Open Source Code And War

Re:Not with my source codes! by Kenja · 2003-02-26 06:57 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Yea, its worth it if my software helps kill people so long as it hurts Microsoft. You realy need to figure out whos side your on, its us VS Microsoft, everything else is just collateral damage.

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"

Re:This is a bunch of crap. by Y_A_Hacker · 2003-02-26 07:11 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Give me a break. [Gun makers] aren't helping the "[drug dealers kill people]" they're [manufactoring a product]. I'm sure terrorists somewhere have [Colts or Smith & Wessons in their holsters], it's not like the "[gun makers] helped them become terrorists by giving them a tool to [end a life]."

Re:I guess I'm slow by swordgeek · 2003-02-26 07:41 · Score: 0, Flamebait

You just answered your own question.

The US has *NOT* done a good job of dealing with bin Laden. He's still alive, al Qaeda is still active, anti-US sentiment is at an all-time high in the middle east. What better way to distract people from the failure of dealing with al Qaeda than a war they're guaranteed to win with someone who the US public knows as a Bad Guy? Hussein has thumbed his nose at the US so many times that he has a callous on it, and yet he hasn't really done anything in GWB's regime to justify a war. That alone is probable cause for a war.

The whole "weapons of mass destruction" argument is such a sick joke that it gives me hives. Tell me again which is the ONLY country in the history of the human race to use nuclear weapons against another country? Tell me which country has the largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction? Oh that's right, it's the holier-than-thou US.

North Korea is violating UN resolutions left, right, and centre; but the US is still happily supporting them. The US is promising to tear up the 1972(?) international nuclear non-proliferation treaty and also start developing chemical/biological weapon programs, but they don't see anything wrong with THEMSELVES doing it. No, it's only when an arrogant Enemy Dictator(tm) with huge oil reserves (another important point) gives them half an excuse to start a guaranteed-to-win war which will distract the population from how ineffective they've been elsewhere that they MUST go to war for the good of the world.

How's that?

--

"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban

I seem to recall something about "crypto" by Bingo+Foo · 2003-02-26 07:44 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Just remember that the hypocritical "open" zealots whining about the militarization of OSS are likely the same ones who ranted and raved that the benefits of pervasive crypto among ordinary citizens outweighed the very real danger of the use of crypto among organized crime and terror.

What's the common thread? Anti-U.S. sentiment.

--
taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!

Re:Not with my bonified! by TarPitt · 2003-02-26 08:21 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Its about bonified equality of use.

I thought you were making a statement about "equality" turned to "bone". I looked up "bonified" in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary and found the following:

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the Dictionary search box to the right.

Suggestions for bonified:
1. boniface
2. bonefish
3. brownfield
4. Boniface
5. bonfire
6. bonfires
7. brownfields
8. bonefishes
9. Bondi
10. biannually

So is it the bonefish or the bonfire that you believe should have "equality of use"?

--
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep

C'mon - Isn't this really about the War by argoff · 2003-02-26 09:04 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Now the Iraqi pilots get get up to snuff in their large fleet of Blackhawk choppers using US simulators!

No No No - you got it all wrong. Contrary to the title, I refuse to believe this is a open source software issue. We all know both the US armed forces and the Iraqi's have a right to use it as much as anyone else does. IMHO this is about the war, so I'll bite. (I know I'm gonna get it, but I can't resist)

Screw the UN, screw France, and screw Saddam Hussein. We simply need to invade now and get it over with. Let's get real - you can't possibly expect the US gov to dally while this guy biulds god only knows what. C'mon we all know the first place any terrorist is going to go when they're looking for those big bad bombs - Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. But unlike the other two, we've patiently been trying to rid ourselves of Saddam's bullshit for 12 years. Even if he didn't have massive amounts of oil to finance his nuke programs, and even if he hadn't killed millions, and even if he didn't genocide his own people - it would still be a just war if for anything for the sake of trying to resuce the Iraqi people. I think even the folks in France know I'm right.

