little people in Europe - the USA entered WWII and NATO for their
^^ (who are us?)
> own benefit.
>

I don't quite remember wher you are, originally, from (before defecting
til Norge that is)

[..]

P.S. this post assumes monospaced-ligaless font (for carrets to line up /
make sense)

On 08/10/2021 19:34, MitchAlsup wrote:
> On Friday, October 8, 2021 at 11:46:39 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
>> On 08/10/2021 17:47, Stephen Fuld wrote:
>>> That group is a truly tiny proportion. The people who don't want to
>>> address the problem because it will cost them money or restrict their
>>> freedom are a bigger problem. But fortunately, as I said above, that
>>> proportion is shrinking.
>>>
>> I hope you are right.
>>
>> The politics of actually getting something done, however, is often
>> harder (in all countries, not just the USA - I'm just using it for
>> examples here). In the USA, the solid majority of people want hugely
>> stricter gun control and they want a public health service and public
>> education system in line with most of Europe. I realise the path to
>> getting there would be long and difficult, but there are no American
>> politicians willing to take the first step despite public opinion. The
>> majority of people want the government to "do something" about climate
>> change. What makes you optimistic that politicians will handle this one?
> <
> There is the problem of that second amendment thing:: first one has to
> pass the amendment to amend the 2nd amendment, then 2/3rds of the
> states have to ratify. Right now there is no chance of even getting 25 states
> to ratify, let alone 34.
> <
> Secondly, right now the supreme court will not allow, and this will continue
> to be the case for another 30 years.
> <
> So, even though 70%-odd want stricter/better gun laws--it is not realistic
> to assume anything in this direction will happen for decades.

I appreciate that changing gun laws for the better is difficult and
time-consuming. Some kinds of laws take a long time to change, and you
also have to change practices - you'd be greatly reducing a significant
industry and retail system, and you have to figure out how to get guns
out of criminals' hands, not just how to stop them getting more so
easily. Yes, it would be a matter of decades to get the USA into a more
civilised place with respect to guns.

But the point is, it will take decades from the time the process is
started - and no politician will start it.

>>>
>
>>>
>>>
>>> While I agree that our current political situation is very harmful, if
>>> that were the cause of lack of progress in nuclear power, you would
>>> expect lots of new nuclear plants in other countries. Not only isn't
>>> that happening, but some European countries are shutting theirs down.
>>>
>> A lot of European politicians are totally spineless when it comes to
>> nuclear power - the USA does not have a monopoly on political problems
>> or navel-gazing policies. Some countries /are/ making progress in
>> nuclear power - India and China, in particular.
> <
> A bit more than a decade ago the world thought the Japanese had Nuclear
> power under good control.......

I recommend learning from mistakes - our own and other peoples' - rather
than panicking and throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It's
important to note that Japan's massive over-reaction to the Fukushima
disaster killed a lot more people than the reactor did.

On 09/10/2021 10:48, Ivan Godard wrote:
> On 10/9/2021 1:37 AM, David Brown wrote:
>> On 08/10/2021 23:06, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>
>>> BTW, FSK are experts on long-duration missions in winter/cold/high
>>> altitude, they went into Iraq very early in the build-up to the
>>> invasion.
>>>
>>
>> They also did a lot of recognisance and other missions in the
>> Afghanistan mountains, AFAIK.
>
> reconnaissance?
>

Twice in two days! Maybe someone has swapped out my coffee for decaf.

On 09/10/2021 11:23, clamky@hotmail.com wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>
>> On 08/10/2021 23:06, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>>> Stephen Fuld wrote:
>>>> On 10/8/2021 1:56 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>>>> On 08/10/2021 03:31, Branimir Maksimovic wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021-10-08, MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> <
>
> [..]
>
>>
>> Equally, the US depends on Norway and the rest of NATO for defence
>> against the old USSR (modern Russia is a lot less of a military threat
>> these days - they have found it is cheaper, safer and more effective to
>> manipulate elections and that kind of thing).
>>
>> Europe can certainly be glad the USA eventually joined WWII, and that
>> they are in NATO. But don't imagine that the USA did it to be nice to
>> Europeans, or that we owe them anything - the USA did it because it was
>
> I'm confused. here ^^ (who are we?)

Europe.

