Slashdot Mirror

Should have gone for Internet Defense Force.

IDF or EDF makes no difference they are both a bunch of racist bastards. At least the EDF doesn't bulldoze people alive or use children as human shields.

I'm afraid you are mistaken. Bias in the popular news channels is a significant factor in misinformation spread about Israel, its history, and the history of the so-called Palestians. (Sometimes, things aren't what they seem.) Please refer to:

• http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mftoc.html
• http://www.ict.org.il
• http://www.idf.il (Hebrew site, click for English version.)

That ought to straighten things up a bit.

There can't be any doubt whatsoever that Bush' policy has completely changed the fundamental playing field and given a new incitament to acquire nukes.

Bush has not threatened and will not threaten any country with invasion that is not harboring or supporting terrorists. Hussein is known to be supporting terrorists, and appears to be harboring them.

Nevertheless, you have to address to root issues, why are people becoming suicide bombers in the first place.

Ok. Let's start with the Palestinians. Besides the cash payouts to the bombers' families, the basic problem is that the Palestinian leadership have created a death cult on an unprecedented scale. Palestinian children are taught in school and in "summer camps" to hate Jews and want to murder them. Others are recruits, usually either filled with fanatical hate towards Israel, or suicidal, or both. They are promised paradise and privilege in the afterlife. (72 virgins? Paradise is a brothel?) They are promised that their families will be well provided for on earth. They are indoctrinated with classic brainwashing techniques. They are isolated from their families, told to spend every waking hour in prayer, told to engage in repeated purification rituals. When they are ready for their mission, their handlers hold elaborate, videotaped "graduation" ceremonies, honoring the bomber, where the bomber says goodbye to his family and commits to his mission. The bomber is provided with an explosive belt, or a mission, told how to use it, and dropped off at his target. Then, once the mission is completed, the bomber is lionized in heroic posters which are plastered through the towns. Schools are named after the suicide bombers, all of which lay the groundwork for the next batch of suicide bombers.

What is happening in Israel is not random people deciding to kill themselves by murdering Jews. It is a well-funded terrorist organization that utilizes classic brainwashing techniques to create "martyrs," and it is destroying the Palestinian people from within. All this costs lots of money, and that money is coming from outside of the Palestinian territories, from Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

The same thing goes on in Al Quaeda training camps, formerly in Afghanistan, and allegedly currently in Iraq. The airline hijaakers had massive financial support, and according to the documents they left, were instructed to engage in the same concentrated prayer and to engage in purification rituals.

You have some other root causes in mind, I suppose? Ok, what are they? Poverty? Hopelessness? Suppression? Those are everywhere, but suicide bombers are not! Why are there no suicide bombers in Mexico? Why are there no waves of suicide bombings in India? Why are there no North Korean suicide bombers? Why do all of the suicide bombers happen to come from Islamic fringe sects that practice brainwashing and indoctrination, and have explicit political agendas that involve suicide bombing?

Why did the 9/11 hijackers complete their mission? They weren't desperate. They came to America, lived here comfortably for years, went to flight school, received advanced educational training. Why didn't their sense of hopelessness subside? They certainly didn't live in poverty. Why did they get on those planes? They certainly could have defected, or disappeared. The "root cause" was that they were members of a terrorist organization with a political agenda of mass murder. Those are the root causes of terrorism.

I'll have to defer to you on [Uzbekistan and Kirgistan] I don't know what we are doing there.
Please, don't have a wait-and-see attitude on this.

What I meant was that I really have no information on those situations, not that I want to wait and see. If we are providing covert aid to one side, then that will probably fail, but that's not what we are doing in Iraq, so I don't see how it enters in.

Even though an U bomb is easy to make, it is still a lot of metallurgy involved, and during that process, it is impossible not to leave any trace. Just go to any physics lab where there has been tiny radioactive sources involved

Physics labs use tiny amounts of extremely radioactive sources to deliberately cause small nuclear reactions for study. This produces small amounts of intensely radioactive fission products that escape into the lab environment and wind up in the corners. Industrial uranium enrichment uses large amounts of barely radioactive natural uranium, and produces no highly radioactive fission products. They are not comparable.

If you have to sweep the corners of the room to find radioactivity in such a lab, then your argument doesn't hold water. There's no way that anyoue would find a hidden isotope separation lab based on radioactive emissions. The process just doesn't give off radiation. You can easily find a breeder reactor, because it gives off lots of radiation, tritium and the like. That's how the U.S. was able to track Soviet plutonium production, with sniffer planes.

