Brilliant and to the point. Utterly lacking in evidence or substance, but hey. They elected Rafsanjani, a moderate who tried to normalize relationships with the US. When we included them as part of the Axis of Evil, they elected Ahmadinejad. They DO have elections, and they DO matter. This last one may have been rigged, and yes that is the point, but they need to work that out without foreign meddling, AS THEY HAVE ASKED.
We should rescue them when they ask, as we'd rescue someone buried by an avalanche or trapped by a forest-fire.
North Koreans haven't asked to be liberated. Iranians haven't asked to be liberated. Iraqis didn't ask to be liberated. Afghanis didn't ask to be liberated. So you really have no argument at all.
Thus people must never try to influence events on the other side of a border.
What a gigantic fucking leap. The US has been roundly hated for over a century for its gunship diplomacy, CIA coups, invasions, blackmail, extortion, etc, so I am hesitant to add another country to its list of conquests. Sure, other countries can influence things on the other side of its border in milder ways. But our reputation as imperialists, rightly earned, should give us heed. If the Iranian people called out to us be liberated, that would be one thing. But hey have repeatedly said they want no help from the US, so my whole argument is that we should do as they ask and let them figure it out.
Oh yeah, the Iranians are disarmed and not allowed to choose anything. Sucks to be them.
Wrong twice in one sentence! Wow, awesome! Iranians have elections, so they do get to choose some things. There is a huge difference in having a Rafsanjani and an Ahmadinejad in office, so they clearly do have a choice in how they are governed. They were also similarly disarmed during the 79 revolution, so that clearly isn't a requirement to enact change (Don't get me wrong, I am a supporter of the 2nd amendment).
I wish we could airlift you to North Korea and let you experience the bliss of being ruled by a thoroughly legitimate (internationally recognized) dictator.
What is your point here exactly? That we should overthrow North Korea? The tactical infeasibility of invading that nation notwithstanding, the US has meddled in the affairs of many nations, and invaded a few, and it has rarely turned out well. What would you have us do to North Korea that we're not already doing?
No one is making the argument that we don't have morals, or that we can't act on morals that we do have. My argument is that we shouldn't force our morals and cultural values on another. The parent to which I originally posted made the argument that there are universal morals, and that his morals were the ones Iran should be following. I simply said that Iran disagrees. Oh, and police enforce laws, not morals.
Proof of his point: murdering* your neighbor is absolutely morally wrong. There, at least one instance exists and therefore his point is valid.
Providing an example of what you believe does not constitute a proof that it is universally true, or that everyone believes it. I do happen to believe that murder is bad and should not be acceptable, but do not pretend to offer proof that it is universally true. Perhaps there is a society somewhere that does not punish murderers. How the hell should I know?
In any case, none of what he lists are universal morals. People do in fact do the things he thinks are unacceptable, and people do accept them, even if he does not. He needs to just get over himself and let Iran figure out what it needs to do on its own.
Who decides what is absolutely unacceptable? You, or the native voting population? You may be surprised that Iranians don't like meddlesome foreigners telling them what they should do.
Oh and BTW, Muslims think it is absolutely unacceptable that American women go to school, and since your argument is that foreigners know better than the natives, they must be right.
Moral absolutism is complete bullshit, served up self-centered narrow-minded bigots who are unable to see things from anyone else's point of view.
The USA was founded on the premise that human beings have some inalienable rights endowed by their creator.
That doesn't mean everyone has to believe what you do, nor does it give you right to force your opinion on anyone else. The US was also founded on the premise that a nation should choose how to govern itself, and not let a foreign government across the ocean do it. So let Iran do the same thing and govern themselves.
It's more like, "They're going to do it us, so we need to try to stop them and do it to them first." Same thing for arms races and carrying a concealed gun. If everyone else has one, I don't want to be the one person without it. The rhetoric in the presses about unacceptable behavior is just that. We all know we all spy on each other.
