Slashdot Mirror

Another question: Do we really want this in the hands of the defense department? There would be even less qualms about sending people into harms' way if something like this were in their medicine cabinet.

And don't think they wouldn't; they're quite willing to try and force potentially harmful vaccinations and other dubious treatments on their own personnel. Oh, and if something goes wrong, the drug company needn't worry - they probably won't be held accountable.

This drug definitely has a downside.

I've noticed something: throughout your posts, you keep mixing up the concepts of "unlikely existance" and "certain in the absense of". European governements, European populace, and much of the American antiwar populace seriously doubted the existance of such weapons. That's why we wanted the inspections: to *verify* and *certify* Iraq as WMD-free.

You seem to be hung up on the notion of certainty. Nothing in this world is ever certain - let alone when you're trying to verify quantities of objects destroyed in explosions a decade earlier. The European community and American antiwar community *seriously doubted* the existance, based on the available evidence.

The evidence *was* very dubious, and that's the reason for the aforementioned serious doubts and the insistance on inspections to verify Iraq's disarmament and certify it as weapons free.

My claim is that the notions that you advance are revisionist

What the heck? Did you not bloody well read the links that I gave you that I prepared *BEFORE THE WAR*? How can you call something that I prepared before the war "revisionist"?

If you were certain Iraq had no WMD

See, there you go with the word "certain". The proper phrase is "reasonable doubt". For example, if you check my Iraq FAQ from 2002, I described the case of Iraqi WMDs as "unlikely" - the stance taken by the majority of Europeans. You're the only one in this conversation talking about certainty.

who turned out to be correct not through analysis

Give me a frigging break. I've probably read more pages of IAEA, UNSCOM, and UNMOVIC documents in the past four years than you've read newspaper pages. I suggest you start reading. You'd probably be amazed at what they were saying, and what wasn't being reported in the US, in the months leading up to the invasion. For example, lets look at the four central conclusions of the IAEA's report right before we invaded, shall we?

* There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites.

* There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990.

* There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminium tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminium tubes in question.

* Although we are still reviewing issues related to magnets and magnet production, there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in a centrifuge enrichment programme.

How *dare* you try and pretend like I was just pulling this out of my arse at the time? I was all but quoting the inspection teams with my views, as weas the majority of Europe. I suggest you bloody well better read before you reply again.

Again misrepresentation of my point

Quoting you is a misrepresentation of your point?

According to Robert Boyd (mirror), The Air Force's senior intelligence analyst:

Iraq had been suspected of trying to develop remotely piloted aircraft for more than a decade, starting with attempts to convert Soviet-made MiG-21 fighter planes. When that failed, Iraqi authorities began experimenting in the mid-1990s with transforming the Czech L-29, a trainer jet, into a UAV. That effort also went nowhere, ending in 2001, Boyd said.

The Iraqis then focused on developing several t

I will conceed "stupidity" overstates the case for dramatic effect; I suspect "irrationality" is a larger cause, although the poll can be read to place "ignorance" as an additional source of blame. On the other hand, I've done rather better in life since I reduced my underestimation of my own ability to be an idiot. On the gripping hand, disagreement with current scientific orthodoxy is best backed up at the very least with statistically rigorous data.

Are those who disagree with evolution wrong? Maybe.

Maybe? At this point I leave you to the November 2004 National Geographic, available at your local library.

This strikes me as wildly optimistic, given that after almost a century and a half, Gallup polls show only a little more than a third of the US has "come to terms" with the Theory of Evolution. A good business plan will assume they will continue this way. "No one in this world, so far as I know, has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people."

Or maybe an accidental "weapon".

There has been some odd correlations between where the oil industry has been performing 200+db subsonic ocean floor tests and the earthquake.

Also, the experiments appear to be devestating to local marine life populations - my guess is that the 200+ dB tests destroy much of their sense of sound or pressure.

Anyway, it is worth a read.

This map was in a recent issue of Newsweek. It shows what voting technology is used in each county of the US.

