Re:Send the Sales VP to California!
on
Solar Power Play
·
· Score: 2
What you miss is that there haven't been any solar farms of even close to the scale discussed in this
thread constructed. Anywhere.
However, it's trivial to extrapolate the known effects of solar farms that have been set up, and it's
also useful to keep in minds the basic laws of thermodynamics -- in other words, are you seriously
suggesting that taking out about 20% (the current efficiency of solar cells, though see yesterday's story
on newer, more efficient cells) of the solar energy hitting an areas the size of the Mojave Desert would
not have such an effect? Really?
First off, a lot of rich people do indeed get there with hard work -- the number of
millionaires in this country, for example, has been growing by leaps and bounds for
years now, and even the fortune 500 has a fair amount of recent wealth in it.
But that's completely beside the point -- by obsessing on the idea that someone, somewhere
might have more than you, you are both a.) ignoring the opportunities and wealth which
you have in this society which you wouldn't have in any other society, and b.) ignoring the fact that this society, unlike others
actually uses the wealth of the rich to produce wealth at all levels of society.
In short, you're laboring under two misconceptions:
Belief that economics is a zero sum game -- that is belief that someone having more
necessarily means that you have less. In real life it doesn't work this way -- the
total amount of wealth in circulation is constantly growing, and the standard of
living at all
levels of society has been improving by leaps and bounds.
Belief that the wealthy just `sit on' their money -- in real life someone who
just `sits on' his money doesn't stay wealthy very long. What rich people actually do
(and why they stay rich) is invest their money. And that investment puts their money
to work creating jobs, developing new technologies, and generally making everyone's
life better.
You argue that capitalism `hasn't been good' to your family, even as they enjoy
a standard of living unheard of in the world's history, and miles beyond that
enjoyed in any socialist state ever.
And then you suggest that we dismantle the engine which got us this far, and is getting
us farther with each generation (you live better than your father ever did, and your
children will have more than you do) in search of some pie-in-the-sky `redistribution'
scheme, whose results history has already shown us a dozen times over to be tyrrany
and disaster.
I guess you haven't really thought about this too much, have you?
Or maybe because you take for granted all that you have, you don't realize
that you're already living better than the citizens of any socialist system
ever have or ever will. Now you claim that you're not living better than you are now
because `the rich people have all the wealth', but that claim doesn't make
any sense:
See, let's take it for granted that the claim that people like you make is true,
and the top 5% or so of society control 50% of the wealth (what this means when
the top 5% is a constantly changing group isn't clear). So let's do what you'd
seem to like, and kill them outright and `redistribute' (it sounds so much better
than `steal') their hard-earned wealth.
Well, if that's 50% of all wealth, than that's enough to take everyone else and
double their holdings. Now ask yourself honestly -- if your wealth was
doubled tomorrow, how long would it take you to spend this money and be back
where you started? A couple of months? A year? Two years?
And then what? The new top 5% doesn't hold nearly as much as the last one, so you're
not going to get very far by killing them too, and in the meantime, you've destroyed
an enormous pool of investments which had been hard at work creating jobs,
growing new technologies and so forth, so everyone is doubly hurt by your plan.
Sure looks to me like you haven't thought this through all the way...
You can hurl insults all you want, but `uncaring' would be pursuing
a system which has already been proven bankrupt by history, instead of
the system which has brought more people more liberty, prosperity,
and democracy than any other in the world's history.
Actually, you're sounding like a spoiled kid -- unlike you, I have
lived in this world for a while, raised kids, and the whole lot.
I understand that you're pissed that your father made bad decisions. Really,
I do. But it's sad that you extend this into calls for changes which would
only make everyone suffer.
The fact is, capitalism, as practiced here, has done very well at providing a
baseline. All socialism has ever accomplished is to set a ceiling -- and to show
how low the floor could go, as the system dragged everyone down.
No, they are not in any way under the rule of Israel. 97% of the West Bank has been completely
out of Israel's control, and in the hands of Arafat since Oslo.
This is what Israel put on the table. The Palestinian half of the bargain was an end to the murder-suicide
bombings, and agreement to recognize Israel's right to exist. The PA has refused to live up to either of
these conditions.
And if we lived in a world where everyone who might oppose us was tractable to Clinton-style wishy-washiness and
`engagement', that would be all very nice. In the real world, where some of those who oppose us act in basically
irrational manners and/or oppose us because they disagree with basic tenets which we hold dear, that's a recipe
for disaster (as the Clinton administration clearly demonstrates).