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War by mi · 2003-02-26 10:38 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Your point, that Iraq's monster is partially of US making is correct. The monster helped to contain another monster -- Iran -- as you point out. Saddam has also appeared to be a lot more sensible back then. He was quite secular and gave the country's women many of the rights they still don't have in other Muslim countries. However, the monster went out of control and will now be dismantled. Pitting different monsters against each other can be a legitimate policy...
Your other point, about other countries with dangerous weapons has little merit. Iraq is the only country, that was defeated in a righteous war and spared the "regime change" on condition of verified disarmament within a year. That period turned into 12 years, over which 17 UN resolutions were passed compelling it make good on its pledge.
No other country has such record, Iraq is the worst, (with North Korea being a distant second). [Neither Pakistan, nor India, nor Israel have ever joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaties or otherwise promised not to develop WMDs...]
Back to pragmatism, yes there are other evil regimes out there. Seeing the "realpolitik" circumstances finally leading to one of them being "changed" should delight, rather than upset a sensible person.
Oil? I wonder, why we even went to Somalia, or why we are still in South Korea. Racism, anti-Muslim pro-Christian? It was U.S. that protected Albanians from Serbs -- after years of UN/European impotence... None of it is sheer generosity, but it is not "all about oil" either.
-mi

P.S. The French? Oh, they just can't get over the loss of the "grand nacion" (sp?) status. I doubt many distinguish anti-Iraq-war protests from smashing McDonalds' windows :-)

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War by *weasel · 2003-02-26 11:03 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Seems to me that Japan turned out alright after US occupation. East Germany and later reunified Germany also seem to be alright.

If the US was in that habit of propping up more dictators, then i might agree with you in worrying about another monster. But since we seem to have been slowly learning the lessons of nation-building - and back democracy over puppets - I think you're just being contrary for the sake of demonstrating your knowledge of past foreign policy f*ckups.

Unfortunately, the cost of our defense priority at the time (stopping the spread of communism, right or wrong it was our public goal) - is that we have left people like noriega, usama, and saddam in power. utterly unfortunate - in hindsight. However, at the time, we didn't have the fortune of picking our battles or picking our time. We couldn't spend resources in securing a nation building in every country we used to help protect western thought. Now, with no one to openly oppose our military might on the battlefield - we can be a little more spendthrift. with the UN actually commiting a decent number of troops to assist in peacekeeping - we can take our time. But we didn't have that luxury before.

France and Germany's current elected officials seem to only be blocking in the UN to try to make UN approval seem like less of a formality for US foreign policy. Unfortunately - by doing so they run the risk of forcing the only remaining super power to operate outside of the UN, and potentially irreparably destroy the viability of that entity. Currently, the UN itself has felt compelled to do nothing but pass resolutions that apparently have no consequence when ignored outright. Should it insist on being stubborn on this issue - it might well fall by the wayside.

N Korea and Pakistan do not have histories within the last 40 years of gassing their people, nor in invading their neighbors. Pakistan is not ruled by dictatorship, but by democracy. N Korea has only recently been under the control of a dictator who is drawing a shocking parallel between himself and saddam. At the time of the bomb building - we tried to put a cap on the situation with diplomacy. Thats where the power reactor plans and the fuel shipment agreements came from.

So which is it? Are we wrong for wantint to forcibly stop Saddam? Or were we wrong for trying to feel secure with diplomacy in reigning in N Korea? You can't complain that we're too aggressive, and yet not aggressive enough at the same time.

The real problem now is that we've learned the tragic results of inaction. After the 1993 WTC bombing (under beloved liberal Clinton) and the USS Cole bombing we couldn't get any international support to put down ground forces and stop Osama. That's why we had to settle for cruise missiles. We've learned that we can't just settle with what the international community thinks.

When we encounter world governments that are not forthright, not honest, not stable - we have no choice but to ensure that they cannot jeopardize the safety of other free peoples.

You're right, we aren't motivated by the plight of the Iraqi people. We're motivated by the plight of the state of world security. Just as we weren't motivated by the horrible atrocities the people in Afghanistan had to live with. But does that mean that we aren't doing good by freeing them? Does that mean that we're tyrants for ousting murderous regimes and installing democracy?

The risk of inaction is too high. Tyrants can no longer be ignored because they don't have many troops or tanks or are half the world away.

--
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War by tpengster · 2003-02-26 11:03 · Score: 0, Flamebait

why not? you guys did a great job of dallying while pakistan and north korea built the bomb.

