Because glaziers were not stupid and put the thick bits that could handle more load at the bottom. And sometimes they screwed up. There are tens of examples where the thick part is at the TOP.
I don't really know how intertwined the political party and terrorist halves of that organization are, so I'll concede your point. However, saying that (as a political party) Hezbollah is "in" the government isn't quite the same as saying that it is the government -- presumably, the Lebanese government contains legitimate, non-Hezbollah parts, right?
You, me, and the Lebanese people would prefer to believe that Hezbollah is _in_ the government and does not _rule_ the government. However, go read about the events of the last two months in Lebanon. You will be disappointed and scared.
However, the fact that -- as you say -- the U.S. has done it, on multiple occasions, despite it being stupid, is a very good deterrent for governments who don't want it to happen to them next.
Correct, however entities that act in that fashion are called bullies in most contexts. Don't get me wrong, the US bulling the world around is fine by me because the US is a very friendly nation to my country, however, that does not mean that I don't identify with the nations being bullied around.
Okay, so it wouldn't be easy. But "not easy" is not the same as "impossible." I think we could have managed it, especially if we had thrown even a fraction of the resources behind it that we did the assault.
The US could not have taken Al Quaeda without force. Going from the inside out would have taken literally decades as the process is one of inheritance. And that is assuming that the US could compromise someone worthy of inheriting such a position.
Yep. Sucks, don't it?
Yep. The US could very easily be the world leader in science and technology. It is leaving that position to India (third world country), Israel (tiny nation with no natural resources) and China (arch-rival for decades).
However, I agree with the goal of continued operations, even if not with the strategy.
That's an interesting statement. What are you defining the goals and strategy to be?
I'm not. I can identify a problem when I see it, but I will admit that I have no real solutions. That is why I am not a politician nor a general. I suppose that the best idea would be to let the Iraqis govern themselves and decide their own fate. But the US cannot take the risk that the Iraqis would be pro-US afterwards, and besides, they did take responsibility for upheaving the old government, so they should be responsible for ensuring a stable replacement government. In short, I really have no good answers to that one.
Lexmark not only doesn't provide the details needed to write OS drivers for its newer printers, it won't even provide proprietary drivers like ATI and nVidia do. I know, because when my sister moved from Windows to Ubuntu about a month or so ago, she had to buy a new printer because there wasn't any support for her fairly new Lexmark. Did you write to Lexmark and let them know that? Here is their address: http://www.lexmark.com/lexmark/sequentialem/home/0,6959,204816596_689444666_0_en,00.html
Write to the hardware vendors and let them know that we want to buy and use their products on Linux. Here are the addresses of some other hardware vendors. Copy the list and write to one every week:
While I'm all for open source and regarding hardware drivers I wouldn't want it any other way, let's not forget that open source does not have to be pushed around at the application level at the expense of usability. Professional-level applications are critical for the use and expansion of Linux, and proprietary software vendors should be encouraged to develop their software for Linux, not alienated by being badgered to give away their source code. Currently, there is a heated discussion on the Debian list regarding PCB and CAD software availability. One camp (me) is encouraging users to write to software houses and to request that they port their software to Linux, with the other camp rejecting all contact with proprietary software vendors unless it is a demand for the source code. Currently, myself and other engineers cannot use Linux at work because we must run proprietary engineering software, such as Solidworks in my case. For those who want to help, please write to these companies and let them know that we are interested in their software on Linux:
Obviously only Ubuntu fans would get that. I don't really care about the karma.
For Microsofties and Apple fruitcakes, the current Ubuntu release is called Hardy Heron. It was initially to be called Hardy Hadron, but luckily Shuttleworth reads/. and got fed up with the phallic jokes.
I think we need to develop space travel so we can send all these potentially dangerous tests out to Pluto. That's actually quite insightful and it's too bad I've got no modpoints.