In short, in the real world, you're suggesting that we bribe tyrants who would destroy us, and when that fails,
give into their demands.
I'm not convinced. I doubt anyone else reading this is either.
Your kidding yourself -- there's no one in this country who couldn't
have a computer (or a car, or a house), if those were there priorities.
If people choose to spend their money on other things instead, well, unless
you're telling us that you have a right to tell them where to spend their
money, well, that's how things end up.
The only thing sad about the situation is that it's exactly those who listen
to idiots like you and blame others for their problems instead of working
to make their lives better who suffer.
Fortunately for everyone, that's not very many, though it must burn you up
that that's the case, eh?
What he's saying is that the closest anyone in this country
comes to being `fucked' is to have one car instead of two,
two bedrooms instead of four, or a pentium II instead of a
pentium IV. Even the `poor' have that much, plus refridgerators,
air conditioning, cell phones, and all the other things that
the poor in a non-capitalist system such as the Soviet Union
could only dream of.
So if you want to call that `fucking over the little guy', go ahead --
just don't expect people to take you seriously.
What those of you who claim that capitalism is `breaking down' miss is that
capitalism continues to deliver improvements at all levels of society,
unlike any other system out there.
To give a clear example, the bottom 20% of society in the US in 1990
had, consumed, and spent as much (after adjusting for inflation) as the middle
20% had done in 1950.
No other system provides growth like that. That's why while you whine and complain,
the `workers' (if such a term even makes sense in a society with as much social mobility
as ours) aren't on board with your tyrranical ideas.
This crime of being jewish on PA lands is some new kind of blood libel? Are you aware that such knowing
lies can be punishable crimes? What about Ha'aretz reporter Amira Haas [freemedia.at], who lives in
occupied West bank?
Are their `useful idiots' like Mr. Haas or Adam Shapiro? Sure. They stand in contrast to the almost daily
murders of Jewish settlers by Fatah and the al-Aqsa brigades, both of which report directly to Mr. Arafat,
and to the repeated lynchings of any Palestinians even suspected of wanting peace with Israel by Mr. Arafat's
Tanzim security forces.
The Amnesty report you cite is riddled with errors -- most notably
it still alleges that there was a massacre at Jenin even though
even Arafat now admits
that this was a lie.
Now, you manage to find one instance of a child accidentally killed by Israeli
troops in the middle of a gun battle with armed gunmen. This you hold up against
murder-suicide bombers in the children's areas of restaurants, and murderers who
break into homes and shoot children as they hear their bedtime stories.
And if you haven't noticed, area A includes 97% of the west bank -- look it up for
yourself. As to `citizenship' of those in the west bank, they are citizens -- of
the PA. That Arafat does not give them any rights is hardly Israel's fault,
now is it? Or are you saying that they should be citizens of Israel? I thought you
wanted two seperate nations?
Fascinating -- so your `proposal' is that we use our power to deal with anyone anywhere who you feelis doing something
nasty to anyone, as long as our self defense is not at stake. But when faced with someone who we know is
building WMD, and who we know has no qualms about using them, including potentially on us, well, hands off, man!
Not exactly a coherent foreign policy, is it?
Here's what I say: the President and government of the US are directly responsible to provide for the defense of
the US and its citizens. Among other things, this means making it very dangerous to harbor those who are trying
to attack us, and making it very dangerous to build WMD which might be used on us or our allies.
As for what might `produce' terrorists (an interesting word -- are you really claiming that those involved don't choose
their own actions?), the last decade has shown us that what produces terrorism is weakness and lack of response to
terrorism -- show them that terrorism achieves their goals, and you'll get more terrorists. Just look at the record: our
cutting and running in the face of Mogadishu led straight to the first attack on the World Trade Center. Our refusal
to adequately pursue the network that carried out that attack led to the embassy attacks. Our two-bit response to those
attacks led to the attack on the USS Cole. And our `fire a few missiles and forget the matter' response to that led
to September 11.
Actually, that's not correct. Even the article you link to speaks of Husseing spending a whole bunch of time and money trying to get nukes, but claims he
has not succeeded (how they can know, since no inspectors have been near Iraq in four years is left as an exercise for the reader). These sources have
more information on the matter, and disagree even on this point:
As for delivery systems, a missile is hardly the only way to deliver a WMD. A far bigger risk is that of Mr. Hussein providing such a weapon to
al Qaeda, or to his own intelligence services for a more uncoventional delivery.
