You're right, I should not have included the 'allies'. The west is perhaps not exactly the Borg, but it is machine-like in that there are definite consequences for not coplying with the leader of the pack. All of which, i expect, is worked out and communicated in advance of action.

And how is this different from any other nation on the planet - with the except that "The West" has more ways to demonstrate displeasure than, say, Sri Lanka.

Guru Strat, do you think the U.S. has real-time video coverage of the whole world? Perhaps utilising the iridium network.

If ya don't like that question, do you think anyone has built a true AI system yet? I forget the exact term, know what I mean?

previous question - > well the U.S. has an unusually powerful military, plus probably more expert political analysts than the rest of the world put together. Other countries dont get to call the tune.

Assuming you mean overhead imagery; the answer is 'no' - otherwise they wouldn't need UAVs. That's not to say that a sat pass can't be arraigned, but they don't routinely do so. Besides, if you were going to observe the world in realtime you'd pretty much have to *employ* the world to look at the imagery...

As for your second post, you make my point. The United States does what *every other nation* does, we just have more oopmh. Are you expecting something else? Its a bit of a double standard to bitch about the foreign policy of the US when it is functionally identical to what goes on around the globe. Does the US have a greater influence than, say, Iran? Sure - but you'll note that within the constraints of their influence and resources, they pull the same crap on weaker nations.

If you can name a nation that does not, I will be suprised.

Strat strat! Sausage egg and cheese sandwich on English muffin or croissant? That is, England or France?

Hold the cheese, bacon instead of sausage, and a croissant and my arteries are hardening already!

I wasn't bitching! You assume I was. The point I was trying to make is that the U.S. is one of the few countries in the world with the organisational and analytical power to be able to figure out all the angles and effectively communicate and make optimal use of the analysis. I think most countries would be silly to even try and compete with this capability. And so therefore they are in a position of being given an ultimatim. The choice they make has probably already been correctly guessed by U.S. analysts, so the whole system is actually quite predictable and machine-like, to some extent. And so what I am really saying is that whilst this political machine is not unique, it is singularly remarkably efficient. I guess its a pretty weak point and not really worth all this typing.

efficient != effective

Honestly, the intelligence community needs to be a combined community with open sharing of information when it comes to terrorism. Despite what we in the US think, Mossad knows more about what is happening in Israel and SISMI knows Italy way better than the CIA or NSA ever could. Likewise, who knows more about the UK than MI6? We need the intelligence communities to work together on this topic. Problem is, each has their own national interests at heart.

@fiedler, you are correct, I was making an unwarranted assumption. Debate with Sicarius can have that effect on me ;)

@draug MI5

True, MI5 is internal intelligence like the FBI. MI6 is external like the CIA.

What does the NSA do?

Like every other secret service, the NSA does 'secret shit' that nobody else knows about.

where do babies come from

Oooh ooh, may I?
They come from craigslist. Take a look, it says right there-- for sale: babies and kids!

Na seriously - what do they work on?
Clearly not precise projects, but what field?

http://www.nsa.gov/

If it involves National Security, they have their hands in it.

Strat! Strat!

How does double-predestination preclude the possibility of the real presence?

Strat! Strat!

What's an adpositional ablative case?

And how is such declined?

Strat Strat! Some chick asked me out because she thinks I'm a cool person (false). While I find her offer flattering, I find her unattractive and uninteresting. What is the most badass way to decline?

Make out with her mother infront of her?

I know a guy who's girlfriend cheated on him, so to get back at her he slept with her mum :S

@baum - I don't know off the top of my head; I'll get back to you after I do a bit of research

@ava - why would you want a 'badass' way to reject her; to show off? While that may get the yucks from your buddies, showing a little class is more likely to get a favorable reaction from other members of the opposite sex, including some you may find neither unattractive nor uninteresting.

In any case, if she hasn't come out and said anything directly, playing oblivious is a great way to go. She'll eventually give up in frustration, and without giving her a specific *reason* for rejection, she doesn't have anything to argue against (ie: "I only like people with X quality" "I have X quality / can work on it if you give me a chance")

Another idea is to express interest in someone else, which would indicate you're not on the market. The risk there, of course, is just like telling Russia you plan to Sealion England, word can get around, with various negative consequences if you *aren't* actually interested.

Your final option is the most brutal: bluntly indicate a lack of interest. It's not a pleasant thing to experience, so there isn't any need to be 'badass' to ruin someone's day - but unfortunately, sometimes its the only option available.

Well, you could also take a six month job on the other end of the country. Works great for leaving drama behind ;)

@fig - I think there is a subtle difference between 'I'm not into you' and 'you cheating whore, you'll rue this day!' ;)

Indeed.
When he told me the story, as well as thinking, "Wow, you're not a nice guy" I was also wondering "What the hell is up with her family that her own mother would sleep with her bf"

Strat!!!!
Its half 1 and my mind isn't working properly.
Is it trivial to show that
nullity(T^k) <= k nullity (T)
for some constant k and linear map T

@baum - asking an agnostic about Calvinistic theology is an odd thing to do, but my understanding of what I'm reading is that God chooses who is going to hell at birth, no matter how nice they are. I don't buy the whole "predestination" thing to begin with, but I fail to see how this philosophy being accurate would preclude the existence of a deity. It'd be a deity I wasn't particularly *fond* of, but you can't really 'disprove' belief in a Supreme Being, and if we're going to use the logic - or lack thereof - of a belief system to determine if it is 'true', then there are a lot of 'faiths' that just aren't going to cut the mustard.

As for the "adpositional ablative case", I'm not even going to bother digging into that level of detail when it comes to grammar. I don't do Calculus for shits and giggles; nor do I bother dotting every i and crossing every t if I am successfully communicating my thoughts in a professional manner.

@Fig - I don't do linear freaking algebra either. Do you know how long it's been since I've had to use math of that level in the real world? *Never* - the people I deal with are amazed when I can get excel to add up a column of numbers, and their eyes glaze when I calculate Internal Rates of Return. Their heads would explode if I did anything more complex - and given everything else I juggle lately, so would mine! ;)