To reiterate what everyone else said, you DO NOT ground yourself. You ground yourself with electronics to prevent zapping the electronics with potential from you. This does not work the other way around.
If you're not grounded, you can touch the mains voltage (of one phase!!!) and be OK (aka how squirells and birds run/sit on electrical wires). When I was an electrical distribution engineering intern, my boss used to ponder that if he were stuck on the second or third floor of a burning building, he'd jump out and grab one of the 13K volt phases running along side. Perhaps not really true, but it illustrates the point - if you're isolated at the same potential as the wire, you're more or less OK.
Back to the subject: On the back of all of your local electric company trucks, there is a decent chance that there is a sign that says "Not grounded? Not DEAD!".
I agree... I was going through a tin of penguins a week, along wiht coffee, dew, etc. Then I was diagnosed with Acid Reflux Disease, and one of the prohibitted foods to keep it in check was caffine. I've completely given up caffine aside from the (very) occasional after-dinner Espresso or the emergency Pepsi while driving, pulling an un-planned for all-nighter at work, etc. Probably no more than 30 caffine containing drinks in a year.
While it took a while (couple weeks) to get used to, and a lot of self control, it has made me much more energetic, I think largely because now things like enforcing a normal sleep pattern, exercise, etc. are much more important.
Also, my stomach is a heck of a lot happier (although the Nexium (wonder drug!) has a lot to do with that).
Well, the Buddha reached Enligtenment because he came to groundbreaking realizations about Life and the World, right? He discovered the path to Happiness, etc. (my knowledge of Buddhism is very basic, so excuse any approximations or simplifications)
So it would seem to me that if Nirvana is the Real, and Enligtenment is liberation from the Matrix, then in order to reach Nirvana you would have to develop some deep and profound realizations about the world you exist in, i.e. the Matrix. To do so would require technical knowlege, because that is the underlying truth of the Matrix - just as the Buddha would have had to know or think about human nature, emotions, etc.
It took a unique and special person to be the Buddha, and it would presumably take a unique and special person to be the One in the Matrix for the same reason.
The analogy seems, at least to me, awefully strong.
True... BUT you would assume that first-world technological cultures would have a higher percentage of "anomalies". Plus, either way, wouldn't Zion then have a large percentage of Asian peoples? I don't know if I recall one person of obvious Asian descent in the bunch.:-/
The idea that Zion is built up from a small number of people also explains the overwhelming black majority in Zion vs. what appears to be the "normal" (US normal) race distribution within the Matrix. If the previous Neo had picked mostly dark-skinned people to rebuild Zion, then the racial makeup of Zion would be completely different from that of the Matrix-proper. And note that we know that at least one white person in Zion (the Couselor) was freed from the Matrix, so the "children of Zion" racial composition could be ever more extreme than we see in the Zion scenes.
I always wondered why Zion was racially tilted so radically, and so differently from what we see in the Matrix. It makes sense that a human city could be populated heavily by one race (say, Dublin vs. Cairo vs. Shanghai), but it doesn't make sense that the *last* human city would be - you'd think that it would be very diverse due to all the surviving humans flocking there in droves as the machines took over.
So the idea that Zion - in a Matrix or in the real - was built up from just a handful of Neo-selected humans makes perfect sense given what we've seen of Zion.
Well, yeah, the WHY is all about philosophy - the intangibles.
But I see no reason why that must be wrapped into an organized religion, let alone an organized theist religion.
For instance, a Christian might thing that they must live a virtuous life to get into heaven. A humanist might believe in the inherent goodness in humanity and that to make thier life worthwhile, they must do enough good things for others that their legacy will be a better world. A scientist might view the discovery of knowledge as an end in and of itself. A capitalist might think the same thing about money. And Frank The Village Nut might spend his whole life tending after the dandelions in the park because he thinks they are beautiful and must be protected - who knows.
But in all those cases - organized, religious, spiritual, or very personal (ala Frank), that person would have the potential to live a useful, productive life with a meaning that "did it" for them.