And yes, if North Korea becomes as much a threat to us as Iraq is, we will deal with it. That doing so will be harder now that they already have nukes is
a perfect demonstration of why we must not allow Mr. Hussein to get that far.
Your point being what, exactly? In 1983, Saddam had not yet gassed his own people (1988),
embarked on a massive program to develop WMD (1987, and much more so after 1991), invaded
Kuwait (1990-1), or signed UN disarmament pacts, which he is now in material breach of
(1992-2002).
At the time, he was the lesser of two evils, a counterbalance to the menace in Teheran.
Times change.
And Israel is a free and open democracy, with equal rights for all of its citizens, but you're
a far cry from being CowboyNeal...
The only article about `three Palestinians dead' on the page you link to is this one,
about two Palestinian gunmen and a passerby who died after they opened fire on Israeli troops.
Other articles on the site include a piece
twelve Jews who were shot yesterday
while walking home from prayer. Another article discusses the two Jewish children,
ages four and five, who were shot with their mother a few days ago
while sitting down for bedtime stories.
Needless to say, there is nothing like the absurd statistic about deaths you cite -- care to provide a cite, or are you just blowing hot air?
As for `two states in Israel', if you haven't noticed, the Israelis have been trying to give the Palestinians their own state since the Oslo
peace accords of 1991 (and 97% of the West Bank has been under PA control since that time, asking only for an end to the murder-suicide bombings in return. The y never got that end.
As for democracy, I would remind you that all citizens of Israel, Jewish, Christian, or Palestinian, enjoy exactly the same rights -- indeed there
were 17 Palestinian members of the Knesset (Israel's parliament) the last time I checked. This makes a marked contrast to the PA lands, where it is a crime
punishable by death to be even suspected of being Jewish.
Uh, yeah, OK. That's not what the UN says, that's not what anyone
who's gotten out of Iraq alive says, that's not even what those who
oppose US action (such as chief inspector Hans Blix) say.
The fact is, at the time the inspectors were forced out of Iraq in
1998, they were regularly finding not only chemical and biological
weapons facilities, but supplies such as high-grade centrifuges
built with high-quality pure aluminum tubes, such as are used
in production of weapons-grade nuclear material.
All this in the hands of a country which agreed to disarm after it's
brutal aggression against Kuwait was rolled back, and has been in material
breach of those agreements for years.
That may seem like `no meaningful weapons' to you, but that's a chance
which we cannot afford to take.
All of this ignores the simple fact: our goal in this action is self-defense, plain
and simple. If we had reason to believe that China posed the same sort of threat to
us as Mr. Hussein does, we would indeed have to act. That China already has nuclear
weapons would necessarily make such action more difficult -- and is a perfect example
of why we must prevent Mr. Hussein from reaching the same point.
Now, your proposal would seem to be that any time a tin-pot dictator expresses a desire
to attack us, we should rush to meet his demands. Do you really believe that this would
make a good foreign policy? I doubt it...
I see, so not only is the US mean and nasty, but we can `arm-twist'
sovereign states into signing resolutions which they have permanent
veto power over? I guess I'm not buying it. Any of the UK, China,
France, or Russia could have vetoed the resolution. Not only didn't
any of them, but none of the other members of the Security Council
voted against it either.
So which is it? If we don't consult the UN, we're `unilateralist',
but if we do, we're `arm-twisting' them? Damned if we do, damned
if we don't, eh?
And I repeat my statement -- Palestinians who live within Israel have
all the rights of other Israelis. What you refer to is the absurd
Palestinian claim of a `right of return' which would allow non-Palestinians
(such as Arafat, who was born and raised in Cairo) to claim Israeli
citizenship. No other nation on earth is asked to adopt such a policy,
not even the Arab lands, most of which expelled their Jewish populations
long ago.
And in case you haven't
been paying attention, Israeli children are being murdered by Palestinians
almost every day. But no doubt in your black-helicopter world, shooting
toddlers while they listen to a bedtime story is `heroic resistance', eh?
Are you really suggesting that
we should make foreign policy based not on what is right but on
what we hope will keep totalitarian dictators and terrorist
crazies from attacking us?