The black hole will be created on the surface of the Earth, not the center, therefore it won't exactly replace the planet. The new center of gravity will be somewhere between the current center of the Earth and the surface of the Earth. This will cause the Moon's orbit to go haywire. I seriously doubt the end result will be a moon orbiting a black hole which orbits the sun peacefully. No, the center of the combined blackhole-earthInside system will be the center of the blackhole-earthOutside system. Assuming the mass of the blackhole to be tiny, the center of the new system should line up neatly with the current center of the earth.
The moon will notice no change other than the view.
Thanks. I actually don't run antivirus on the virtual machine because it is not connected to the 'net. I thought that the file system handles disk fragmentation, not the OS, therefore the 'fragmentation' would be a function of VirtualBox, not the Windows installation. Looking now, I see that the file are in fact fragmented.
I am prepared to defend the qualitative difference between the rants of Carlin and those of Hicks, but I should stay on topic. What is this, the fucking Debian list? Go on and rant... George would want it that way.
I don't understand what you're getting at here. Hezbollah isn't a government, and Saddam Hussein only hid after he lost control of Iraq. Besides, it's Israel that's really pissed off about Hezbollah, not us.
You seem to have forgotten about the hundreds (~250) US Marines that were killed my Hezbollah. And if you are not aware, Hezbollah _is_ in the Lebanese government. And you should see what they do when they don't get their way. Without being offensive, really, either your non-/. news sources are not telling you everything or you haven't been paying attention for the past two months.
Oh, no doubt. But that opposing government, if it's of a small, non-nuclear country, certainly can't stop us from doing it (or anything else) if we decide to.
Again, without being offensive, do you really think that it is logical that any one large government, whether it be the US, Israel, or China, could bully it's way around the world like that?
However, how do you think that 'terrorist' organizations are infiltrated?
Very carefully?
Your answer sounds like the punchline to a joke. I think that you really underestimate those 'stupid Arabs'.
Always treat your enemy as smarter than you, especially when you are in their territory. I do not believe that the US could infiltrate Al Quaeda.
I'm no CIA agent, so I don't feel qualified to opine about this. But considering how open the Al Qaida recruitment seems to have been (attracting people from many different countries, including, I believe, the US) I can't believe it would be impossible.
Well, I'm in infantry not intelligence, but I will tell you that these cell-based organizations are a one-way flow of information only. Anything that flows from the bottom back up goes through many layers of insulation, often traveling hundreds of kilometers. Getting to clean Al Quaeda's toilets might be easy. Getting to wipe Osama's ass won't be.
And don't forget the military show that the US population needed after the fall of the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.
First of all, that's just stupid (not your argument, but the fact that the US population really would demand that). Second, but at what cost? Surely, if we had had a competent government, it could have managed a cheaper show of force? Third, even if I agreed that a show of force was desirable, that was Afghanistan. WTF does Iraq have to do with anything?
I was not in the US at the time of the Towers' destruction, however, from the Americans in the area I heard cries for blood, and that's what I read on the news. I do remember the small let's-give-peace-a-chance hippies doing their best to show themselves off, too, though. Maybe I judged the US wrong, sorry for that, though American machoism would be very well excused for crying for blood after having the Pentagon, Twin Towers, and 4 airplanes destroyed. At what cost? I don't remember that _ever_ being a consideration of US interests other than science and education, and especially not military interests. And what does Iraq have to do with all this? It's the golden rule: he with the gold (oil) gets the US to rule them:)
The vast majority of continued operations, so far as I understand, are preventative measures.
Interesting euphemism for "occupation" you've got there.
That's a good point. I also agree that US interests could be furthered in Iraq much better should the occupation end. And yes, I do consider it a military occupation. However, I agree with the goal of continued operations, even if not with the strategy.
However, you will notice that one can click on the European part of the map and on the resulting page appear France and Germany.