I'll grant you, for the sake of argument, that it might be impossible for Iraqi scientists to "sanitize" an existing isotope separation facility for the inspectors, but that's meaningless because obviously the inspectors are not being shown those secret facilities, and don't know where they are! Hussein has had a decade to hide his WMD programs. By all accounts he has spent the vast majority of his country's oil revenues in doing so. Those facilities are probably hollowed out of a cave, or built into the ground, and we won't find them until we're in there, on the ground. They could very well have highly contaminated radiation laboratories, and such a laboratory could fit in a boxcar, and be anywhere in the entire country.

Just think about the unthinkable for a moment: What if it was true: He didn't have any WMDs right now. How could he possibly prove that he didn't? It is in fact impossible.

Ok, let's go by your argument. You would have to believe that he:

1) Kicked the weapons inspectors out of the country
2) Secretly destroyed his existing stockpiles of WMDs.
3) Deliberately decided that, rather then doing so in public and getting the sanctions lifted, he would do so secretly, so that he could ... um ... why would he do that?

But to directly answer your question, he could lead the inspectors to the facilities that were used to destroy the WMDs. He could lead them to inspect the sites containing the destroyed weapons casings. He could show them the destroyed manufacturing facilities. He could show them the destroyed storage containers and handling equipment. He could show them the incineration facilities that were used to destroy the nerve, mustard, and VX gas. He could show the records detailing the progress of the destruction process -- shipping and transportation logs showing the movement of WMD stockpiles from arsenals to destruction facilities. He could show the inspectors the dump sites containing the contaminated residue of the incineration operations. He could show the inspectors the equipment that was salvaged from the Osirak nuclear weapons development site (which was completely stripped of all equipment following the Israeli destruction of the breeder reactor core.) He could show the inspectors the actual rockets that were allegedly being made from those aluminum tubes that had been specially anodized to protect them against Uranium Hexaflouride gas, and finished to microscopic smoothness to make them suitable as gas centrifuges. I could go on and on. Hussein still has some 600 metric tons of chemical agents, 25,000 rockets, 15,000 chemical artillery shells, 520 Kg of Anthrax growth medium, all unaccounted for. It is simply beyond credibility that he even could destroy them without a trace (We can't even do that), and it is incomprehensible that he would do so in secret, instead of doing so in public to get the sanctions lifted. That makes no sense whatsoever!

Doesn't it make more sense that he still has them and is still hiding them?

I mean, you'd think that he would actually present the best available evidence before the security council

No he wouldn't. That presentation was not to reveal all of our evidence. That presentation was to reveal the absolute minimum information necessary to show that Hussein was lying about 1441, which called for full and complete disarmament

Every bit of information that Powell presented represented a destroyed intelligence source or method that cannot be used again. It was a costly presentation, and largely wasted on the audience. What you saw were deep secrets that are almost never revealed, and by their very nature, you don't get to see all of the details. The "best evidence" is certainly being held very closely, because once we are on the ground, we are going to use it to quickly locate and secure the WMD facilities. Powell showed the photographs of the decontamination trucks parked outside of the "unused" chemical weapons depots. Then he said, the next day, they were gone. Do you think we weren't tracking those decontamination trucks? Do you think we weren't tracking those truck convoys after they moved? Heck, we moved spy satellites into different orbits for this war. Every bit of recon capability we have is deployed, and you can rest assured that we have far, far more intelligence information than what Powell revealed.

The reason why we don't provide information about where to look to the inspectors is that they have a proven track record of tipping off the Iraqis. If we told the UNSC, or the Inspectors all that we knew, then Iraq would just move everything, and we wouldn't know where anything was.

the Bush administration is ... trying to stage a war... but they have to create an illusion of playing by international rules.

What do you mean by "have to?" The U.N. mechanations are being done for two reasons. First, we aren't ready to attack. Second, for the benefit of Tony Blair, who needs to keep his coalition government intact in order to participate in the war. Europeans care a lot about the U.N., but the United States really doesn't. We participate in the U.N. for pragmatic reasons. If the U.N attempts to block the war, the U.N. will be finished. But really, the U.N. is effectively an ongoing diplomatic summit, not a source of moral authority in any sense whatsoever, and certainly not a source of military or economic power. Your economic power comes from the EU(or is being eviscerated by the EU, your choice), and your small amount of non-U.S. military power comes from the few countries that have bothered to maintain a standing army despite half a century of U.S. military protection. But in reality, the military protection of Europe is still the U.S. army. I'm still looking for your source of moral authority, given Europe's ongoing loving embrace of Saddam Hussein and his murderous regime, and it's incredible ignorance of its own past. Millions of Europeans have taken to the streets to protect Hussein and Iraq I can't find a single protest sign calling for Iraq to disarm, or stop using chemical weapons on the Kurds, or stop murdering dissidents. You think we don't see those signs at your protests? Do you think we don't know how little Europeans care about the Iraqi people?

