You are mistaken: the USA fought strongly against their troops being subject to a universal code of conduct, and as such, they refuse to allow their troops to be held accountable for anything - it is true, they will occassionally bust a couple of low level non-coms for the look of things; Up to 10 years for them (soldiers at Abu Graibh), but the camp commander was simply demoted - & she wasn't even allowed near the Interrogation section. The people who sanctioned the policy were untouched.
I think the cause of your error is that you are talking of US soldiers being prosecuted by the US, I am referring to International Law, under which Saddam has paid the price, but the US military have total immunity. In fact, if not in law, this also applies to all the private "security" forces of the West in Iraq - i.e. Mercenaries.
I don't act like the US is the only country in which abuse takes place, but it is the only one which has illegally invaded Iraq in order to perpetrate those abuses, and, frankly, what kind of defence is "Others do it as well.."?
Other nations do not pretend to be the ultimate arbiter of Justice, other nations do not impose "democracy" (when they can't even get it right in their own country)... and with all the dictatorships around (such as the USA's great ally K.S.A) the US seemingly only has concerns for oil-rich states...
You are mistaken in your contention that the treatment meted out at Abu Graibh differs from Saddam's regime in that is was an "incident" rather than policy.
This kind of treatment, along with torture & so-callee "rendition" (abduction of foreign nationals & transporting them to other countries in order to torture them with impunity) is standard policy of the USA.
One of the things that makes Guantanamo so heinous & barbaric, is that in a nation that bangs on about freedom, justice & liberty, this place is maintained specifically because they can operate outside US law, International Law, & any kind of moral or ethical code.
Simply put, dictators don't pretend to be anything but he sole authority, whereas the US talks of Liberty whilst behaving as badly as the worst of tyrants.
Oh, my mistake... I thought you meant Terrorism....Nah, sure, Bush never gave the order to make war on thousands of people. The soliers never used extreme amounts of torture, "Abu Graibh" is an urban legend, Iraquis were always treated nicely. You see, all the evil things you hear about Bush's Regime are a lie told by the, unlike him, really evil Islamic governments....So murder rape & torture by Saddam is "Terrorism", the same by Western mercenaries & soldiers (who, thanks to the US, have total legal immunity from any & all atrocities they may commit, unlike Saddam)is an increase in human rights? Abu Graibh? Guantanamo?
You're tripping. my friend - The Dictator Saddam ensured that Iraq was a secular state. It was probably the most Westernised & pro-Western state in the Middle East. To suggest that girls were not allowed to attend schools under Saddam is simply false; the religious intolerance & violence has only erupted since the occupation.
"I think you'd be fine to go into somewhere like North Korea and overthrow the government with no real problems in the aftermath"
I very much doubt that: when a people have been held in check by either a dictator or a Colonial occupation, when that stronghold is broken you end up with a lot of very dubious characters jostling for positions of power, without a stable evolved form of government; look at the various Serbian & Warlords, Look at Boris "MakeMineaDouble" Yeltsin & look at the bunch of Clowns-In-Exile that the US backed to lead the new Iraq Government - until they went crazy with the first taste of power & the US discarded them.
Society is something that evolves; you can't impose "democracy" on a nation that is not ready for it.
"North Koreans are hardly creating a revolution to overthrow their government"
Neither were Iraquis under Saddam...
"justify military action to free the people"
You need to explain this one... unless you are suggesting that being shot, napalmed, clusterbombed, raped, maimed & pillaged by occupying forces is some kind of freedom - Military action involves doing all this to the peole who you are supposedly freeing.
If the aim was really to free the people from a dictator, it's not actually necessary to occupy a country in order to do this... unless, I suppose, that country has something you want... oil, perhaps?
"They have a ridiculous, violent religion"
Sorry, are we still talking about Christianity here or...
"...the same way all the other middle eastern Islamic states were..."
So that doesn't include Iraq then - A secular, pro-Western Middle Eastern State; until that is... well, we all know the rest...
"At some point, people have to take responsibility for their own actions"
And nations have to take responsibility for their actions - those whose actions have greater influence ought to show even more responsibility.
"The US didn't like being ruled by a king, so we overthrew the king"
The Iranians didn't like being ruled by a king, so they overthrew the king (Shah)
"The US is not responsible for what people in other countries choose to do with their governments."
That only works if the US aren't actively interfering in the internal affairs of those countries. Like that's ever gonna happen...