That at least answers the WHY question in terms of "what purposeful pursuit should I use to guide me life, and why?". The aspect of the question "What has caused our existence and conciousness to come about" - that aspect I would argue has no bearing on actually living your life. I have strong, personal, always evolving ideas about how and why to live my life (culled from different philosophies, religions, life experiences, examples of people I love and respect, etc), but I couldn't give a shit WHY we're all here - I'll never know even close to conclusivly, and it really has no bearing on what I do with my life.
You could just as well see some polytheist saying the same thing about people forgoing all thier complementary Gods for just one.
I think what you mean is that human beings tend to need something to cling to - we like the idea of faith, and we need some sort of concience enhancer. Some people choose God, others choose science, still others choose ideals about humanity, etc. But the idea that the only way to reap these benefits with with a God is cultural arrogrance (or the result of cultural blinders).
This paragraph shows everything that is wrong with the close-mindedness of traditional organized religion:
The film's bullet-laden violence and strong language, along with Eastern religious influences, she acknowledges, are unsettling to some Christians. But she has high hopes for the sequels. "If you can see a way through those things and really pick out the good stuff... any Christian could apply those things to life and grow from it."
Right, because a Christian applying so Buddhist ideals to life would help them grow at all, right? C'mon, open your damn minds already.
I don't understand your point... surely Lockheed has proposals and products that compete with the shuttle, but they also have thier fingers in the shuttle as well. they handle the external tanks, where I work we do the data processing computers, they do the thermal protection, they support shuttle missions, provide other shuttle support services, and do other shuttle related work.
So yeah, they'll probably gain when NASA moves to the next-gen space exploration system. But they're by no means missing out on the shuttle action as it stands now. The thing about Lockheed is that they are very diverse... they handle IT for government sites (pentagon, bases, etc), they do package distribution for the US & UK post office, we do traditional rockets, they do air traffic control, airplanes, avionics, missiles, support services of all sorts - the list goes on an on. Go to the main Lockheed homepage and look at the list of products & capabilities. So you can't pull one proposal or project that Lockheed has, and say that they want the shuttle to die because of that.
The politics here are a hell of a lot more complicated than $14,000 in campaign contributions. I don't understand them all, to be sure... but neither do you.
The idea that you see your shadow with a knife raised when sneaking up on someone... that's pretty freaking cool. The screens were awefully impressive.
As an aside, did this shot remind anyone else of Zork I? http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2003/pc/t hief 3/thiefpc_screen010.jpg
I cannot stand the UI in OS X (I am too attached to X Windows, with X style copy & paste, multiple desktops with edge flipping, and sloppy focus). And the OS X mouse driver sucks - the acceleration (AFAIK) is horrible and not adjustable, and none of the third party utilities for it have made it usable enough for me.
That, and after 6 or 7 years, I just understand and am comfortable with Linux.
Not that I don't think OS X is a good and/or capable OS, and that some of the iApps are really slick. But being comfortable with the UI is #1 with me, and I just can't get comfortable with OS X's UI. Really the only think I miss running Linux on my iBook (read: have to boot into OS X for) is playing DVDs on my TV. And Flash I guess. Other than that, it's perfect.
And it rolls to the cover. And dragging a circle is easy.
If you have ever had to manipulate a manhole cover (which is damned heavy), being able to slide it over to the hole and having it fit in *any* orientation is an incredible advantage.
My father-in-law custom made our wedding bands, he makes dental bridges and implements (correct term?) for a living. The skills are pretty similar.
That's sort of along the lines of the person who recommended an artist... try to find someone with the skills to do it that might be willing to do it on the side.
That's what they used in my High School... I think it's as good a place to start as any. Although I like the Mindstorms suggestions as well, but I think something like this would be easier to move from when they start to use something like C or Java.
I never said the government was always noble, or always told the truth. But I do believe that there a lot more truth in the things our government says than there is blatant lies. And this habit that many have of taking *everything* the executive branch says as propaganda and lies is getting really annoying - it is as if people are treating statements from Saddam's government and the US government with equal validity, and the facts of the situation simply to not back up that sort of assesment.