• big fat line big fat line big fat line big fat line big fat line

Ok, I'm drawing a big fat line because you're completely changing the subject. (I'd use a sequence of dashes, but, alas, the lameness filter.) We're not talking about Iraq anymore, you're talking about the internal politics of the U.S. None of this has any relation whatsoever to the Iraq war. It's completely off topic, but I'm going to dive in anyhow because I see a lot of common European misconceptions about American politics.

OK, look at this way: The Bush administration is clearly attacking the american public. [long list of things that I fully agree are very bad and most certainly unconstitutional.]

In times of war, our courts have traditionally deferred to the presidency and allowed the enforcement of policies and laws that they would not permit during peacetime. I agree that these laws are uncalled for, unnecessary, and probably will be found unconstitutional once the war is over. It's overreaction on the part of the Bush administration, and one of the most serious flaws of his presidency.

In addition, he is a significant threat to world peace and sits on the biggest arsenal of WMDs, and he has stated he will not hesitate to use them against any target.

Actually, he has stated that he will not hesitate to use them against any country that uses them against us first. This is the entire point of deterrence, and has proven to be a wise policy. It is the reason why, during the first Gulf war, the Scuds that fell on the Marine Barracks and Israel contained explosives, not nerve or mustard gas.

You are clearly incapable of dealing with Bush yourself.

No we aren't. We have plenty of options for "taking care of" Bush if we want him out. We can simply not elect him next time. While I agree with you that Bush "stole the election", I should point out that the election came down to a difference of about 200 votes, with thousands of ambiguous votes. No one knows who really won that election, and the truth was unknowable. It was a very unique and maddening situation, because the margin of victory was many times smaller then the margin of error, and it was the most closely scrutinized ballot count in our history.

Regardless, you can't compare that to Hussein "stealing an election" by being the only candidate on the ballot, and receiving 100% of the vote in a country that hates his guts. If Bush is voted out in 2004, he will step aside, as is our unbroken tradition.

Aside from that, we have a Congress that can effectively block Bush on domestic policy issues. The TIA was killed by Congress, who refused to fund it. Congress has the power to pass laws to override any action that Bush tries to take, and Congress has the power to override a presidential veto.

Congress also has the power to impeach the president, and remove him from office. The serious threat of using that power was enough to prompt Nixon to resign, and that power was abused on Clinton. That power could be used on Bush if necessary.

Basically you are seeing a difference between the U.S. government and European governments. We have no coalition government. We alternate between Democratic and Republican control of both houses of Congresses and the Presidency. Once a President is elected, he has a very free hand for the next four years, and does not have to tailor his policy to opinion polls the way that Tony Blair has to do so in order to keep his coalition from breaking apart.

This does not mean that he is unaccountable.

Now tell me, why shouldn't we, the rest of the world go to war and overthrow him, to liberate the US?

Because there will be an election shortly in which we will have the power to remove him from office ourselves. This is not true in Iraq.

The other option is to use those $50 billion for something good.

Ok, spend $50 billion to stop terrorism. What are your plans?

Up until that speech, the message was "disarm Hussein." That speech was, "Bring democracy to the Arab world."

Bush has been trying to say that to Europe for a long time. Perhaps your news are differently angled than what we hear here. And the reaction has always been "yeah, sure".

A long time? You mean since he was elected, or since 9/11, or since he started laying groundwork to remove Hussein?

You know, Clinton tried the same thing in Kosovo, the idea isn't actually new...

You know, Clinton was an idiot who didn't know what he was doing. He had no moral credibility, and his presidency was a foreign policy disaster from beginning to end. Kosovo was a disaster. We had no business being there. If 9/11 hadn't happened, we would have no business being in Iraq.

Then, it has been because you have failed to take precautions in time. If US use violence now, it is because they failed to take the chance to pressure Saddam out of office in early 80-ties, and so on.

Unfortunately, lacking a time machine, we have to deal with the situation, as it exists, right now. You're probably right. Hindsight is 20-20.

This theory seems especially popular with dictators and corrupt governments, but I don't buy it.

I look upon your government as one of those now (there are differences, of course),

Bush is not a dictator. He does not have absolute power. He is subject to removal in the next election. Everything law passed in this country must be passed by Congress. Every Congressman runs the risk of being thrown out of office if he or she fails to represent the people, and it happens regularly. Everything Bush does is reviewable by the Supreme Court.