The trouble is that, whilst everyone knows you can't hear in space, not to be able to hear a huge rocket or explosions nearby goes against all of our personal experience, so whilst we know the sound in movies isn't right, it feels right; more so than if these films used silence.
"critical about science"...and so we should be; that's why it's science & not alchemy.
Critique is essential to modern Scientific Method, but in Religion it's called blasphemy...
Paid back that debt? How? By sitting back & watching as most of Europe came under the jackboot?
The US never declared war on Nazi Germany - even after Pearl Harbour. They maintained an isolationist policy up to the moment THEY came under attack.
The same images started re-appearing for a very good reason - as the count of left-handed v right-handed spirals showed an imbalance that seemed highly unlikely, a bias check had to be run. This was explained in the GZ blog.
Galaxy Zoo 2 should be up & running soon; come back & check it out...
The original Sloan Digital Sky Survey image in which Hanny noticed the object that was to become known as "Hanny's Voorwerp" was shown as blue - indeed her post querying it was headed "What's The Blue Stuff Below?" (Below the galaxy that was the focus of the image).
Members of the Galaxy Zoo team ran spectrum checks & realised that it was unique; further investigation showed that while the SDSS colour filtration system showed it as blue, the green we see in the top picture is a more accurate representation.
So Google (& others) appear to be using an image of the Voorwerp as it was first discovered, whilst/. are obviously somewhat more alive to the current state of affairs... (& if that blatant plug for/. isn't worth a point I don't know what is...)
"foor-fairp" - In fact if you visit the Galaxy Zoo Forum, Hanny herself (the discoverer of the object) has helpfully posted an audio file of the pronunciation - Observant AND helpful, is Hanny.
n.b. the name "Hanny" is in fact pronounced "Honey" in English...
"Isn't this celestial thing going to be out there and available for, say, the next few million years or so?" ---
If the current theory is correct, what we see is the result of an event that has long since ended - the glow of the Voorwerp being a "light echo".
This means that the energy provided by the initial event could cease at any time, changing the nature of the Voorwerp. Also, the earler it is investigated, the better chance we have of understanding the true nature of the original event.
Slashdot Mirror
The Earth is not round, flat or square - It is crooked...
You are mistaken: the USA fought strongly against their troops being subject to a universal code of conduct, and as such, they refuse to allow their troops to be held accountable for anything - it is true, they will occassionally bust a couple of low level non-coms for the look of things; Up to 10 years for them (soldiers at Abu Graibh), but the camp commander was simply demoted - & she wasn't even allowed near the Interrogation section. The people who sanctioned the policy were untouched. I think the cause of your error is that you are talking of US soldiers being prosecuted by the US, I am referring to International Law, under which Saddam has paid the price, but the US military have total immunity. In fact, if not in law, this also applies to all the private "security" forces of the West in Iraq - i.e. Mercenaries. I don't act like the US is the only country in which abuse takes place, but it is the only one which has illegally invaded Iraq in order to perpetrate those abuses, and, frankly, what kind of defence is "Others do it as well.."? Other nations do not pretend to be the ultimate arbiter of Justice, other nations do not impose "democracy" (when they can't even get it right in their own country)... and with all the dictatorships around (such as the USA's great ally K.S.A) the US seemingly only has concerns for oil-rich states... You are mistaken in your contention that the treatment meted out at Abu Graibh differs from Saddam's regime in that is was an "incident" rather than policy. This kind of treatment, along with torture & so-callee "rendition" (abduction of foreign nationals & transporting them to other countries in order to torture them with impunity) is standard policy of the USA. One of the things that makes Guantanamo so heinous & barbaric, is that in a nation that bangs on about freedom, justice & liberty, this place is maintained specifically because they can operate outside US law, International Law, & any kind of moral or ethical code. Simply put, dictators don't pretend to be anything but he sole authority, whereas the US talks of Liberty whilst behaving as badly as the worst of tyrants.
Oh, my mistake... I thought you meant Terrorism. ...Nah, sure, Bush never gave the order to make war on thousands of people. The soliers never used extreme amounts of torture, "Abu Graibh" is an urban legend, Iraquis were always treated nicely. You see, all the evil things you hear about Bush's Regime are a lie told by the, unlike him, really evil Islamic governments.. ..So murder rape & torture by Saddam is "Terrorism", the same by Western mercenaries & soldiers (who, thanks to the US, have total legal immunity from any & all atrocities they may commit, unlike Saddam)is an increase in human rights? Abu Graibh? Guantanamo?
"man-made laws vs shariah (divine laws)" So, in other words, man-made laws vs man-made laws...