Most of the planets found so far are very close and/or very heavy precisely because they are easier to find. Closer/faster/bigger planets produce more wiggle in the orbit of their parent star than smaller/slower/lighter ones.
The article is referring to planting physical keylogging or other devices on specific machines. As in breaking into your hotel room, opening up your laptop, and installing something that will send information back. This is why you should weigh before and after. TFA metions 3-letter agencies telling him to do this, so maybe they know something you don't.
I know already replied to your drivel, but the more I thought about it the more it bothered me. Your first part about googling UBl vice OBL is just flat out wrong. If you google "Usama bin Laden", Osama bin Laden results come right up. The Wikipedia page is second on my list, with the OBL spelling up front and immediately after that the numerous variations of his name, UBL being first. So your whole post is really making mountains out of molehills, and you seem to think you know more about UBL than you actually do.
But your insinuation that I am one of those revising the past when you yourself are cherry-picking information is annoying, at the least, and hypocritical. Did you know Sudan offered to give UBL to us, and Bill Clinton refused? Or that snipers had UBL in their sights and Clinton called them off? Or that Clinton chose to ignore ties between Iraq and WTC 93 and 95 OKC, because it would be unpopular? (Google those, just for fun). If you're going to pass around blame to previous administrations, let's make sure everyone gets their fair share.
It's armchair hindsight generals like you, questioning our methods, with little evidence, that are just as bad as "revisionists" if not worse. Maybe if you had brilliant insights WITHOUT hindsight, Washington would be calling for your advice right now.
Spell it whatever way you like. When I was an intelligence analyst at JAC Molesworth in 1998, that's the way we spelled it, so I guess I was ahead of my time. DIA spelled it the other way at the time. Whatever. I've been tracking UBL, or OBL, for a few years now so I know stuff too. Thanks.
BTW, the US did NOT knowingly finance UBL, though our money made it his way. That's also on the 'net in case you missed it.
It's not a "tower takes out nation" movie plot. It's a "tower changes nation into crazy people who then waste massive amounts of money thus killing their economy which lets us invade them 50 years later when they have nothing to fight back with and are infighting more than we do" large-amount-of-long-term-strategy plot.
Aside from your vivid imagination, do you have any sources for that? Have you heard any Al Qaeda members say that? Because what they have explicitly said on multiple occasions is that they wanted to destroy our economy. If you have a source from Al Qaeda, post it.
What's more their aim wasn't to topple our economy, it was to ruin our way of life.
Well, Usama bin Laden said he intended to destroy our economy by taking out the twin towers. Khalied Sheikh Muhammad said the same thing when planning the Bojinka plot in 94. They thought those two towers were pivotal to our economy, for some reason. They've also said they will not stop until they have raised the flag of Islam over the White House. They could really care less about our way of life if we're still alive.
Perhaps we overreacted as a nation, and you're entitled to your opinion. I am personally greatly upset at the rise in surveillance, loss of rights etc. But remember we are fighting an enemy that is dedicated to destroying us no longer how long it takes. Some things must change if we are to stay alive.
Interesting article. I work with the Navy, as well as other services, DoD, etc and have never heard this. I've also seen the DoN purchase proprietary systems this year alone, so at least some people haven't gotten that memo. Perhaps for areas where viable open source alternatives exist, I could see that, like for servers. But many of the workstation applications have no alternative. And with changes in command every few years, his successor is just as likely to continue with MS as not.
The vast majority of DoD's systems are Windows XP with no plans of moving to Vista. US Central Command (CENTCOM) is the only command of which I've heard that has said it is moving to Vista, and FSM only knows why.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit.
Brilliant and to the point. Utterly lacking in evidence or substance, but hey. They elected Rafsanjani, a moderate who tried to normalize relationships with the US. When we included them as part of the Axis of Evil, they elected Ahmadinejad. They DO have elections, and they DO matter. This last one may have been rigged, and yes that is the point, but they need to work that out without foreign meddling, AS THEY HAVE ASKED.
