Slashdot Mirror
Nominations for 2003 Vaporware Awards
spin2cool writes "Wired News is now accepting submissions for its fifth annual Vaporware Awards. These awards "celebrate all those eagerly anticipated gizmos that were put off, put away or quietly put down. And, of course, those that existed merely as a figment of someone's imagination."
Apparently you don't get it. If Hussein really did have WMD's he would've used them. If not when our troops were amassed in Kuwait before the invasion, then when finally cornered by them during the occupation.
The fact that he didn't use them, the fact that we find him hiding in a hole in the ground certifies once and for all that there never were WMD's in Iraq.
It was all a great big lie.
Go sell your shit somewhere else.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
Sorry, I don't really know how to interpret your question, so I'll answer it straightforwardly: If they can find a guy in a hole covered by a rock, they can easily find massive stashes of WMD.
Like I said, I don't know exactly what you meant with your question, so I don't know if I'm agreeing or disagreeing.
Capturing Saddam does shit little for finding WMDs now does it? If they couldn't get it out of the guy who was responsible for them ("Chemical Ali") then what good does ole Saddam do for them? Bump in the polls and flag waving.
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
well, one out of four aint... good. even in the remedial stream 25% is still a failing grade.
2 1337 4 u!
So he had WMDs, yet even under the threat of an invading force set out to depose him and, quite possibly, look the other way as he experiences a Mussolini moment, he "could not" use them for strategic purposes. Ok, let's buy that for a moment. Since even these extreme conditions he wouldn't use them, what does it matter if he had them at all? At worst, at the absolute worst, he was a collector, unwilling to take the toys out of the box in fear of decreasing their value.
I have a photo of myself with Santa Clause too. Does that mean he really does exist?
- Kate
"DNA is life. The rest is just translation."
Man, it is going to be SOOOO much fun watching you guys when we begin to uncover cache after cache after cache.
I wonder how many ways you'll be able to say: Yeah, but America still sucks and I hate George Bush.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The delay of the highly anticipated Half-Life 2 due to a code-leak. Anyone have a release date?
-=- Many seek good nights and lose good days.
No, you're missing the point. He could surely use them to say, gas the Kurds or whatever else he'd been doing for 12 years that the UN didn't really care about. Now about the US invading, his ENTIRE defense rest on the US backing down from criticism since it was widely believed by leftists all over the world that Saddam had no WMDs (despite documented evidence -- the question still remains: where did all the chemical weapons documented after the Gulf War go?). This was his big gamble and his only real saving grace. So if he were to use WMDs ONCE to win one battle out of many, he'd be up shit creek since the rest of the world would join behind the US in taking care of Saddam (because the proof of WMDs everyone wanted would be out in the open). Perhaps now you can see why strategically it would not be to his benefit to use WMDs -- it's a "win the battle, lose the war" situation.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
and the WMDs will be found.
Even if they have to be made just in order to be discovered...
Think for a second. Saddam has always been about one person: Saddam. His hatred for the US stems from the fact that we prevented him from getting at the Kuwaiti oil fields. Giving away his WMD gets him NOWHERE, because he still loses. If he had them, he would have used them.
You're confusing al Qaida and religious hatred with the secular warmongering of Saddam. They're not the same, which is why this argument doesn't hold true.
The problem is not that saddam isn't a bad man. The problem is that if you define iraq as rogue because of what saddam did in the 80's, half the planet is rogue. China is rogue, because of what they're doing in tibet, and how they disregard basic human rights like freedom of speech. Saudi-arabia is rogue, because of government ties to terrorism. Israel is rogue, for what they're doing to the palestinians (not that the palestinians are angels, but two wrongs don't make a right). And so on...
Some people might even call the US rogue, for blatantly disregarding basic laws like the international rights of pow's and human rights in how they treat captured "enemy combatants". Examples of infringed rights: pow's have a right to be returned to their country after the cessation of major hostilities. Most people captured in afghanistan haven't been returned, even if there's no proof they did anything else than defend their country. Another example: the way people in guatanamo bay are presumed guilty and are refused a fair trial (the lucky ones will go before military tribunals, but I wouldn't expect impartiality from those, the unlucky ones will just stay locked up indefinitely). Let me quote from the declaration of human rights:
Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
To sum up my point, cleaning up the world brute-force would be nothing short of WWIII. It's an inherently flawed strategy. You cause much more damage than the problems you're trying to fix. Any solution towards world peace needs to be political (look back in history, how many times has piece resulted from a treaty, and how many times has it resulted from total military victory?). And I wouldn't go around putting blame on other countries, because every country in the world is rogue in some way or other.
Besides, why is it ok that politicians lie? As a people, we shouldn't accept that, and we should hold them accountable. It was right to go after clinton for lying while president, it's right to go after bush for the very same reason now. A leader of the world should never, ever, knowingly lie, even if the truth is embarassing or damaging. If we can't trust our leaders, who can we trust?
Wow, I really wish I had moderator points right now.
:)
+750, Fantastic Reference Nobody Else Gets
This is the best Slashdot comment I've ever seen!
Good show.
"For the record, I think Bush is one of the worse presidents, ever."
One small alteration on this statement for me
For the record, I think Bush is the worst president ever.
For the record, I think Clinton was THE worst president ever. I think Reagan was one of the best. I think Bush has potential to be very good but not one of the best, a lot depends on his second term. You don't have to be great, just effective.
I don't know about you, but I keep a pretty impressive missile in my trousers.
: )
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!