OK, you may reject it, but the Security Council is intended to be that authority. OK, so the US can do whatever they like, but they are partly playing with the UN, so that means that they are partly recognizing this authority.

The UN and the UNSC are not authorities. The United States has never subjugated control to any international authority. The UN and UNSC are diplomatic bodies. We are "playing with the UN" not because we are submitting to their authority, but because we perceive it as beneficial to do so.

Well, of course, for US, it doesn't really matter, because the US can nuke anybody who doesn't want to play ball back to the stone age,

If the UNSC vetoes the war resolution, we are not going to nuke them.

and Bush has stated that he doesn't mind doing so

I talked about that earlier.

but for smaller countries, that is not really an option. We have to cooperate.

That's not what I see. What I see is a lot of small countries with near-zero economic, diplomatic, military, or leadership assets who are delighted to be part of the U.N., because it gives them wildly exaggerated power and authority. Do you think that Libya would ever head up an international human rights commission if not for the UN? Do you think that Iran and Iraq would ever be placed in charge of international disarmament if their countries hadn't happen to turn up in alphabetical order? Do you think that Angola, Cameroon, Guinea, Mexico, Chile and Pakistan would ever have the power to influence a U.S./Iraq war if they weren't members of a divided UNSC? For the record, they are not being forced to cooperate. They are being asked to cooperate, and support the war, or to not cooperate, and pay the diplomatic consequences.

That's how I'm looking at this moron of yours. He can still be sincere and yet dead wrong. I believe he is sincere when he says that the only way to ensure disarmament is to remove Saddam. And I think he is sincere when he thinks that he will put in some sort of democracy. But, he is lying when he talking about all the "evidence" they have, that's a smokescrean for attacking.

As I said, not revealing evidence does not mean that you don't have it. There are many compelling reasons to reveal the minimum amount of evidence to prove the narrow case that Hussein has not complied with 1441 and fully, completely disarmed.

If any such thing as a "preemtive attack" was legitimate, there is no reason why Saddam (and pretty much any other nation that has a beef with the US) should not attack the US right now, it would have been legimate.

Sure it would be legitimate. We're about to overthrow his regime. He could preemptively attack us, but it would guarantee his death, probably the death of all the Tikritis, and possibly the death of most of Iraq if he used WMDs. That's not what he's after though.

[Bush] has the mind of a religious fanatic, who can't see colors, only that "either you are with us or you are against us".

That isn't what he said, actually. He said that either your are with us, or you are with the terrorists. This isn't a threat, it's an observation. It means that no country can afford to stand by and pretend that they are immune to terrorism. Indonesia did exactly that. They pretended that they weren't involved in the dispute, and then Al Quaida blew up a nightclub in Bali. What it means is that if a country doesn't commit to fighting terrorism, then terrorists will gravitate towards it.

I believe that Al Quaida attacked New York because Clinton had proved to them that we would not fight back with everything we have. I believe that the Palestinians are constantly attacking Israel because the Israelis are proving that they will not fight back with everything they have.

Someone with a world-view like that is an extremely dangerous man. Unfortunately, USians are the only ones who legitimately can get rid of him.

Unfortunately for you, most Americans support Bush, and I think that he is going to be reelected in the next election cycle.

I don't think that anyone is reading this except for us, and this is starting to reach the point of rehash. I know where you're coming from, you know where I'm coming from. I'm ready to wrap it up.

In Israel, a lot of organizations (military, small businesses and some industrial orgs) don't upgrade as soon as a new windows version is available.

Some organizations don't even consider an upgrade in the near future at all.

For example, the military (IDF) still has a large number of computers running win95. Only nowadays new computers start to come with win2k, skipping win98 entirely. Who knows when they'll upgrade (if at all?) to winXP.

According to the article, MS makes sure that windows licenses keep generating revenues even if organizations don't upgrades every 2 years (which is usually the case for big organizations - MS main clients)

Have you noticed lately a lot of people (certainly all my friends) don't rush to buy the newest, fastest PC available every 2 years anymore? I had a 450MHz machine until last month, then I upgraded to a simple 766MHz machine, first time I upgraded not to the max (today's 1.7GHz) not even to the faster machines (800m, 1.3g) - who needs 'em?

The same thing goes for windows OSes, who needs 'em?

MS should freely innovate some revolutionary feature or a business productive feature or just an increadibly faster, more stable, cheaper, easily extendable OS before they demand subscription fees for their software.