And also the United States, and Israel, and Japan, and South Korea. Japan and South Korea do not, however, appear when you click on the link marked "East Asia and the Pacific". OMG! UNICEF is claiming that Japan is in Europe, not East Asia! CONSPIRACY! The fact that Japan and South Korea do not appear under East Asia is an obvious bug and should be corrected. At least when mousing over Japan and South Korea, the correct page is rendered.
Maybe they should reconfigure the image map to have Israel point to the page on which she appears.
Oh, please. Look at the size of the map! There is no way they could make Israel clickable -- it would be, what, a single pixel wide at best?
Yes, that is all we have. It is very valuable to us, especially when all our neighbors are trying to wipe us off that pixel.
Seriously, get some perspective here. You are totally overreacting to a non-issue. Information on Israel is easy to find simply by using the alphabetical list of countries that is prominently located directly below the map, and is what most people are likely to use if they are looking for a specific country by name.
That might be what most people who's native language is the language in which the page is written. For me, it is easier to go to the map. It's right there above the fold, it is not in a foreign language for me, and it physically shows what I need. Why should I start scrolling and searching for a term in a foreign language? You will notice that my English is not _that_ bad, and still I find it easier to go for the map. What do you think people who really don't know English will do?
And, back on UNICEF's front page, you will observe on the far right a block of flags showing countries involved with UNICEF. You will observe the flag of Israel among them, exactly the same size as all the others, in alphabetical order as you'd expect. There is no global anti-Semitic conspiracy at work in UNICEF. Actually, I didn't get that far on the UNICEF homepage. Thanks for pointing that out. I never though that there was an anti-Semitic consipiracy at work in UNICEF, I was pointing out what the/. article in question was pointing out. There are some rather sensitive subjects that [website||software||sporting event] designers often fail to consider.
Why do you suppose that a small non-state organization could hurt the US, but a state could not?
Simple: a state can't hide.
Really? Have you never heard of Hezbollah? Saddam Hussein? The goal of a war is not always overthrowing an opposing government. The US made the mistake (more than once) of overthrowing an opposing government. Then who's in charge? I'm sure that it looks easy to arm-chair generals, but believe me it's a lot more complicated than "bang-bang we won".
Most Americans don't appear to be aware of this, but Osama bin Laden (you know, the guy actually responsible for the 9/11 attacks) is still at large. The government of the country that he (is or was) in, however, is completely destroyed. Now, do you think the Taliban would have chosen to conduct similar attacks directly, knowing the consequences?
The Taliban government was displaced because they refused to turn over Bin Laden. That was a huge mistake. The Taliban may have been religious extremists, but they did much good for their country. Of course, I doubt that much of the good of the Taliban has been reported in Western media. Google "taliban opium" for starters.
The scope of CIA combat operations is very limited and not designed for prolong, nor widespread, combat.
Exactly my point! We don't need prolonged or widespread combat; we need to infiltrate terrorist organizations and assassinate their leadership!
I do agree that prolonged combat should be avoided whenever possible, and that it was inappropriate in this case. However, how do you think that 'terrorist' organizations are infiltrated? Always treat your enemy as smarter than you, especially when you are in their territory. I do not believe that the US could infiltrate Al Quaeda.
And don't forget the military show that the US population needed after the fall of the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.
In short, we both agree that the US military (Army, Air Force, and Navy in particular) are currently not designed for the type of operations currently being performed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I'm asserting not only that, but also that the vast majority of those operations were and are unnecessary to begin with. (Especially in Iraq -- that was a complete non sequitur anyway!)
The vast majority of continued operations, so far as I understand, are preventative measures. I do think that the US is going about it the wrong way, however.
Thanks, Phozz. However, you will notice that one can click on the European part of the map and on the resulting page appear France and Germany. One could also click on the N.American part of the map and on the resulting page appears the United States. However, when clicking on the Middle Eastern part of the map, Israel does not appear on the resulting page.
Maybe they should reconfigure the image map to have Israel point to the page on which she appears.
Do you really think Israel's children are in a situation where they require the assistance of UNICEF? Are French, German, or United Statesian children in a situation where they require the assistance of UNICEF?