Not to mention that the facts (some of which you alluded to) don't support the "War for Oil" arguments - they do support the "War because he didn't disarm according to UNSEC resolution 687" arguments, but many folks are gleefully ignoring that side of things.
And as for not finishing Saddam the first time, perhaps that was a mistake, and failure of the US to support people in finish a conflict it had helped to start. That is certainly a valid perspective. Or perhaps the US government did the *noble* thing by stepping back, agreeing to a cease fire, and trying to let the UN control Saddam rather than simply ousting a regime they did not like. Perhaps the US tried to let Saddam's regime exist in way that would not threaten others for 12 years before resorting to this current conflict, rather than destroying him without a "second chance". Maybe we gave Saddam the benefit of the doubt 12 years ago, and that noble attempt was our mistake.
There are *a lot* of perspectives that one can approach this situation from, but it would be nice if people at least made an attempt to pick only those that were backed up by fact, rather than emotion or sheer attractiveness. I'm beginning to wonder if the validity of an argument in America has been reduced to the ease with which it fits onto a sign. *sigh*
I actually kinda come down on the side of believing that the Security Council as a concept is fatally flawed.
Well, I suppose it depends what level you consider "concept" to imply. If you're talking about an unelected body where a single member can have an irrevocable veto power over any issue, then yes, that is fatally flawed.
But the idea of one body that can provide a last means of diplomacy and a final OK for international military operations, that idea isn't too bad. Of course, it is non-trivial to envision a structure by which this goal could actually be achieved, and one may argue that by the time we as an international society progressed to that point, the need for such a body might well be much less urgent. In other words it is a sort of a realist utopia, like the United Federation of Planets for the Earth (to borrow a familiar geek analogue).
I agree - currently regional defense pacts are probably a more effective system, but they lack the true global legitimacy that a *working* UNSEC would impart to any actions. Despite the obvious hurdles that must be overcome, I think the idea of a body that can provide the functions that the UNSEC would *idealy* provide is a goal that is worth pursuing, even if it takes a couple of iterations before sucess is achieved.
The whole thing may have a net negative effect, because we're making more enemies than we can defeat through the incompetent "diplomacy" that our cretin-in-chief has tried carrying out.
"Cretin-in-chief?" Fuck you. Too many people better than you have fought to give you the liberty to make smart-assed remarks like that. How dare you be so disrespectful.
Not to mention that the "incompetent 'diplomacy'" was carried out over the course of 12 years by 3 commanders-in-chiefs, the UN & UNSEC, etc. This is by no means something that GWB put 4 months of unilateral effort into and then gave up.
Not only are you show a comlete lack of respect for our government (regardless of who may be in office), but you're resorting to an Ad Hominem attack (never a worthwhile thing to do in a debate unless it is *directly* about a persons character, for instance debating if Saddam is an evil tyrant) in a case where the person in question isn't the one (or at least by no means the only one) conducting the diplomacy in question. You're disdain for one individual has tainted your argument, and presumably, your outlook on the entire situation.
[i]My opinion today is that the UN is both vital and doomed. The General Assembly, as a body for international diplomacy and humanitarian efforts, is vital. The Security Council, fatally flawed and ineffectual at best, is doomed.[/i]
Twirlip, pretty insightful. I agree with you wholeheartly. Not that the Security Council as a *concept* is fatally flawed, but as implemented and currently composed, certainly.
That's one big problem with this campaign - it was a double edged sword (not quite the right analogy, but my mind is coming up blank). On one hand, it'd be great to have a UN resolution specifically backing this operation (regardless of what 687 and 1441 might say), because it would put some teeth in the UNSEC and quiet some of themore rational critics. On the other hand, going in without explicit UNSEC backing but with a broad coalition to back the resolutions might just be the last thing that keeps hope alive for the future of the UNSEC.
Right, and everything the government says is just a big old lie. Come on, use your damned head once in a while rather than just screaming "War for Oil" like a fucking lemming.