So let me summarize your logic: "We made terrible mistakes in the past, so let's repeat them." Thank God the President has more sense than you.

that isreal has the bomb and the u.s. continues to do nothing.

Israel is also an open democracy with elections, a free press, and (ironically enough) more rights for palestinians than any other country in the middle east. It also hasn't the history of invading its neighbors for their oil (like Saddam) or of blackmailing the west for aid (like North Korea). Israel is also our ally unlike the others. Israel is also surrounded by enemies who have openly promised to rid the world of Jews in a second if there were no threat of retribution.

[Long List of Mistakes we've made in the past]

Right. So we have a moral responsibility to the people of the middle east to rid them of the monster we created. Let's not leave this problem to fester until Saddam gets a nuclear weapon, at which point we will have utter and total chaos.

the us backed hussein for a decade because it was looking for someone to keep iran in line. no one gave a damn about the "iraqi people" from 1979 until last week. so why, all of a sudden, is it the united state's number one priority?

Because George W. Bush is a man of greater character than his predecessors. Because in the 1980's, we were fighting the greatest evil mankind has ever witnessed -- communism -- which took the lives of over 20 million people. Because we failed to destroy Stalin in 1945 before he got the atomic bomb. Because we engaged in a costly peace only a decade after the similarly idiotic appeasement of Hitler. Because September 11 awoke us to the true suffering of the peoples of the world, to their political powerlessness and economic hopelessness. Because we now understand the evilness and determination of our enemies. Because the President can now fight for the freedom of the Iraqi people with the majority backing of the American public. Because technology is changing the nature of the world and we must adjust to that change. Because democracies don't pick one foreign policy for all of time and stubbornly refuse to improve upon it. Because as a democracy we are constantly self-critical and strive for improvement at every stage. Because it only makes sense that we would be more helpful to others as our understanding of the world grows. Because such is the nature of progressivism, once called "liberalism". (Nowadays liberalism means criticism of the president of the U.S.)

i think the people of france know that when the us ousts a government and puts in a new one, the new puppet has a bad habit of becoming a monster later on.

I think the people of the United States also know that. That's why the US is promoting democracy in Afghanistan. And that's why we will continue to promote democracy in the Middle east -- Starting with Iraq.

I sincerely pray that this parent post was a troll, however, based on my personal experience with people's opinion it probably is not.

For anyone interested in the actual issues surrounding the war on Iraq, see my webpage: http://www.tpengster.com/bad.html

Thank you for keeping an open mind and contributing your thoughts.
Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War by einhverfr · 2003-02-26 14:27 · Score: 0, Flamebait

No other country has such record, Iraq is the worst, (with North Korea being a distant second). [Neither Pakistan, nor India, nor Israel have ever joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaties or otherwise promised not to develop WMDs...]

Actually there is one that has a worse record. They have more UN Security Council resolutions outstanding against them, they too invaded their neighbors (back in 1967) and have been told by the UN Security Council in *no uncertain terms* that their occupation of Golan, Gaza, and the West Bank is illegal. In fact, if it wasn't for the US, Israel would have an even worse record...

This is a country which uses Air to Surface Missiles against targes who are in crowds of people, drops 1-ton bombs on apartment buildings as "targetted killings" attempting to kill a single senior Hamas millitant!

But hey, we can't compare them because Palestine became the Jewish Homeland in recent history because of anti-Jewish sentiments in the UK during World War I, and after WWII, after the horrors of the hollocaust, there was another surge of immigration, which lead to the war of Independence (1948-49). So because Israel is a nation born of anti-Jewish sentiments, many Jews feel that criticism of Israel is the same thing as a hatred of Jews (yet what about the brave Rabbis who stand and try to prevent the demolition of Palestinian homes-- do they hate the Jews too? What about those in the Peace Movement?).

Personally, I think that the United Nations needs to declare the Middle East excluding the Pakistan/India conflict to be an area free of WMD's and forcibly disarm Iraq, Israel, and any others that choose to disobey. Lets enforce UN Security Council resolutions, and authorize a peacekeeping force to liberate the people of Gaza and Golan from the illegal occuption.