Ah, okay, so if you object to any government at all owning nukes, even free, open democracies
like Israel, can we assume you'll be going after France and Britain next?
No? So it's just Israel you despise? Thanks for making that clear.
Slashdot Mirror
What you miss is that there haven't been any solar farms of even close to the scale discussed in this thread constructed. Anywhere.
However, it's trivial to extrapolate the known effects of solar farms that have been set up, and it's also useful to keep in minds the basic laws of thermodynamics -- in other words, are you seriously suggesting that taking out about 20% (the current efficiency of solar cells, though see yesterday's story on newer, more efficient cells) of the solar energy hitting an areas the size of the Mojave Desert would not have such an effect? Really?
First off, a lot of rich people do indeed get there with hard work -- the number of millionaires in this country, for example, has been growing by leaps and bounds for years now, and even the fortune 500 has a fair amount of recent wealth in it.
But that's completely beside the point -- by obsessing on the idea that someone, somewhere might have more than you, you are both a.) ignoring the opportunities and wealth which you have in this society which you wouldn't have in any other society, and b.) ignoring the fact that this society, unlike others actually uses the wealth of the rich to produce wealth at all levels of society.
In short, you're laboring under two misconceptions:
You argue that capitalism `hasn't been good' to your family, even as they enjoy a standard of living unheard of in the world's history, and miles beyond that enjoyed in any socialist state ever.
And then you suggest that we dismantle the engine which got us this far, and is getting us farther with each generation (you live better than your father ever did, and your children will have more than you do) in search of some pie-in-the-sky `redistribution' scheme, whose results history has already shown us a dozen times over to be tyrrany and disaster.
I guess you haven't really thought about this too much, have you?
Or maybe because you take for granted all that you have, you don't realize that you're already living better than the citizens of any socialist system ever have or ever will. Now you claim that you're not living better than you are now because `the rich people have all the wealth', but that claim doesn't make any sense:
See, let's take it for granted that the claim that people like you make is true, and the top 5% or so of society control 50% of the wealth (what this means when the top 5% is a constantly changing group isn't clear). So let's do what you'd seem to like, and kill them outright and `redistribute' (it sounds so much better than `steal') their hard-earned wealth.
Well, if that's 50% of all wealth, than that's enough to take everyone else and double their holdings. Now ask yourself honestly -- if your wealth was doubled tomorrow, how long would it take you to spend this money and be back where you started? A couple of months? A year? Two years?
And then what? The new top 5% doesn't hold nearly as much as the last one, so you're not going to get very far by killing them too, and in the meantime, you've destroyed an enormous pool of investments which had been hard at work creating jobs, growing new technologies and so forth, so everyone is doubly hurt by your plan.
Sure looks to me like you haven't thought this through all the way...
You can hurl insults all you want, but `uncaring' would be pursuing a system which has already been proven bankrupt by history, instead of the system which has brought more people more liberty, prosperity, and democracy than any other in the world's history.
Actually, you're sounding like a spoiled kid -- unlike you, I have lived in this world for a while, raised kids, and the whole lot.
I understand that you're pissed that your father made bad decisions. Really, I do. But it's sad that you extend this into calls for changes which would only make everyone suffer.
The fact is, capitalism, as practiced here, has done very well at providing a baseline. All socialism has ever accomplished is to set a ceiling -- and to show how low the floor could go, as the system dragged everyone down.
No, they are not in any way under the rule of Israel. 97% of the West Bank has been completely out of Israel's control, and in the hands of Arafat since Oslo.
This is what Israel put on the table. The Palestinian half of the bargain was an end to the murder-suicide bombings, and agreement to recognize Israel's right to exist. The PA has refused to live up to either of these conditions.
And if we lived in a world where everyone who might oppose us was tractable to Clinton-style wishy-washiness and `engagement', that would be all very nice. In the real world, where some of those who oppose us act in basically irrational manners and/or oppose us because they disagree with basic tenets which we hold dear, that's a recipe for disaster (as the Clinton administration clearly demonstrates).
In short, in the real world, you're suggesting that we bribe tyrants who would destroy us, and when that fails, give into their demands.
I'm not convinced. I doubt anyone else reading this is either.
Your kidding yourself -- there's no one in this country who couldn't have a computer (or a car, or a house), if those were there priorities.