No, it was by a criminal organization not connected to any state at all. Drop the term 'criminal' and I'm inclined to agree.
Your argument was that the US would only ever have to fight large, nuclear states.
No, my argument was that, of the states that the US might fight, only the large nuclear ones would have a chance of hurting people within the U.S. Entities which are not states are entirely different, and not included in my argument.
Why do you suppose that a small non-state organization could hurt the US, but a state could not? Does something magical happen when one attains statehood that they could not do, which they could when they were a small organization?
Of course, the actual point I'm getting at here is that the military is designed to engage in well-defined combat with other states. It is not appropriate for use against non-state entities; we would likely be better off handling "terrorism" with the CIA or something.
I agree that the US, and most other, militaries are designed to fight standing armies. Most of the international treaties that the US is party too regarding warfare assume the situation of one or more standing armies fighting other standing armies. Strict adhesion to these treaties would prevent effective fighting against smaller 'terrorist' organizations, which is why the US is breaking so many treaties. However, it is the army who is equipped and trained to handle urban combat, not the CIA which (correct me if I'm wrong) is an intelligence agency, not an operations agency. The scope of CIA combat operations is very limited and not designed for prolong, nor widespread, combat. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
In short, we both agree that the US military (Army, Air Force, and Navy in particular) are currently not designed for the type of operations currently being performed in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, I am of the opinion that there is no better alternative.
Such a suggestion is outrageous! These robots are LADYtrons. They are classy. I'm sorry, I meant to say ladyland. It was a simple typo. The keys are like right next to each other.
No, it was by a large, nuclear state? Your argument was that the US would only ever have to fight large, nuclear states. Here is an example of where a small, well-organized group succeeded in performing a very high-profile operation on some of the US most valuable targets.
Note that I myself am not convinced that Al-Queda is to blame.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't really know how intertwined the political party and terrorist halves of that organization are, so I'll concede your point. However, saying that (as a political party) Hezbollah is "in" the government isn't quite the same as saying that it is the government -- presumably, the Lebanese government contains legitimate, non-Hezbollah parts, right?
You, me, and the Lebanese people would prefer to believe that Hezbollah is _in_ the government and does not _rule_ the government. However, go read about the events of the last two months in Lebanon. You will be disappointed and scared.However, the fact that -- as you say -- the U.S. has done it, on multiple occasions, despite it being stupid, is a very good deterrent for governments who don't want it to happen to them next.
Correct, however entities that act in that fashion are called bullies in most contexts. Don't get me wrong, the US bulling the world around is fine by me because the US is a very friendly nation to my country, however, that does not mean that I don't identify with the nations being bullied around.Okay, so it wouldn't be easy. But "not easy" is not the same as "impossible." I think we could have managed it, especially if we had thrown even a fraction of the resources behind it that we did the assault.
The US could not have taken Al Quaeda without force. Going from the inside out would have taken literally decades as the process is one of inheritance. And that is assuming that the US could compromise someone worthy of inheriting such a position.Yep. Sucks, don't it?
Yep. The US could very easily be the world leader in science and technology. It is leaving that position to India (third world country), Israel (tiny nation with no natural resources) and China (arch-rival for decades).That's an interesting statement. What are you defining the goals and strategy to be?