--

LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP

Re:Humane Considerations by Chainsaw · 2003-02-26 09:45 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Iraq is causing a general disruption to world peace

Last time I checked, it was the United States that were waging war. Iraq just sits there exporting oil.

Iraq is already breeding terrorists

If by terrorists you mean "people who are seriously mad about the US fucking with them contantly because of their religion", then yes.

Iraq already has WMD and has shown a propensity of using them

Hiroshima. Nagazaki. THAT'S what I call mass destruction. Who did that again? Besides that - where's your proof that they do have any WoMD at all? Not just some pictures of a truck that might contain weapons or maybe even soft, fluffy teddybears - real evidence.

Innocent civilians are already being killed

And more will be dead if you won't let them import medicine. Right now, they are performing operations without any anaesthetic because they can't get enough medicine. Why? Oh, it might be used to create chemical weapons. The civil uses aren't even mentioned.

Iraq should disarm for the same reasons Hitler was forced to disarm.

Hitler was punished because he invaded other countries. The Kuwait invasion was ten years from now, right? You've already attacked them for that. Get a new excuse.

--
War is one of the most horrible things a human can be exposed to. And one of the worlds largest industries.

Re:war monger by Ominous+Armed+Cow · 2003-02-26 10:49 · Score: 1, Flamebait

"peace at all cost" thinking costs more lives than just going to war when you are up against a madman. Think Europe, 1938 or Ethopia, 1933.

Saddam is a psychopathic fascist who does unspeakable things to his people because he wants to expand his influence in the region. He won't be any easier to deal with once he has nuclear weapons.

When you support the anti-war movement, you support him and everything he stands for, much like people who in the 1930's insisted that we should stay out of the war. Just as then, it is lead by anti-capitalists (pro-fascists and stalinist freaks), who hide their very unpopular political backgrounds from the useful idiots who suck it up because they have the philosophical sophistication of a six year old, (or in this case, missed out on the sixties) and can't seem to draw moral distinctions between the fire and the fire brigade.

Just as then, the anti-war movement is totally irresponsible because it offers no practical solutions except the immediate and total surrender of our ridiculously successful way of life. Suggesting we should kick the oil habit without a viable replacement is the mark of an idiot or someone who wants die of starvation. Suggesting we should do nothing while our cities are attacked or while our enemies prepare to attack our civilian populations is the mark of a coward or klebold worshipping loser. Suggesting that we are a haven for facsim when people who live in *real* fascist countries risk their lives to get here and not the other way around is just deluded.

The Iraqi's *want* us to invade. You'd have to be a moron not to see why.

"Appeasement is the practice of feeding a steak to a tiger in the hopes he will become a vegetarian". - Winston Churchhill

Hey MODERATORS ! - CENSORSHIP? by argoff · 2003-02-26 13:43 · Score: 2, Flamebait

How come every post in this thread that is sympathetic to war is modded down as flamebait?

Re:war monger by glesga_kiss · 2003-02-27 00:46 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Saddam is a psychopathic fascist who does unspeakable things to his people because he wants to expand his influence in the region.

Bush is a psychopathic fundamentalist who does unspeakable things to his people because he wants to expand his influence in the Gulf region.

(By unspeakable, I refer to his complete lack of respect for everything that the USA is supposed to stand for)

When you support the anti-war movement, you support him and everything he stands for

Bullshit, this is one of the disinformation tactics mentioned in the above link.

Being opposed to war does not mean that we are opposed to doing anything. All it means is that we are not happy about being deliberatly misled by our leaders to start a war that is going to cause more long term problems than it will solve.

Do you think the USA is going to win over any friends in the region by medling further in the Middle East? Why don't you ask the next generation of potential terrorists, who will grow up hating the country that killed their parents...

Suggesting we should do nothing while our cities are attacked or while our enemies prepare to attack our civilian populations is the mark of a coward or klebold worshipping loser.

Ahh, but you forget the fact that your cities were attacked because of meddling in the past. Doing nothing would be a better solution (I'm not saying it's the best though). Going around killing people is only going to inspire the next generation of terrorists. And as the war on terrorism is inherently unwinnable (you can't defeat an enemy you can't see), I question the reasoning and motives behind the current policies.

14 of 861 comments (clear)