>
>> best for the USA, and Europeans get nothing free here. Don't
>> misunderstand me - I think that is absolutely fine. A good agreement,
>> alliance, trade deal, etc., is when all sides get something good for
>> them. Just don't imagine that the USA is a kind big brother looking out
> ^^^^ (who are them?)
>

Everyone involved in an alliance (in this case, NATO).

>> for us little people in Europe - the USA entered WWII and NATO for their
> ^^ (who are us?)

Europeans.

>> own benefit.
>>
>
> I don't quite remember wher you are, originally, from (before defecting
> til Norge that is)
>

Scotland.

> [..]
>
> P.S. this post assumes monospaced-ligaless font (for carrets to line up /
> make sense)
>

Of course - why would anyone use anything else in emails?

On 09/10/2021 04:38, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, October 8, 2021 at 12:28:11 PM UTC-6, MitchAlsup wrote:
>
>> Only let those with an IQ above 120 vote !
>
> I suppose I *could* tell you to Google
> "literacy tests" voting "United States"
> for how that might work out in practice.
>
> Not that I don't share the sentiment, even if some might call it
> elitist. I'd settle for something achievable, though:
>
> 1) Only let people who have graduated high school vote, and
> 2) Ensure the high school curriculum once more educates
> graduates to at least the level that was expected back in the
> 1950s or 1960s.
>

The problem is not people's IQ or their general education. The problem
is how much people know about the issues they are voting on, and how
much of what they "know" is actually based on reality and objective
facts (to the extent that objectivity can be determined).

I think you either have to say that politics should be left in the hands
of trained professionals, with a system of specific education, tests,
accreditation, etc., such as you have for doctors and lawyers - or you
accept that you have a poor quality but fair system and let (almost)
everyone vote equally. Anything in between and you'll still have people
voting based on "gut feeling", habit, or something they read on
Facebook, and it won't even be fair or representative.

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:

> On 09/10/2021 11:23, clamky@hotmail.com wrote:
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>>
>>> On 08/10/2021 23:06, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>>>> Stephen Fuld wrote:
>>>>> On 10/8/2021 1:56 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>> On 08/10/2021 03:31, Branimir Maksimovic wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2021-10-08, MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> <
>>
>> [..]
>>
>>>
>>> Equally, the US depends on Norway and the rest of NATO for defence
>>> against the old USSR (modern Russia is a lot less of a military threat
>>> these days - they have found it is cheaper, safer and more effective to
>>> manipulate elections and that kind of thing).
>>>
>>> Europe can certainly be glad the USA eventually joined WWII, and that
>>> they are in NATO. But don't imagine that the USA did it to be nice to
>>> Europeans, or that we owe them anything - the USA did it because it was
>>
>> I'm confused. here ^^ (who are we?)
>
> Europe.
>
>>
>>> best for the USA, and Europeans get nothing free here. Don't
>>> misunderstand me - I think that is absolutely fine. A good agreement,
>>> alliance, trade deal, etc., is when all sides get something good for
>>> them. Just don't imagine that the USA is a kind big brother looking out
>> ^^^^ (who are them?)
>>
>
> Everyone involved in an alliance (in this case, NATO).
>
>>> for us little people in Europe - the USA entered WWII and NATO for their
>> ^^ (who are us?)
>
> Europeans.
>
>>> own benefit.
>>>
>>
>> I don't quite remember wher you are, originally, from (before defecting
>> til Norge that is)
>>
>
> Scotland.

Hah! When i had a brief gig in .no, the second floor of the house where
the company i was employed by rented the first one for me and my
colleague, were rented by Scottish construction workers who worked on
Bergen's hospital renovation. I thought to myself then - Norwegians must
be really loaded if they can afford to hire Brits for construction work
the idea was solidified when a Finn has referred to them on IRC as -
"those oil barons"

>
>> [..]
>>
>> P.S. this post assumes monospaced-ligaless font (for carrets to line up /
>> make sense)
>>
>
> Of course - why would anyone use anything else in emails?

;)

>> What motivation will get us out ?
> Same thing. As we learn the costs of supply interruptions, etc. to profits
> companies will react accordingly.

The "magical market" tends to have problems managing short term gains
versus long term costs, sadly.

