Slashdot Mirror

ooking at this map: http://moat.nlanr.net/International/images/collab_ world_map.gif There are a lot of places that, surprisingly, are NOT The United States of America

But look at all those places that are! Like Canada, Mexico, Russia, China, Thailand, Japan...

But another website says the U.S. is just what's in red on this map. http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/2002/07/08/world. jpg Go fig.

Congratulations Mr Stern for such a Vivid description of your prostate:

http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/2005/10/10/stern- opal.html

Can we really rely on this mans advice to influence us? I did after reading this artical and the mental imagery wasnt all that great.

• Hilary Rosen is a lesbian.
• Carli Fiorina is a man.
• Only a sniping blogger militia can protect us from exploding Chinamen.

On the other hand, the Centre of the Known Universe is here, in some podunk called Rockall (motto: "There's fuck all in Rockall").

Cherokee Indians claim that the Center of the World (and therefore the known universe) is about ten miles north-northwest of Elberton, Georgia, near a bizarre roadside attraction called the Georgia Guidestones.

According to my deranged ex-fiancee, however, the center of the known universe is wherever the hell she happens to be at the moment. In other words, the center of the known universe is underneath whatever guy she met not twenty minutes ago.

So opinions vary, as do spellings. Personally, I'm going to agree with the aboriginal Americans, because I can get there in about two hours. See, there's nothing like being near the CotKU without actually having to be there. It's kinda like being in the suburbs.

So we can extradite spammers under either the theft or section 20. If they email someone in Australia we can get them a nice long term in the middle of the desert personally I think we should convert rockall into a prison for spammers, It's not like we'd need to add any facilities

http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/2002/10/21/chess- excitement.html has more details.

You believe it's more probable that an American President intentionally provoked an enemy and let them attack and destroy much of the Pacific Fleet to allow him to get into a war that the U.S. was then unprepared to enter due to that attack?

I'm basically not decided on this one, never have been. It's possible he didn't consider the damage that would be caused; he's a politician not a military expert. On the other hand, if his advisors who should have know the potential for damage didn't tell him, then it's their fault. They must have considered that they might be attacked; a large portion of the world was at war by then. We'll never know. You quote Tom Clancy, didn't you detect a constant theme in his books that the public never knows the whole truth? His books are largely the source of my mistrust; somehow I don't think the GWB has the integrity of Jack Ryan.

If it's useless, why would it cause an arms race or give us first-strike capability?

I didn't say it was technically useless, just that it has no real use. The physics behind it is complex, but there is no reason why it wouldn't work.

Who do you think will have the technology in 50 years?

Good point, something I've not considered. Hopefully the causes of terrorism will be long gone by then. But you may have to concede that you cannot wrap yourself up in cotton wool all the time. The world can be a dangerous place, throwing money at it will not change much.

remember the line from "The Sum of All Fears". "I'm not afraid of the guy with a thousand nuclear warheads, I'm afraid of the guy with one."

And they "proved" (in a literary sense) that this would not require a ballistic missile. So, you get your missile shield, are you going to build a huge wall around the country and make sure nukes (etc) don't get in that way? What about a ballistic missile launched from within the US? Will the system be able to handle that, or will it be limited to incoming missiles over the coastal areas. Again, I fail to see the worth of this system.

I'm sure terrorists read Clancy, it's a damn good insight into many aspects of the US for them no doubt. Who didn't think about the end of Debt of Honour re. 9/11. Scared the shit out of me, considering some of the other books.

Re: Who is going to attack the US? Consult the history books, please. Outside of Pearl Harbour (which wasn't even a state and has many other factors involved, like global madness), this hasn't happened. Terrorists don't count; every country has had problems with them at some point.

just like many people thought WWII was "Europe's War" and thought it useless to get into it.

