Slashdot Mirror
CDMA vs. GSM in Post-war Iraq
An anonymous reader submits: "Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) is pressing congress to favor CDMA over GSM for mobile phone service in U.S.-funded reconstruction plans. One reason for pushing this is that a CDMA system would benefit American companies, such as California-based Qualcomm, while GSM would favor European companies. Currently, GSM is the most widely used mobile standard in surrounding countries."
I think, for a "Green Field" install, CDMA is an automatic winner over GSM (and the Chinese agree).
1: CDMA is a superior technology for a number of reasons:
(a) It makes better use of spectrum = more bandwidth
(b) It takes less power = longer battery life
(c) It doesn't totally screw with hearing aids or anything else that picks up its dumb-ass pulses. After the pounding Iraq is taking, not messing with hearing aids will probably be a big issue. Nothing like a MOAB within a few clicks of you to make Mettalica seem GOOD for your hearing!
2: Since we are the ones who will be rebuilding Iraq, we should get to decide what we donate.
3: fsck the French (or En Francais: Allez vous faire foutre chez les Grecs, bande de Laches, faineants!), so we should choose a technology that they DON'T make, so they NEVER get a DIME from the country.
BTW: Issa is a Lebanese American. I've actually sat next to him on a plane. Bright guy. EE who started a car alarm company, which is how he got the $ to run for congress. Apparently he thought the perspective of people who actually understood the value of the freedom in this country and worked to build a company was needed in DC. Go figure!
You are so wrong in so many aspects that it is difficult to believe.
1. The USA did do business with Iraq as did France, the UK, Germany, Italy and Russia. France and Russia might have done more than the USA but that does not mean much.
To which I reply:
I am not disputing the fact we do business with Iraq, some companies do. However, we are not willing to use those business interests in deciding issues such as biological and chemical weapons. That is the problem here. Countries which decide to use these weapons, MUST BE ELIMINATED.
Otherwise discussions like this will only be possible UNDER PAIN OF DEATH.
---
2. Only 3 out of 15 countries in the security council agreed to vote with the USA. Singleling out France is ridiculous.
To which I reply:
That is not true. There was complete support in private discussions about the final vote/resolution, at the end of February, discussing a timeline and benchmarks for Iraq to comply.
France, told everyone in the private session of the council that they would veto ANY RESOLUTION that had teeth in it. (i.e. an ultamatum.)
The US then decided to not even bother.
It is very possible, that if France would have voted for the resolution, to which all 13 security councils agreed to before it hit the floor of the UN, Sadaam Hussein, confronted with a united front from the UN, would have fled the country or complied.
Now we are at war either way. Frankly, I don't see the logic of Frances indecision because at least if they would have agreed to vote for the final resolution, there would have been a CHANCE we would not be at war right now.
--
3. think it would have been VERY probable, that if the UN security council was unaminous with a ultimatum, Sadaam probably would have either fled the country or complied immediately.
It is nice to be sure about things but completely stupid. There was no unanimity at the security council with or without France and there is not the start of the beginning of a hint that Saddam would have left or complied.
To which I reply:
That is true officially. Unofficially, these measures were discussed at length behind closed doors, which is typical before any resolution is passed to iron out a vote. See my message above.
The point is, the final resolution never made it passed France, and I am sorry if the truth hurts.
It is a matter of UN record, now, so it is pointless to argue about it.
--
4. What if the US troops are attacked by biological weapons that have been sold by the US to Iraq?
Many countries exchange and sell strains of Small Pox, including the US and most if not all member of the security council so your point is what?
There is nothing wrong per se, of selling small pox. What its intended uses are, is the problem.
Small Pox is used and studied all over the world in Biology.
Problem is not all governments use them as weapons. I think the point you are trying to make, is that we sold Iraq small pox with US knowingit would use them in a biological weapons program.
I would love to see proof of that.
--
5. But, defending a war politically, AT ANY COST, such as what France, Germany and Russia has done is morally wrong, in this case.
The French foreign minister said it many times: France is not a pacifist country. And Russia certainly isn't either.
To which my reply is:
France is not a pacificst country? Prove it!
My point with this comment is,
1) France split the Security council over the final vote over the Iraq.
2) France sent its ministers to Morocco, and all over the place offering money for votes against the US, Britain and New Europe, Italy, Spain, and former members of the Eastern block countries.
4) France has split NATO and destroyed an entire political arena for what gain?
To keep its oil interests and investments sound to support a petty dictator in the world that uses gas,
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.