If people choose to spend their money on other things instead, well, unless you're telling us that you have a right to tell them where to spend their money, well, that's how things end up.
The only thing sad about the situation is that it's exactly those who listen to idiots like you and blame others for their problems instead of working to make their lives better who suffer.
Fortunately for everyone, that's not very many, though it must burn you up that that's the case, eh?
What he's saying is that the closest anyone in this country comes to being `fucked' is to have one car instead of two, two bedrooms instead of four, or a pentium II instead of a pentium IV. Even the `poor' have that much, plus refridgerators, air conditioning, cell phones, and all the other things that the poor in a non-capitalist system such as the Soviet Union could only dream of.
So if you want to call that `fucking over the little guy', go ahead -- just don't expect people to take you seriously.
What those of you who claim that capitalism is `breaking down' miss is that capitalism continues to deliver improvements at all levels of society, unlike any other system out there.
To give a clear example, the bottom 20% of society in the US in 1990 had, consumed, and spent as much (after adjusting for inflation) as the middle 20% had done in 1950.
No other system provides growth like that. That's why while you whine and complain, the `workers' (if such a term even makes sense in a society with as much social mobility as ours) aren't on board with your tyrranical ideas.
(and yes, I'm posting non-AC now. Posting limit per day and all.)
Umm, hello? Are you really claiming that capitalism doesn't make everyone's life better, wise guy?
In a country where even the `poor' have cars, spacious apartments or houses, refrigerators, air conditioning, computers, and so forth?
In a country where even the `poor' have a standard of living which no other society has provided even to it's `rich'?
Nice try, wise guy.
This crime of being jewish on PA lands is some new kind of blood libel? Are you aware that such knowing lies can be punishable crimes? What about Ha'aretz reporter Amira Haas [freemedia.at], who lives in occupied West bank?
Are their `useful idiots' like Mr. Haas or Adam Shapiro? Sure. They stand in contrast to the almost daily murders of Jewish settlers by Fatah and the al-Aqsa brigades, both of which report directly to Mr. Arafat, and to the repeated lynchings of any Palestinians even suspected of wanting peace with Israel by Mr. Arafat's Tanzim security forces.
The Amnesty report you cite is riddled with errors -- most notably it still alleges that there was a massacre at Jenin even though even Arafat now admits that this was a lie.
Now, you manage to find one instance of a child accidentally killed by Israeli troops in the middle of a gun battle with armed gunmen. This you hold up against murder-suicide bombers in the children's areas of restaurants, and murderers who break into homes and shoot children as they hear their bedtime stories.
And if you haven't noticed, area A includes 97% of the west bank -- look it up for yourself. As to `citizenship' of those in the west bank, they are citizens -- of the PA. That Arafat does not give them any rights is hardly Israel's fault, now is it? Or are you saying that they should be citizens of Israel? I thought you wanted two seperate nations?
Fascinating -- so your `proposal' is that we use our power to deal with anyone anywhere who you feelis doing something nasty to anyone, as long as our self defense is not at stake. But when faced with someone who we know is building WMD, and who we know has no qualms about using them, including potentially on us, well, hands off, man!
Not exactly a coherent foreign policy, is it?
Here's what I say: the President and government of the US are directly responsible to provide for the defense of the US and its citizens. Among other things, this means making it very dangerous to harbor those who are trying to attack us, and making it very dangerous to build WMD which might be used on us or our allies.
As for what might `produce' terrorists (an interesting word -- are you really claiming that those involved don't choose their own actions?), the last decade has shown us that what produces terrorism is weakness and lack of response to terrorism -- show them that terrorism achieves their goals, and you'll get more terrorists. Just look at the record: our cutting and running in the face of Mogadishu led straight to the first attack on the World Trade Center. Our refusal to adequately pursue the network that carried out that attack led to the embassy attacks. Our two-bit response to those attacks led to the attack on the USS Cole. And our `fire a few missiles and forget the matter' response to that led to September 11.
Actually, that's not correct. Even the article you link to speaks of Husseing spending a whole bunch of time and money trying to get nukes, but claims he has not succeeded (how they can know, since no inspectors have been near Iraq in four years is left as an exercise for the reader). These sources have more information on the matter, and disagree even on this point:
As for delivery systems, a missile is hardly the only way to deliver a WMD. A far bigger risk is that of Mr. Hussein providing such a weapon to al Qaeda, or to his own intelligence services for a more uncoventional delivery.