The US didn't really get involved until most of Europe was under Nazi control. They would have had to deal with the Nazi's as a superpower. Remember, Japan attacked America, not Germany. The drive to enter the Euro war was mostly to get rid of the Nazi's. Either that, or learn to live with them. Besides, your use of the word "useless" implies a comparison to my statement of the missile shield being useless. Compare like with like please! WWII had a clear, obtainable goal.

But that also makes us the biggest target and history has shown that complacency is a fatal error.

Not building the shield could not be described as "complacence". There are other and better ways to defend yourself from real threats, not made-up-threats.

Saddam knows that. He should have known that in 1992 when a half million allies were arrayed on his border

He probably thought we were bluffing. Prior to the Gulf war, nothing like that had happened, nations do not usually get involved in other peoples wars. But, it gave Bill Hicks lot's of good material, so that'll cool. ;-) "Bring up G8. What's that do? Cool!".

However, he did not attack the US. No way could he have expected the response. In fact, the response really doesn't make a lot of sense, given the other stuff we haven't reacted to over the years. That's why he did it, he wasn't even thinking about what the US might do.

was provoked by THEIR annoyance of not being able to exist without threatening Israel and each other

If it wasn't for the oil, I think we would leave them to it. If they want to kill each other, let them. There are plenty of other problems in the world that need sorting. Anyway, what makes the Israelis so deserving of protection? Guilt over their unfortunate history? I don't know how your media has been covering things, but over the past few decades, they've probably killed far more Palestinians and committed far more atrocities than the Palatines. Here's a satiric piece on the figures. It sums up the emotional detachment we have gained from so much horror over the years. Neither side is "right", so why back either?

There is no inherent reason to believe that if we stopped supporting certain governments and they were toppled "by the people" they would be any more honest.

So the troops and US made weapons, planes, landmines are only there for show? It's too late now, with the weapons we sold them, they can defend themselves. Back in time however...hate runs deep and bridges the generations gaps. Most of these folk probably could not explain why they hate each other anyway. The only explanation is "Because we always have"

they are actually less likely to attack Israel than the alternative.

Why should that be a factor? You're willing to screw over an entire nation worth of mostly innocent people to help another nation? Any time someone criticises Israel, they get accused of being a Nazi...hang on a minute, so that gives Israel the right to do what they want, with the west's support? No wonder some folk hate us over it. But Israels are white, the others are black, so that makes it easy for us.

If the public in many of those Middle Eastern countries were to show they were RESPONSIBLE and not trigger-happy ready to start a regional (and thereafter world) war in regards to Israel

Again, what makes Israel immune to this logic? They are provoking other nations as I type this. They've started their own wars. Maybe if they also were responsible and not trigger-happy, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Both sides are equally as bad as the other. "He started it!" is a childish way of avoiding responsibility. Who started it is not the point. Who ended it, on the other hand...

Re: a few owning all the wealthHow is that different than in the United States?

That's true. There is a lot of poverty in the US and some folk with more money than they'll ever need. An unfortunate side effect of capitalism, but a deadly sin that has been around for a long time. But, at least the poor can afford TV and alcohol, so they'll be alright. As long as they don't get into the gated communities! ;-)

However, if you can get a college education, you can go far. The US is not unique in this, but the option is not open to a large amount of the world's people. What if the money for the shield was put to giving every US child a college education? Wow, think of that! In some other countries, learning to read can be difficult target.

It's the presence of these troops in Saudi that drives Bin Laden No it's not. It's the existance of Israel.

He has publicly said the Saudi issue is his primary beef with the Americans. When you hate someone on one front, it's easy to pick faults and start to hate other things. Ever heard women talk about each other? ;-)

Basically, we have the money.

No you don't. The stock markets have crashed.The airline industry has lost out big time. 8 million of your people live in poverty. I can think of better ways to spend the money.

You already said it won't work, so why would it create a new arms race?

I mentioned this earlier, it will work technically, it's just aimed at a nonexistent threat. I've got this magical rock that protects me from Polar bears. There aren't any Polar bears where I live, but it makes me feel safer somehow.