I'm not. I can identify a problem when I see it, but I will admit that I have no real solutions. That is why I am not a politician nor a general. I suppose that the best idea would be to let the Iraqis govern themselves and decide their own fate. But the US cannot take the risk that the Iraqis would be pro-US afterwards, and besides, they did take responsibility for upheaving the old government, so they should be responsible for ensuring a stable replacement government. In short, I really have no good answers to that one.http://www.lexmark.com/lexmark/sequentialem/home/0,6959,204816596_689444666_0_en,00.html
Write to the hardware vendors and let them know that we want to buy and use their products on Linux. Here are the addresses of some other hardware vendors. Copy the list and write to one every week:
Creative (Webcams) http://asia.creative.com/contactus/presales/
Logitech (Webcams) http://logitech-en-amr.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/logitech_en_amr.cfg/php/enduser/ask.php
Nokia (PIM sync software with OpenSync) http://www.nokia.com/A4126575
Epson (Printers) http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/AboutContactUs.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes
Gigabyte (New motherboards should ship with Linux drivers) http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/Company/ContactUs.aspx?CompanyWebPageID=6
Linksys (Networking equipment) http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satellite?c=L_Content_C1&childpagename=US%2FLayout&cid=1114037291276&pagename=Linksys%2FCommon%2FVisitorWrapper
While I'm all for open source and regarding hardware drivers I wouldn't want it any other way, let's not forget that open source does not have to be pushed around at the application level at the expense of usability. Professional-level applications are critical for the use and expansion of Linux, and proprietary software vendors should be encouraged to develop their software for Linux, not alienated by being badgered to give away their source code. Currently, there is a heated discussion on the Debian list regarding PCB and CAD software availability. One camp (me) is encouraging users to write to software houses and to request that they port their software to Linux, with the other camp rejecting all contact with proprietary software vendors unless it is a demand for the source code. Currently, myself and other engineers cannot use Linux at work because we must run proprietary engineering software, such as Solidworks in my case. For those who want to help, please write to these companies and let them know that we are interested in their software on Linux:
Intuit (Quicken, Quickbooks) http://www.intuit.com/contact/ (requires registration)
Adobe (Photoshop, Flash CS3 Professional, Captivate, Dreamweaver, Studio) http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=wishform
Sony (Vegas Studio) http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/corporate/contacts.asp
Autodesk (Autocad) http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?siteID=123112&id=1073074
SolidWorks http://www.solidworks.com/pages/company/SolidWorksOfficeWorldwide.html (requires registration)
Sage (Act!) http://www.act.com/company/contactus/
Nuance (Dragon Naturally Speaking) http://www.nuance.com/help/contact/
hardin-soft (BM-Win Plus (mailing address correction software)) http://www.hardin-soft.com//forms/feedback.html
Daz (Bryce (3D modeling and animation)) http://www.daz3d.com/i.x/support/rnlogin/-/?p_sid=vOwOJN6j&p_accessibility=&p_redirect=&p_lva=&p_sp=&p_li=&p_next_page=std_alp.php (requires registration)
ArenaNet (Guild wars): http://www.arena.net/contact.php
Ironclad Games (Sins of a Solar Empire) http://www.ironcladgames.com/contact.html
Blizzard Entertainment (World of Warcraft) http://us.blizzard.com/support/webform-us.xml?gameId=0
Firzxis (Civilization IV) http://www.firaxis.com/support/
Electronic Arts (lots of games) http://www.info.ea.com/company/company_prlist.php
My personal problem is that I need Solidworks, so for emphasis I'll repeat their address here:
http://www.solidworks.com/pages/company/SolidWorksOfficeWorldwide.html
Please write to these companies and let them know that we need their products on Linux. Copy the list and write to one company a week. Thanks.
Obviously only Ubuntu fans would get that. I don't really care about the karma.
For Microsofties and Apple fruitcakes, the current Ubuntu release is called Hardy Heron. It was initially to be called Hardy Hadron, but luckily Shuttleworth reads /. and got fed up with the phallic jokes.
So why is "cunt" still on the list then? Because it's a full meal?
Dessert.DC - the lobbyees die.
Both are good, but the former is better.
Somehow I always suspected that the RIAA would somehow be involved with humanities brush with the Great Filter.The moon will notice no change other than the view.
Although the parent is rated 'funny' currently, I can only imagine a new, really big lake in Switzerland soon, Lake Hadron.