To quote what a general just said in a news conference:
"We are very close to securing the remaining oil fields. These are the property of the people of Iraq, and will be a very important asset to the Iraqi people as they build a free society."
More or less anyway, I might have got a minor word or two wrong.
Right, but there is a difference between pummeling the hell out of all of Bagdad (ala Tokyo), or just guding precision bombs (albeit lots of precision bombs) into government and military targets *within* Bagdad... from what I understand, it is the latter. Like other's have said, there is no desire or justification to destroy non-strategic parts of the city.
Well said.:) I don't think I completely agree with everything you said, but I'd have to dig out my notes and re-read some essays - it's been too long since I was actually emmersed in this stuff. And there is no way I could hold my own with a current History grad student.;) And I agree with you that a slightly mellower foriegn policy would better - I think JFK & Ambassador D. Morrison (can't remember his first name) & the OAS (right acronymn?) were on the right track - there was certainly potential there. Still involved, but friendlier at least. As I'm sure you can tell, I still have the concepts, but the facts are all confused in my head.
I think the thrust of my original post was that regardless of our strong arm tactics with our foriegn policy in the region - and by extension our questionable use of the CIA & counterinsurgency - the US government was never as *corrupt* as many South American governments. Pinochet, Castro, Peron... we don't hold a candle to them. You cannot compare a intrusive and agressive *foriegn* policy with the widespread fiscal corruption found in Mexico or Argentina, or the political repression and human rights abuses found in so many South American states during the last century. Regardless of how our foriegn policy did or did not contribute to that, or did or did not prevent it, the US government was never that corrupt. Bad - even ethically questionable - foriegn policy isn't corruption - it's just bad foriegn policy.
Slashdot Mirror
To reiterate what everyone else said, you DO NOT ground yourself. You ground yourself with electronics to prevent zapping the electronics with potential from you. This does not work the other way around.
If you're not grounded, you can touch the mains voltage (of one phase!!!) and be OK (aka how squirells and birds run/sit on electrical wires). When I was an electrical distribution engineering intern, my boss used to ponder that if he were stuck on the second or third floor of a burning building, he'd jump out and grab one of the 13K volt phases running along side. Perhaps not really true, but it illustrates the point - if you're isolated at the same potential as the wire, you're more or less OK.
Back to the subject: On the back of all of your local electric company trucks, there is a decent chance that there is a sign that says "Not grounded? Not DEAD!".
I agree... I was going through a tin of penguins a week, along wiht coffee, dew, etc. Then I was diagnosed with Acid Reflux Disease, and one of the prohibitted foods to keep it in check was caffine. I've completely given up caffine aside from the (very) occasional after-dinner Espresso or the emergency Pepsi while driving, pulling an un-planned for all-nighter at work, etc. Probably no more than 30 caffine containing drinks in a year.
While it took a while (couple weeks) to get used to, and a lot of self control, it has made me much more energetic, I think largely because now things like enforcing a normal sleep pattern, exercise, etc. are much more important.
Also, my stomach is a heck of a lot happier (although the Nexium (wonder drug!) has a lot to do with that).
Codetek Virtual Desktop for OS X.
It performed better than I had hoped, and the price was resonable.
Thank you... I am now less intelligent as a result of having read that comment.
Well, the Buddha reached Enligtenment because he came to groundbreaking realizations about Life and the World, right? He discovered the path to Happiness, etc. (my knowledge of Buddhism is very basic, so excuse any approximations or simplifications)
So it would seem to me that if Nirvana is the Real, and Enligtenment is liberation from the Matrix, then in order to reach Nirvana you would have to develop some deep and profound realizations about the world you exist in, i.e. the Matrix. To do so would require technical knowlege, because that is the underlying truth of the Matrix - just as the Buddha would have had to know or think about human nature, emotions, etc.
It took a unique and special person to be the Buddha, and it would presumably take a unique and special person to be the One in the Matrix for the same reason.
The analogy seems, at least to me, awefully strong.