If these are DEFENSIVE systems designed to defend against the risk of a nuclear attack

Nuclear weapons have always been sold as a "deterrent" in the west. So we now have a deterrent for the deterrent. What's next, an arms race on technology to defeat/fake out missile shields? Then another to defeat that threat? Reminds me of an Itchy & Scratchy cartoon, where they get bigger and bigger weapons...

get rid of their now-obsolete nukes

Note that this only means that they are made unfireable. Not that it means they cannot be reassembled, but the word "decommissioned" gives the public a nice fussy feeling though.

If we don't "police the world" then WWI and WWII has shown us that countries will attack each other, regional war will break out, and we eventually have to step in and fix it--at great cost to our own people.

Excuse me, I think you'll find the Russians did a large part of that, at an even larger cost to their people. Your history books and Hollywood propaganda removed all references to this during the commie witchhunt. They couldn't be seen to doing good for the world could they? WWII was a joint effort for all involved. While we respect and appreciate the help the US provided, don't think for one minute it was like Saving Private Ryan. There were other nations involved. If either Russia or the US didn't get involved, I'd be speaking German. No one could have done it alone. Fighting the war on two fronts broke Germanys back. And it was the Russians that got to Berlin first.

War has changed now. Only a few backwards nations still believe that it's necessary to capture land. Modern war is economic now. Why invade a country to get their resources when you can simply have companies do it for you. They still make a cut on what you take, but it's cheaper than the cost of a war, so in the end it's more profitable. And no one gets killed.

Then every country ought to show that they can act mature without the U.S. providing worldwide stability.

While the US is very admirable, it's not the bastion of standards every American thinks it is. Your county has done some heinous things. You have brought down governments, assassinated many people, tried to kill the Chinese leader several times (are you mad?). Take the spyplane in China issue. How would you feel if the Chinese were flying spyplaces 24/7 of the coast of Florida? I could go on and on about things the CIA have done in the "war against communism", which has blighted many countries and led to the creation of the Taliban and the complete destruction of Afghanistan. Twice now. Many many dodgy things have been done, and I don't have the time to sit here and catalogue them. Only a handful have made it to the publics attention. Are you so naïve to believe that everyone in control of your country is honest?

In anger? Anger would have been to launch a few at Afghanistan a day or two after 9/11.

Oops, you must have picked me up wrong. Many countries have tested nukes, but the US was the first (and last thankfully) to ever use one during an armed conflict. I didn't mean anything in the "in anger" part, just a figure of speech.

The attack on Japan was a calculated strategic decision that most likely saved the lives of millions of Americans AND Japanese.

Again, many say that it was completely unessessary and the war was already over. The Russians were due to enter the war the same week and if they had, post-war Japans spoils would have to been shared. There would be a Tokyo wall, just like in Berlin. I'm not saying that that's what I believe, but it's a popular theory.

Remember, politicians lie nowadays. That's nothing new. What makes you think we know the whole truth of any of these events? You are basing your knowledge on what you know. Consider this; you may not know the whole story. I certainly don't, but I'm not willing to believe anything I'm told without some analysis of my own.

Face it, after WWII we could have dominated the world.

You did. ;-) See my earlier remark on how wars are fought nowadays.

Anyways, I can see you are very patriotic, so I may be touching a nerve putting the US down. I apologise again for this, but you should be wary of being so patriotic that you cannot acknowledge the bad bits. Your leaders are just like me. Opinionated assholes that often defy logic!! ;-)

Lord ARCHer

Hmmm.
I like Windows XP. It's stable, quick, runs the software I need, looks nice. Hell, I can even play games on it at lunchtime. And I mean *real* games! Why can't I be allowed to say this without:
a) Being told that Linux is better on the desktop (it isn't, for me at least)
b) Being accused of being a Microsoft corporate junky (I'm not, at least not when I last checked)
Just seems a little odd, if you ask me. I think people on /. need to get some fresh air from time to time. Might I recommend here as a good place to start.