It will be renamed Lake Heron before it gets out of beta.Thanks. I actually don't run antivirus on the virtual machine because it is not connected to the 'net. I thought that the file system handles disk fragmentation, not the OS, therefore the 'fragmentation' would be a function of VirtualBox, not the Windows installation. Looking now, I see that the file are in fact fragmented.
I don't understand what you're getting at here. Hezbollah isn't a government, and Saddam Hussein only hid after he lost control of Iraq. Besides, it's Israel that's really pissed off about Hezbollah, not us.
You seem to have forgotten about the hundreds (~250) US Marines that were killed my Hezbollah. And if you are not aware, Hezbollah _is_ in the Lebanese government. And you should see what they do when they don't get their way. Without being offensive, really, either your non-/. news sources are not telling you everything or you haven't been paying attention for the past two months.Oh, no doubt. But that opposing government, if it's of a small, non-nuclear country, certainly can't stop us from doing it (or anything else) if we decide to.
Again, without being offensive, do you really think that it is logical that any one large government, whether it be the US, Israel, or China, could bully it's way around the world like that?Very carefully?
Your answer sounds like the punchline to a joke. I think that you really underestimate those 'stupid Arabs'.I'm no CIA agent, so I don't feel qualified to opine about this. But considering how open the Al Qaida recruitment seems to have been (attracting people from many different countries, including, I believe, the US) I can't believe it would be impossible.
Well, I'm in infantry not intelligence, but I will tell you that these cell-based organizations are a one-way flow of information only. Anything that flows from the bottom back up goes through many layers of insulation, often traveling hundreds of kilometers. Getting to clean Al Quaeda's toilets might be easy. Getting to wipe Osama's ass won't be.First of all, that's just stupid (not your argument, but the fact that the US population really would demand that). Second, but at what cost? Surely, if we had had a competent government, it could have managed a cheaper show of force? Third, even if I agreed that a show of force was desirable, that was Afghanistan. WTF does Iraq have to do with anything?
I was not in the US at the time of the Towers' destruction, however, from the Americans in the area I heard cries for blood, and that's what I read on the news. I do remember the small let's-give-peace-a-chance hippies doing their best to show themselves off, too, though. Maybe I judged the US wrong, sorry for that, though American machoism would be very well excused for crying for blood after having the Pentagon, Twin Towers, and 4 airplanes destroyed. At what cost? I don't remember that _ever_ being a consideration of US interests other than science and education, and especially not military interests. And what does Iraq have to do with all this? It's the golden rule: he with the gold (oil) gets the US to rule themInteresting euphemism for "occupation" you've got there.
That's a good point. I also agree that US interests could be furthered in Iraq much better should the occupation end. And yes, I do consider it a military occupation. However, I agree with the goal of continued operations, even if not with the strategy.Tabs on the side? Just a couple clicks away.
Only repagination is missing then. (And I believe somebody can do it with a little JavaScript magic)
Actually, I'm thinking of implementing it in HTML on my server and passing it through, to save myself an extension.Oh, please. Look at the size of the map! There is no way they could make Israel clickable -- it would be, what, a single pixel wide at best?
Yes, that is all we have. It is very valuable to us, especially when all our neighbors are trying to wipe us off that pixel.Seriously, get some perspective here. You are totally overreacting to a non-issue. Information on Israel is easy to find simply by using the alphabetical list of countries that is prominently located directly below the map, and is what most people are likely to use if they are looking for a specific country by name.
That might be what most people who's native language is the language in which the page is written. For me, it is easier to go to the map. It's right there above the fold, it is not in a foreign language for me, and it physically shows what I need. Why should I start scrolling and searching for a term in a foreign language? You will notice that my English is not _that_ bad, and still I find it easier to go for the map. What do you think people who really don't know English will do? And, back on UNICEF's front page, you will observe on the far right a block of flags showing countries involved with UNICEF. You will observe the flag of Israel among them, exactly the same size as all the others, in alphabetical order as you'd expect. There is no global anti-Semitic conspiracy at work in UNICEF. Actually, I didn't get that far on the UNICEF homepage. Thanks for pointing that out. I never though that there was an anti-Semitic consipiracy at work in UNICEF, I was pointing out what theSimple: a state can't hide.