We should rescue them when they ask, as we'd rescue someone buried by an avalanche or trapped by a forest-fire.
North Koreans haven't asked to be liberated. Iranians haven't asked to be liberated. Iraqis didn't ask to be liberated. Afghanis didn't ask to be liberated. So you really have no argument at all.
Thus people must never try to influence events on the other side of a border.
What a gigantic fucking leap. The US has been roundly hated for over a century for its gunship diplomacy, CIA coups, invasions, blackmail, extortion, etc, so I am hesitant to add another country to its list of conquests. Sure, other countries can influence things on the other side of its border in milder ways. But our reputation as imperialists, rightly earned, should give us heed. If the Iranian people called out to us be liberated, that would be one thing. But hey have repeatedly said they want no help from the US, so my whole argument is that we should do as they ask and let them figure it out.
Oh yeah, the Iranians are disarmed and not allowed to choose anything. Sucks to be them.
Wrong twice in one sentence! Wow, awesome! Iranians have elections, so they do get to choose some things. There is a huge difference in having a Rafsanjani and an Ahmadinejad in office, so they clearly do have a choice in how they are governed. They were also similarly disarmed during the 79 revolution, so that clearly isn't a requirement to enact change (Don't get me wrong, I am a supporter of the 2nd amendment).
I wish we could airlift you to North Korea and let you experience the bliss of being ruled by a thoroughly legitimate (internationally recognized) dictator.
What is your point here exactly? That we should overthrow North Korea? The tactical infeasibility of invading that nation notwithstanding, the US has meddled in the affairs of many nations, and invaded a few, and it has rarely turned out well. What would you have us do to North Korea that we're not already doing?
No one is making the argument that we don't have morals, or that we can't act on morals that we do have. My argument is that we shouldn't force our morals and cultural values on another. The parent to which I originally posted made the argument that there are universal morals, and that his morals were the ones Iran should be following. I simply said that Iran disagrees. Oh, and police enforce laws, not morals.
Proof of his point: murdering* your neighbor is absolutely morally wrong. There, at least one instance exists and therefore his point is valid.
Providing an example of what you believe does not constitute a proof that it is universally true, or that everyone believes it. I do happen to believe that murder is bad and should not be acceptable, but do not pretend to offer proof that it is universally true. Perhaps there is a society somewhere that does not punish murderers. How the hell should I know?
In any case, none of what he lists are universal morals. People do in fact do the things he thinks are unacceptable, and people do accept them, even if he does not. He needs to just get over himself and let Iran figure out what it needs to do on its own.
He doesn't make any mention of advancement, only that, essentially, he knows better despite being a foreigner.
Who decides what is absolutely unacceptable? You, or the native voting population? You may be surprised that Iranians don't like meddlesome foreigners telling them what they should do.
Oh and BTW, Muslims think it is absolutely unacceptable that American women go to school, and since your argument is that foreigners know better than the natives, they must be right.
Moral absolutism is complete bullshit, served up self-centered narrow-minded bigots who are unable to see things from anyone else's point of view.
The USA was founded on the premise that human beings have some inalienable rights endowed by their creator.
That doesn't mean everyone has to believe what you do, nor does it give you right to force your opinion on anyone else. The US was also founded on the premise that a nation should choose how to govern itself, and not let a foreign government across the ocean do it. So let Iran do the same thing and govern themselves.
Ned Ryerson! Ned the Head? Needlenose Ned? BING! I dated your sister until you told me not to? BING!
Mod parent up.
Once again, you live up to your name. Well done.
It's more like, "They're going to do it us, so we need to try to stop them and do it to them first." Same thing for arms races and carrying a concealed gun. If everyone else has one, I don't want to be the one person without it. The rhetoric in the presses about unacceptable behavior is just that. We all know we all spy on each other.
Most of the planets found so far are very close and/or very heavy precisely because they are easier to find. Closer/faster/bigger planets produce more wiggle in the orbit of their parent star than smaller/slower/lighter ones.