Stefan

On 10/9/2021 1:37 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 08/10/2021 23:06, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>> Stephen Fuld wrote:
>>> On 10/8/2021 1:56 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 08/10/2021 03:31, Branimir Maksimovic wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-10-08, MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>> <
>>>>>> Greed is what got all those industries into China !
>>>>>> What motivation will get us out ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not needed. As greed drives China as well, there would
>>>>> be no interrest conflict except that China firms as
>>>>> China firms are not welocome in the west :P
>>>>
>>>> Don't mix up "the west" and "the USA".  Most of the west is happy to
>>>> work with China, albeit carefully and with quiet mumblings about "human
>>>> rights" as long as the complaints won't affect business too much.
>>>>
>>>> The USA likes to define itself as "the good guy" in the world, and that
>>>> means that they always need a "bad guy" - an enemy worthy of them.  The
>>>> real threat - military, economic, diplomatic, etc., is less important
>>>> than the image of threat they can conjure in people's minds.
>>>
>>> Or, to look at it the other way, Europe tends to ignore real threats
>>> until they get really bad, then rely on the USA to "bail them out".
>>> See Nazi Germany, or ask the many former communist block countries if
>>> the Soviet Union threat was real or only an image.
>>
>> Norway and the rest of NATO all depend on having the US as the big
>> brother in the group, that's obviously correct.
>
> Equally, the US depends on Norway and the rest of NATO for defence
> against the old USSR (modern Russia is a lot less of a military threat
> these days - they have found it is cheaper, safer and more effective to
> manipulate elections and that kind of thing).
>
> Europe can certainly be glad the USA eventually joined WWII, and that
> they are in NATO. But don't imagine that the USA did it to be nice to
> Europeans, or that we owe them anything - the USA did it because it was
> best for the USA, and Europeans get nothing free here. Don't
> misunderstand me - I think that is absolutely fine. A good agreement,
> alliance, trade deal, etc., is when all sides get something good for
> them. Just don't imagine that the USA is a kind big brother looking out
> for us little people in Europe - the USA entered WWII and NATO for their
> own benefit.

I certainly agree with that. And, as I said elsewhere, we are far from
perfect. But I don't want to lose sight of the fact that e.g. western
Europe with its US "influence", was far better off than eastern Europe
with its Soviet "influence". And just ask the people of Hong Kong about
Chinese "influence". :-(

--
- Stephen Fuld
(e-mail address disguised to prevent spam)

On 10/9/2021 7:20 AM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>> What motivation will get us out ?
>> Same thing. As we learn the costs of supply interruptions, etc. to profits
>> companies will react accordingly.
>
> The "magical market" tends to have problems managing short term gains
> versus long term costs, sadly.

True. But we are seeing some movement. To bring this back to some
relation to this NG. Intel is investing tens of billions of dollars
into new fabs, mostly in the US, and one in Europe. Other industries
are doing similar, albeit on a much smaller scale.

--
- Stephen Fuld
(e-mail address disguised to prevent spam)

On 09/10/2021 17:02, Stephen Fuld wrote:
> On 10/9/2021 1:37 AM, David Brown wrote:
>> On 08/10/2021 23:06, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>>> Stephen Fuld wrote:
>>>> On 10/8/2021 1:56 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>>>> On 08/10/2021 03:31, Branimir Maksimovic wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021-10-08, MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>> Greed is what got all those industries into China !
>>>>>>> What motivation will get us out ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not needed. As greed drives China as well, there would
>>>>>> be no interrest conflict except that China firms as
>>>>>> China firms are not welocome in the west :P
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't mix up "the west" and "the USA".  Most of the west is happy to
>>>>> work with China, albeit carefully and with quiet mumblings about
>>>>> "human
>>>>> rights" as long as the complaints won't affect business too much.
>>>>>
>>>>> The USA likes to define itself as "the good guy" in the world, and
>>>>> that
>>>>> means that they always need a "bad guy" - an enemy worthy of them. 
>>>>> The
>>>>> real threat - military, economic, diplomatic, etc., is less important
>>>>> than the image of threat they can conjure in people's minds.
>>>>
>>>> Or, to look at it the other way, Europe tends to ignore real threats
>>>> until they get really bad, then rely on the USA to "bail them out".
>>>> See Nazi Germany, or ask the many former communist block countries if
>>>> the Soviet Union threat was real or only an image.
>>>
>>> Norway and the rest of NATO all depend on having the US as the big
>>> brother in the group, that's obviously correct.
>>
>> Equally, the US depends on Norway and the rest of NATO for defence
>> against the old USSR (modern Russia is a lot less of a military threat
>> these days - they have found it is cheaper, safer and more effective to
>> manipulate elections and that kind of thing).
>>
>> Europe can certainly be glad the USA eventually joined WWII, and that
>> they are in NATO.  But don't imagine that the USA did it to be nice to
>> Europeans, or that we owe them anything - the USA did it because it was
>> best for the USA, and Europeans get nothing free here.  Don't
>> misunderstand me - I think that is absolutely fine.  A good agreement,
>> alliance, trade deal, etc., is when all sides get something good for
>> them.  Just don't imagine that the USA is a kind big brother looking out
>> for us little people in Europe - the USA entered WWII and NATO for their
>> own benefit.
>
> I certainly agree with that.  And, as I said elsewhere, we are far from
> perfect.  But I don't want to lose sight of the fact that e.g. western
> Europe with its US "influence", was far better off than eastern Europe
> with its Soviet "influence".  And just ask the people of Hong Kong about
> Chinese "influence". :-(
>