Yep... weren't there a bunch of these sort of games for the Atari 2600? I remember one Koolaid branded game, and I seem to recall others.
So, while this may have taken a rest during the late 80's/early 90's, it is by no means revolutionary (as others have pointed out)
True... BUT you would assume that first-world technological cultures would have a higher percentage of "anomalies". Plus, either way, wouldn't Zion then have a large percentage of Asian peoples? I don't know if I recall one person of obvious Asian descent in the bunch. :-/
The idea that Zion is built up from a small number of people also explains the overwhelming black majority in Zion vs. what appears to be the "normal" (US normal) race distribution within the Matrix. If the previous Neo had picked mostly dark-skinned people to rebuild Zion, then the racial makeup of Zion would be completely different from that of the Matrix-proper. And note that we know that at least one white person in Zion (the Couselor) was freed from the Matrix, so the "children of Zion" racial composition could be ever more extreme than we see in the Zion scenes.
I always wondered why Zion was racially tilted so radically, and so differently from what we see in the Matrix. It makes sense that a human city could be populated heavily by one race (say, Dublin vs. Cairo vs. Shanghai), but it doesn't make sense that the *last* human city would be - you'd think that it would be very diverse due to all the surviving humans flocking there in droves as the machines took over.
So the idea that Zion - in a Matrix or in the real - was built up from just a handful of Neo-selected humans makes perfect sense given what we've seen of Zion.
Well, yeah, the WHY is all about philosophy - the intangibles.
But I see no reason why that must be wrapped into an organized religion, let alone an organized theist religion.
For instance, a Christian might thing that they must live a virtuous life to get into heaven. A humanist might believe in the inherent goodness in humanity and that to make thier life worthwhile, they must do enough good things for others that their legacy will be a better world. A scientist might view the discovery of knowledge as an end in and of itself. A capitalist might think the same thing about money. And Frank The Village Nut might spend his whole life tending after the dandelions in the park because he thinks they are beautiful and must be protected - who knows.
But in all those cases - organized, religious, spiritual, or very personal (ala Frank), that person would have the potential to live a useful, productive life with a meaning that "did it" for them.
That at least answers the WHY question in terms of "what purposeful pursuit should I use to guide me life, and why?". The aspect of the question "What has caused our existence and conciousness to come about" - that aspect I would argue has no bearing on actually living your life. I have strong, personal, always evolving ideas about how and why to live my life (culled from different philosophies, religions, life experiences, examples of people I love and respect, etc), but I couldn't give a shit WHY we're all here - I'll never know even close to conclusivly, and it really has no bearing on what I do with my life.
That's only because they were raised that way.
You could just as well see some polytheist saying the same thing about people forgoing all thier complementary Gods for just one.
I think what you mean is that human beings tend to need something to cling to - we like the idea of faith, and we need some sort of concience enhancer. Some people choose God, others choose science, still others choose ideals about humanity, etc. But the idea that the only way to reap these benefits with with a God is cultural arrogrance (or the result of cultural blinders).
This paragraph shows everything that is wrong with the close-mindedness of traditional organized religion:
... any Christian could apply those things to life and grow from it."
The film's bullet-laden violence and strong language, along with Eastern religious influences, she acknowledges, are unsettling to some Christians. But she has high hopes for the sequels. "If you can see a way through those things and really pick out the good stuff
Right, because a Christian applying so Buddhist ideals to life would help them grow at all, right? C'mon, open your damn minds already.
might as well have a Senator Lockheed-Martin.
Disclaimer: I work for Lockheed.
I don't understand your point... surely Lockheed has proposals and products that compete with the shuttle, but they also have thier fingers in the shuttle as well. they handle the external tanks, where I work we do the data processing computers, they do the thermal protection, they support shuttle missions, provide other shuttle support services, and do other shuttle related work.