And yes, if North Korea becomes as much a threat to us as Iraq is, we will deal with it. That doing so will be harder now that they already have nukes is a perfect demonstration of why we must not allow Mr. Hussein to get that far.
Your point being what, exactly? In 1983, Saddam had not yet gassed his own people (1988), embarked on a massive program to develop WMD (1987, and much more so after 1991), invaded Kuwait (1990-1), or signed UN disarmament pacts, which he is now in material breach of (1992-2002).
At the time, he was the lesser of two evils, a counterbalance to the menace in Teheran.
Times change.
And Israel is a free and open democracy, with equal rights for all of its citizens, but you're a far cry from being CowboyNeal...
You're trolling, right?
The only article about `three Palestinians dead' on the page you link to is this one, about two Palestinian gunmen and a passerby who died after they opened fire on Israeli troops. Other articles on the site include a piece twelve Jews who were shot yesterday while walking home from prayer. Another article discusses the two Jewish children, ages four and five, who were shot with their mother a few days ago while sitting down for bedtime stories.
Needless to say, there is nothing like the absurd statistic about deaths you cite -- care to provide a cite, or are you just blowing hot air?
As for `two states in Israel', if you haven't noticed, the Israelis have been trying to give the Palestinians their own state since the Oslo peace accords of 1991 (and 97% of the West Bank has been under PA control since that time, asking only for an end to the murder-suicide bombings in return. The y never got that end.
As for democracy, I would remind you that all citizens of Israel, Jewish, Christian, or Palestinian, enjoy exactly the same rights -- indeed there were 17 Palestinian members of the Knesset (Israel's parliament) the last time I checked. This makes a marked contrast to the PA lands, where it is a crime punishable by death to be even suspected of being Jewish.
Uh, yeah, OK. That's not what the UN says, that's not what anyone who's gotten out of Iraq alive says, that's not even what those who oppose US action (such as chief inspector Hans Blix) say.
The fact is, at the time the inspectors were forced out of Iraq in 1998, they were regularly finding not only chemical and biological weapons facilities, but supplies such as high-grade centrifuges built with high-quality pure aluminum tubes, such as are used in production of weapons-grade nuclear material.
All this in the hands of a country which agreed to disarm after it's brutal aggression against Kuwait was rolled back, and has been in material breach of those agreements for years.
That may seem like `no meaningful weapons' to you, but that's a chance which we cannot afford to take.
All of this ignores the simple fact: our goal in this action is self-defense, plain and simple. If we had reason to believe that China posed the same sort of threat to us as Mr. Hussein does, we would indeed have to act. That China already has nuclear weapons would necessarily make such action more difficult -- and is a perfect example of why we must prevent Mr. Hussein from reaching the same point.
Now, your proposal would seem to be that any time a tin-pot dictator expresses a desire to attack us, we should rush to meet his demands. Do you really believe that this would make a good foreign policy? I doubt it...
I see, so not only is the US mean and nasty, but we can `arm-twist' sovereign states into signing resolutions which they have permanent veto power over? I guess I'm not buying it. Any of the UK, China, France, or Russia could have vetoed the resolution. Not only didn't any of them, but none of the other members of the Security Council voted against it either.
So which is it? If we don't consult the UN, we're `unilateralist', but if we do, we're `arm-twisting' them? Damned if we do, damned if we don't, eh?
And I repeat my statement -- Palestinians who live within Israel have all the rights of other Israelis. What you refer to is the absurd Palestinian claim of a `right of return' which would allow non-Palestinians (such as Arafat, who was born and raised in Cairo) to claim Israeli citizenship. No other nation on earth is asked to adopt such a policy, not even the Arab lands, most of which expelled their Jewish populations long ago.
And in case you haven't been paying attention, Israeli children are being murdered by Palestinians almost every day. But no doubt in your black-helicopter world, shooting toddlers while they listen to a bedtime story is `heroic resistance', eh?
Are you really suggesting that we should make foreign policy based not on what is right but on what we hope will keep totalitarian dictators and terrorist crazies from attacking us?
Really, Mr. Chamberlain?
Ah, okay, so if you object to any government at all owning nukes, even free, open democracies like Israel, can we assume you'll be going after France and Britain next?
No? So it's just Israel you despise? Thanks for making that clear.
Hey, are you European?
So in other words, you advocate appeasement?