No doubts there!

On Friday, October 8, 2021 at 11:43:45 PM UTC-6, Stephen Fuld wrote:

> And for what it is worth, I think President Biden handled the pull out
> from Afghanistan very poorly, particularly with regard to consultation
> with our NATO allies. We owed you better than that.

The Afghan people were the most seriously affected by the precipitous
nature of the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Since Canada had already
withdrawn all its forces at that time, we, at least, can hardly complain
about being directly affected by any lack of consultation.

John Savard

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 4:08:00 AM UTC-6, David Brown wrote:
> or you
> accept that you have a poor quality but fair system and let (almost)
> everyone vote equally.

I do believe that we cannot stray very far from that principle,
since the point of democracy is to hold the government
accountable to the people.
People may not be experts, but they can, and will, vote to
protect their vital interests.

John Savard

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 2:37:33 AM UTC-6, David Brown wrote:
> On 08/10/2021 23:06, Terje Mathisen wrote:

> > OTOH, the only time the common defense part of the NATO charter has been
> > used was after 9/11 when all the NATO countries came to the aid of USA.

> You forgot the quotation marks around "aid".

Canada's airport in Gander, Newfoundland was helpful to some individual
Americans, but that has nothing to do with common defense.

Canada and the United Kingdom, at least, sent combat troops to Afghanistan,
even if Canada did not send any troops to Iraq. Our contribution may have
been small, but it was real.

John Savard

On Saturday, October 9, 2021 at 2:37:33 AM UTC-6, David Brown wrote:
> Just don't imagine that the USA is a kind big brother looking out
> for us little people in Europe - the USA entered WWII and NATO for their
> own benefit.

That is... _largely_ true.

However, on December 7, 1941, it was _Japan_ that bombed Pearl
Harbor. The United States _chose_ to issue an ultimatum to Nazi
Germany to either declare war on Japan, or face war with the
United States; presumably, it could have fought with Japan alone,
and ignored events in Europe - or at least only insisted that Germany
break its alliance with Japan, and not aid it in any way to avoid war
with the U.S..

When it comes to the Cold War...

That was indeed a conflict between the United States and the Soviet
Union, and preventing the latter from acquiring additional territory in
Europe was to the United States' benefit.

The Korean War, for example, was comparable to... World War II
starting, with the involvement of the United States, within days of
Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia in 1935. Of course, _that_ didn't
happen.

Why was the course of the war against the Axis so different from
the course of the Cold War? Anyone familiar with the Red Scare of
the 1920s and McCarthyism will have no problem understanding
the reason: business elites in the United States viewed Communist
ideology as directly threatening, while other dictatorships conquering
their neighbors was... their neighbors' problem, which the United
States could safely ignore.

NATO was a response by the United States to something that was
politically percieved as a threat, but not to a threat to the United
States' own vital security interests. It went considerably above what
was necessary for those, even if the motive was not to look after
the people of Europe any more than it was to look after the people of
Korea and Vietnam.

John Savard