So yeah, they'll probably gain when NASA moves to the next-gen space exploration system. But they're by no means missing out on the shuttle action as it stands now. The thing about Lockheed is that they are very diverse... they handle IT for government sites (pentagon, bases, etc), they do package distribution for the US & UK post office, we do traditional rockets, they do air traffic control, airplanes, avionics, missiles, support services of all sorts - the list goes on an on. Go to the main Lockheed homepage and look at the list of products & capabilities. So you can't pull one proposal or project that Lockheed has, and say that they want the shuttle to die because of that.
The politics here are a hell of a lot more complicated than $14,000 in campaign contributions. I don't understand them all, to be sure... but neither do you.
The idea that you see your shadow with a knife raised when sneaking up on someone... that's pretty freaking cool. The screens were awefully impressive.
t hief 3/thiefpc_screen010.jpg
As an aside, did this shot remind anyone else of Zork I?
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2003/pc/
I cannot stand the UI in OS X (I am too attached to X Windows, with X style copy & paste, multiple desktops with edge flipping, and sloppy focus). And the OS X mouse driver sucks - the acceleration (AFAIK) is horrible and not adjustable, and none of the third party utilities for it have made it usable enough for me.
That, and after 6 or 7 years, I just understand and am comfortable with Linux.
Not that I don't think OS X is a good and/or capable OS, and that some of the iApps are really slick. But being comfortable with the UI is #1 with me, and I just can't get comfortable with OS X's UI. Really the only think I miss running Linux on my iBook (read: have to boot into OS X for) is playing DVDs on my TV. And Flash I guess. Other than that, it's perfect.
And it rolls to the cover. And dragging a circle is easy.
If you have ever had to manipulate a manhole cover (which is damned heavy), being able to slide it over to the hole and having it fit in *any* orientation is an incredible advantage.
My father-in-law custom made our wedding bands, he makes dental bridges and implements (correct term?) for a living. The skills are pretty similar.
That's sort of along the lines of the person who recommended an artist... try to find someone with the skills to do it that might be willing to do it on the side.
That's what they used in my High School... I think it's as good a place to start as any. Although I like the Mindstorms suggestions as well, but I think something like this would be easier to move from when they start to use something like C or Java.
I never said the government was always noble, or always told the truth. But I do believe that there a lot more truth in the things our government says than there is blatant lies. And this habit that many have of taking *everything* the executive branch says as propaganda and lies is getting really annoying - it is as if people are treating statements from Saddam's government and the US government with equal validity, and the facts of the situation simply to not back up that sort of assesment.
Not to mention that the facts (some of which you alluded to) don't support the "War for Oil" arguments - they do support the "War because he didn't disarm according to UNSEC resolution 687" arguments, but many folks are gleefully ignoring that side of things.
And as for not finishing Saddam the first time, perhaps that was a mistake, and failure of the US to support people in finish a conflict it had helped to start. That is certainly a valid perspective. Or perhaps the US government did the *noble* thing by stepping back, agreeing to a cease fire, and trying to let the UN control Saddam rather than simply ousting a regime they did not like. Perhaps the US tried to let Saddam's regime exist in way that would not threaten others for 12 years before resorting to this current conflict, rather than destroying him without a "second chance". Maybe we gave Saddam the benefit of the doubt 12 years ago, and that noble attempt was our mistake.
There are *a lot* of perspectives that one can approach this situation from, but it would be nice if people at least made an attempt to pick only those that were backed up by fact, rather than emotion or sheer attractiveness. I'm beginning to wonder if the validity of an argument in America has been reduced to the ease with which it fits onto a sign. *sigh*
I actually kinda come down on the side of believing that the Security Council as a concept is fatally flawed.
Well, I suppose it depends what level you consider "concept" to imply. If you're talking about an unelected body where a single member can have an irrevocable veto power over any issue, then yes, that is fatally flawed.
But the idea of one body that can provide a last means of diplomacy and a final OK for international military operations, that idea isn't too bad. Of course, it is non-trivial to envision a structure by which this goal could actually be achieved, and one may argue that by the time we as an international society progressed to that point, the need for such a body might well be much less urgent. In other words it is a sort of a realist utopia, like the United Federation of Planets for the Earth (to borrow a familiar geek analogue).