The article is referring to planting physical keylogging or other devices on specific machines. As in breaking into your hotel room, opening up your laptop, and installing something that will send information back. This is why you should weigh before and after. TFA metions 3-letter agencies telling him to do this, so maybe they know something you don't.
I know already replied to your drivel, but the more I thought about it the more it bothered me. Your first part about googling UBl vice OBL is just flat out wrong. If you google "Usama bin Laden", Osama bin Laden results come right up. The Wikipedia page is second on my list, with the OBL spelling up front and immediately after that the numerous variations of his name, UBL being first. So your whole post is really making mountains out of molehills, and you seem to think you know more about UBL than you actually do.
But your insinuation that I am one of those revising the past when you yourself are cherry-picking information is annoying, at the least, and hypocritical. Did you know Sudan offered to give UBL to us, and Bill Clinton refused? Or that snipers had UBL in their sights and Clinton called them off? Or that Clinton chose to ignore ties between Iraq and WTC 93 and 95 OKC, because it would be unpopular? (Google those, just for fun). If you're going to pass around blame to previous administrations, let's make sure everyone gets their fair share.
It's armchair hindsight generals like you, questioning our methods, with little evidence, that are just as bad as "revisionists" if not worse. Maybe if you had brilliant insights WITHOUT hindsight, Washington would be calling for your advice right now.
Spell it whatever way you like. When I was an intelligence analyst at JAC Molesworth in 1998, that's the way we spelled it, so I guess I was ahead of my time. DIA spelled it the other way at the time. Whatever. I've been tracking UBL, or OBL, for a few years now so I know stuff too. Thanks.
BTW, the US did NOT knowingly finance UBL, though our money made it his way. That's also on the 'net in case you missed it.
It's not a "tower takes out nation" movie plot. It's a "tower changes nation into crazy people who then waste massive amounts of money thus killing their economy which lets us invade them 50 years later when they have nothing to fight back with and are infighting more than we do" large-amount-of-long-term-strategy plot.
Aside from your vivid imagination, do you have any sources for that? Have you heard any Al Qaeda members say that? Because what they have explicitly said on multiple occasions is that they wanted to destroy our economy. If you have a source from Al Qaeda, post it.
What's more their aim wasn't to topple our economy, it was to ruin our way of life.
Well, Usama bin Laden said he intended to destroy our economy by taking out the twin towers. Khalied Sheikh Muhammad said the same thing when planning the Bojinka plot in 94. They thought those two towers were pivotal to our economy, for some reason. They've also said they will not stop until they have raised the flag of Islam over the White House. They could really care less about our way of life if we're still alive.
Perhaps we overreacted as a nation, and you're entitled to your opinion. I am personally greatly upset at the rise in surveillance, loss of rights etc. But remember we are fighting an enemy that is dedicated to destroying us no longer how long it takes. Some things must change if we are to stay alive.
All we got was some measly hijacked plane (which has been done since the 70's) in a few buildings.
...whose cost rose into the tens of billions and exacerbated our recession. It didn't topple our economy, which was their aim, but put a dent in it.
Really? I work for DoD and no one has Vista.
Interesting article. I work with the Navy, as well as other services, DoD, etc and have never heard this. I've also seen the DoN purchase proprietary systems this year alone, so at least some people haven't gotten that memo. Perhaps for areas where viable open source alternatives exist, I could see that, like for servers. But many of the workstation applications have no alternative. And with changes in command every few years, his successor is just as likely to continue with MS as not.
The vast majority of DoD's systems are Windows XP with no plans of moving to Vista. US Central Command (CENTCOM) is the only command of which I've heard that has said it is moving to Vista, and FSM only knows why.
I bet you're the kind of person who goes to Burger King and orders 2 Whoppers Junior, aren't you?
That's pretty cowardly.
C'mon now, that's below the belt.
So it blends. But does it run Linux?