You're tripping. my friend - The Dictator Saddam ensured that Iraq was a secular state. It was probably the most Westernised & pro-Western state in the Middle East. To suggest that girls were not allowed to attend schools under Saddam is simply false; the religious intolerance & violence has only erupted since the occupation.
Is this a joke? ...Iraqui State terrorism? Is Nathrael an alias for Rumsfeld?...
"I think you'd be fine to go into somewhere like North Korea and overthrow the government with no real problems in the aftermath" I very much doubt that: when a people have been held in check by either a dictator or a Colonial occupation, when that stronghold is broken you end up with a lot of very dubious characters jostling for positions of power, without a stable evolved form of government; look at the various Serbian & Warlords, Look at Boris "MakeMineaDouble" Yeltsin & look at the bunch of Clowns-In-Exile that the US backed to lead the new Iraq Government - until they went crazy with the first taste of power & the US discarded them. Society is something that evolves; you can't impose "democracy" on a nation that is not ready for it. "North Koreans are hardly creating a revolution to overthrow their government" Neither were Iraquis under Saddam... "justify military action to free the people" You need to explain this one... unless you are suggesting that being shot, napalmed, clusterbombed, raped, maimed & pillaged by occupying forces is some kind of freedom - Military action involves doing all this to the peole who you are supposedly freeing. If the aim was really to free the people from a dictator, it's not actually necessary to occupy a country in order to do this... unless, I suppose, that country has something you want... oil, perhaps?
"They have a ridiculous, violent religion" Sorry, are we still talking about Christianity here or... "...the same way all the other middle eastern Islamic states were..." So that doesn't include Iraq then - A secular, pro-Western Middle Eastern State; until that is... well, we all know the rest... "At some point, people have to take responsibility for their own actions" And nations have to take responsibility for their actions - those whose actions have greater influence ought to show even more responsibility. "The US didn't like being ruled by a king, so we overthrew the king" The Iranians didn't like being ruled by a king, so they overthrew the king (Shah) "The US is not responsible for what people in other countries choose to do with their governments." That only works if the US aren't actively interfering in the internal affairs of those countries. Like that's ever gonna happen...
...I'll get my coat...
Oops...
Surely the point of sails is that they can be rigged so that they can go across & against the "wind"... e.g. tacking?
Wouldn't you launch it towards the Sun & then deploy the sail? ...though I would imagine even that would not be far enough...
The trouble is that, whilst everyone knows you can't hear in space, not to be able to hear a huge rocket or explosions nearby goes against all of our personal experience, so whilst we know the sound in movies isn't right, it feels right; more so than if these films used silence.
"critical about science" ...and so we should be; that's why it's science & not alchemy.
Critique is essential to modern Scientific Method, but in Religion it's called blasphemy...
Paid back that debt? How? By sitting back & watching as most of Europe came under the jackboot? The US never declared war on Nazi Germany - even after Pearl Harbour. They maintained an isolationist policy up to the moment THEY came under attack.
The same images started re-appearing for a very good reason - as the count of left-handed v right-handed spirals showed an imbalance that seemed highly unlikely, a bias check had to be run. This was explained in the GZ blog. Galaxy Zoo 2 should be up & running soon; come back & check it out...
"Don't call me Shirley..."
The original Sloan Digital Sky Survey image in which Hanny noticed the object that was to become known as "Hanny's Voorwerp" was shown as blue - indeed her post querying it was headed "What's The Blue Stuff Below?" (Below the galaxy that was the focus of the image). Members of the Galaxy Zoo team ran spectrum checks & realised that it was unique; further investigation showed that while the SDSS colour filtration system showed it as blue, the green we see in the top picture is a more accurate representation. So Google (& others) appear to be using an image of the Voorwerp as it was first discovered, whilst /. are obviously somewhat more alive to the current state of affairs... (& if that blatant plug for /. isn't worth a point I don't know what is...)
"foor-fairp" - In fact if you visit the Galaxy Zoo Forum, Hanny herself (the discoverer of the object) has helpfully posted an audio file of the pronunciation - Observant AND helpful, is Hanny. n.b. the name "Hanny" is in fact pronounced "Honey" in English...
"Isn't this celestial thing going to be out there and available for, say, the next few million years or so?" --- If the current theory is correct, what we see is the result of an event that has long since ended - the glow of the Voorwerp being a "light echo". This means that the energy provided by the initial event could cease at any time, changing the nature of the Voorwerp. Also, the earler it is investigated, the better chance we have of understanding the true nature of the original event.