I agree - currently regional defense pacts are probably a more effective system, but they lack the true global legitimacy that a *working* UNSEC would impart to any actions. Despite the obvious hurdles that must be overcome, I think the idea of a body that can provide the functions that the UNSEC would *idealy* provide is a goal that is worth pursuing, even if it takes a couple of iterations before sucess is achieved.
The whole thing may have a net negative effect, because we're making more enemies than we can defeat through the incompetent "diplomacy" that our cretin-in-chief has tried carrying out.
"Cretin-in-chief?" Fuck you. Too many people better than you have fought to give you the liberty to make smart-assed remarks like that. How dare you be so disrespectful.
Not to mention that the "incompetent 'diplomacy'" was carried out over the course of 12 years by 3 commanders-in-chiefs, the UN & UNSEC, etc. This is by no means something that GWB put 4 months of unilateral effort into and then gave up.
Not only are you show a comlete lack of respect for our government (regardless of who may be in office), but you're resorting to an Ad Hominem attack (never a worthwhile thing to do in a debate unless it is *directly* about a persons character, for instance debating if Saddam is an evil tyrant) in a case where the person in question isn't the one (or at least by no means the only one) conducting the diplomacy in question. You're disdain for one individual has tainted your argument, and presumably, your outlook on the entire situation.
[i]My opinion today is that the UN is both vital and doomed. The General Assembly, as a body for international diplomacy and humanitarian efforts, is vital. The Security Council, fatally flawed and ineffectual at best, is doomed.[/i]
Twirlip, pretty insightful. I agree with you wholeheartly. Not that the Security Council as a *concept* is fatally flawed, but as implemented and currently composed, certainly.
That's one big problem with this campaign - it was a double edged sword (not quite the right analogy, but my mind is coming up blank). On one hand, it'd be great to have a UN resolution specifically backing this operation (regardless of what 687 and 1441 might say), because it would put some teeth in the UNSEC and quiet some of themore rational critics. On the other hand, going in without explicit UNSEC backing but with a broad coalition to back the resolutions might just be the last thing that keeps hope alive for the future of the UNSEC.
Right, and everything the government says is just a big old lie. Come on, use your damned head once in a while rather than just screaming "War for Oil" like a fucking lemming.
To quote what a general just said in a news conference:
"We are very close to securing the remaining oil fields. These are the property of the people of Iraq, and will be a very important asset to the Iraqi people as they build a free society."
More or less anyway, I might have got a minor word or two wrong.
Right, but there is a difference between pummeling the hell out of all of Bagdad (ala Tokyo), or just guding precision bombs (albeit lots of precision bombs) into government and military targets *within* Bagdad... from what I understand, it is the latter. Like other's have said, there is no desire or justification to destroy non-strategic parts of the city.
Well said. :) I don't think I completely agree with everything you said, but I'd have to dig out my notes and re-read some essays - it's been too long since I was actually emmersed in this stuff. And there is no way I could hold my own with a current History grad student. ;) And I agree with you that a slightly mellower foriegn policy would better - I think JFK & Ambassador D. Morrison (can't remember his first name) & the OAS (right acronymn?) were on the right track - there was certainly potential there. Still involved, but friendlier at least. As I'm sure you can tell, I still have the concepts, but the facts are all confused in my head.
I think the thrust of my original post was that regardless of our strong arm tactics with our foriegn policy in the region - and by extension our questionable use of the CIA & counterinsurgency - the US government was never as *corrupt* as many South American governments. Pinochet, Castro, Peron... we don't hold a candle to them. You cannot compare a intrusive and agressive *foriegn* policy with the widespread fiscal corruption found in Mexico or Argentina, or the political repression and human rights abuses found in so many South American states during the last century. Regardless of how our foriegn policy did or did not contribute to that, or did or did not prevent it, the US government was never that corrupt. Bad - even ethically questionable - foriegn policy isn't corruption - it's just bad foriegn policy.