This is a perfect example of how you are making up stuff since there are no actual crimes to mention. Cheney QUIT Halliburton long before it went into Iraq.

The crimes Happened while he was running Halliburton as I said, dipshit.
Now, maybe you're stupid enough to believe that he doesn't still own huge amounts of stock and isn't still friends with the people currently defrauding the American people. but I'm not.

As for your 2nd lie, the retaliation against Saddam Hussein was started for 100% true reasons, not "pretenses".

Right, like the WMDs, the nukes, the 45 minutes to blow us up, the al Queda ties.
What a sorry deluded person you are.

Since Bush's only crime is not being a left-wing extremist, I corrected your wording.

Right, so outing a CIA operative and destroying intelligence networks is ok since the facts her husband presented weren't in line with the fantasy story Bush was spewing. Do you really not see that fucking our intelligence gathering capabilities is bad?
Right, you probably think that it's a centrist viewpoint that dirty pictures are worse than fucking terrorists blowing our shit up.

If you actually believe this shit that has been proven absolutely to be false, then wherever you're getting your information from is clearly way the fuck out there.

I can't believe that you are trying to spin holding this truth to be self-evident that all people are created equal, that believing people should take responsibility for their actions, and that criminal organizations should be punished are way left fringe ideas.

What sort of hell would your ideal world be?

Incompetent manager?

Naw.. I blame the media at large. The Powers that Be decided Dean couldn't be President So it was said, so it was done. The big media emporers, Murdoch and Moonvies, Eisner and the scary people behind MSNBC (Microsoft and GE get together to tell YOU what to think!), were scared shitless of someone like Dean. He was an actual reformer, without skeletons in the closet. The soundlooped him ad nausem, and they never considered him seriously.

Big media was inclined to give its OK to a safe candidate, like Gephardt Kerry or Edwards, three tools who would be just as happy as the Bush regime to continue the oglipoly, and eventually the duopoly of Big Media.

For the same reason the same players killed the McCain candidacy of 2000, they killed Dean. Independent, strong minded individuals who aren't afraid to show real emotion about real issues are shunned by the big media. Either you take the carrot (stuffed shirt Democrat who gets almost the same money as the Republicans), or the stick (Ashcroft throwing us in jail for having opinions).

Granted, Joe Trippi could have done better, but it was impossible to fight the system. Just as Bush said about the 2 million protestors in Feb. 2002, "They're irrelevant". Even though Dean mobilized the greatest support, he didn't take money from the big corporations - in other words, he could raise the money from regular people, but he wasn't getting into bed with multinationals, who long ago declared war on the world.

Well, to quote Jefferson Airplane - "Up against the wall, motherfucker!"

The hundreds of thousands under Saddam, or the thousands while we were removing him?

Hundreds of thousands that were killed while Saddam was supported and sanctioned by the U.S., including his WMD programs. I've never understood the moral relativism that makes it okay to:

1) Support and fund a mass murderer by supplying him with WMD technology, 2) Send send high level envoys to shuck and jive while he's building those WMD, 3) Look the other way and whistle while he uses WMD to mass murder his own citizens, and 4) Continue to support him afterward, and then 5) Cite what you supported as being evil and mount a large-scale invasion to oust your former partner in crime?

The only plausible explanation is that today's U.S. government is packed with hypocrites and liars.

Are we talking about ATMs made by Diebold?

I hate to say it, but any company that would use MS Access for their voting machines just maybe might use VB for their ATMs.

Oh, yes... I notice that nobody's stated it here, but I'd just like to remind all you Windows users keep your machines updated with the latest patches. Ummm.... just, if you're in Europe, don't use the patches that get mailed out to you from Microsoft. Also, don't visit the wrong website (there's a unpatched flaw that allows bad websites to hijack your machine).

I only say this, because I've been getting tons of spam and Microsoft Updates (but fortunately use Linux, which is still the minority OS and therefore doesn't seem to get non-apt-type updates like this.)