Really? Have you never heard of Hezbollah? Saddam Hussein? The goal of a war is not always overthrowing an opposing government. The US made the mistake (more than once) of overthrowing an opposing government. Then who's in charge? I'm sure that it looks easy to arm-chair generals, but believe me it's a lot more complicated than "bang-bang we won".Most Americans don't appear to be aware of this, but Osama bin Laden (you know, the guy actually responsible for the 9/11 attacks) is still at large. The government of the country that he (is or was) in, however, is completely destroyed. Now, do you think the Taliban would have chosen to conduct similar attacks directly, knowing the consequences?
The Taliban government was displaced because they refused to turn over Bin Laden. That was a huge mistake. The Taliban may have been religious extremists, but they did much good for their country. Of course, I doubt that much of the good of the Taliban has been reported in Western media. Google "taliban opium" for starters.Exactly my point! We don't need prolonged or widespread combat; we need to infiltrate terrorist organizations and assassinate their leadership!
I do agree that prolonged combat should be avoided whenever possible, and that it was inappropriate in this case. However, how do you think that 'terrorist' organizations are infiltrated? Always treat your enemy as smarter than you, especially when you are in their territory. I do not believe that the US could infiltrate Al Quaeda.And don't forget the military show that the US population needed after the fall of the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.
I'm asserting not only that, but also that the vast majority of those operations were and are unnecessary to begin with. (Especially in Iraq -- that was a complete non sequitur anyway!)
The vast majority of continued operations, so far as I understand, are preventative measures. I do think that the US is going about it the wrong way, however.Thanks, Phozz. However, you will notice that one can click on the European part of the map and on the resulting page appear France and Germany. One could also click on the N.American part of the map and on the resulting page appears the United States. However, when clicking on the Middle Eastern part of the map, Israel does not appear on the resulting page.
Maybe they should reconfigure the image map to have Israel point to the page on which she appears.
Do you really think Israel's children are in a situation where they require the assistance of UNICEF? Are French, German, or United Statesian children in a situation where they require the assistance of UNICEF?No, my argument was that, of the states that the US might fight, only the large nuclear ones would have a chance of hurting people within the U.S. Entities which are not states are entirely different, and not included in my argument.
Why do you suppose that a small non-state organization could hurt the US, but a state could not? Does something magical happen when one attains statehood that they could not do, which they could when they were a small organization?Of course, the actual point I'm getting at here is that the military is designed to engage in well-defined combat with other states. It is not appropriate for use against non-state entities; we would likely be better off handling "terrorism" with the CIA or something.
I agree that the US, and most other, militaries are designed to fight standing armies. Most of the international treaties that the US is party too regarding warfare assume the situation of one or more standing armies fighting other standing armies. Strict adhesion to these treaties would prevent effective fighting against smaller 'terrorist' organizations, which is why the US is breaking so many treaties. However, it is the army who is equipped and trained to handle urban combat, not the CIA which (correct me if I'm wrong) is an intelligence agency, not an operations agency. The scope of CIA combat operations is very limited and not designed for prolong, nor widespread, combat. Please correct me if I'm wrong.In short, we both agree that the US military (Army, Air Force, and Navy in particular) are currently not designed for the type of operations currently being performed in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, I am of the opinion that there is no better alternative.
...although not sure to classify it as FUD, but wondering if anyone else out there has similar stories? Sure do:http://dotancohen.com/eng/unicef_israel.html
No, it was by a large, nuclear state? Your argument was that the US would only ever have to fight large, nuclear states. Here is an example of where a small, well-organized group succeeded in performing a very high-profile operation on some of the US most valuable targets.
Note that I myself am not convinced that Al-Queda is to blame.
I must be denser that I thought. Are you referring to the "cmd-T" line?
How about this one?