Earlier this year I decided to learn Java. I'd spent some time using JavaScript without really getting my hands too dirty but I'd pushed it way to far and realized I needed a bigger hammer.
The first sentence seems to indict the dude. This is mostly because the wording was not well chosen. Nevertheless, when someone says they're deciding to 'learn Java' because they've used JavaScript without getting their 'hands too dirty', the following analysis will be suspect, if not for the possible confusion between technologies than because of the inability to communicate effectively.
I don't know about you, but I don't have the time or patience to read crap. And I'm pretty sure that was my whole point, if you read my post, that is.
If you want an informed review of this book, you should probably look elsewhere.
You could say that about half the book reviews (maybe more as I rarely read them anymore). I only checked out this one because of the first sentence, I knew the comments would be far more interesting than the review.
Re:I'd like to take this oppertunity..
on
Head First Java
·
· Score: 1
Actually the only thing I've seen that's prettier for web applications is... here we go: c#:)
I see you're wearing your flame-proof suit.
That's nice.
You wouldn't happen to have any clues about that, would you?
Because of statements he made over 50 years ago?
Do you associte Robert Byrd or Harry Truman with the Klan? These prominent democrats were both members. In fact, Strom was a democrat when he was anti-desegregation.
It would seem to be that one should probably consider the democrats a racist party since they're not convinced that blacks can make it without affirmative action.
So, since you're condemning the words of a democrat, perhaps you're a Republican?
Actually, he pumped a ton of money into education focusing heavily on minority districts when he was governor, but I guess the obit that asshole Adam Clymer wrote in the NY Times didn't mention that, eh?
At least Clymer does mention he was one of the first Southern Senators to hire blacks onto his staff.
Get a clue before you post your mindless ramblings and insult a dead man you have no clue about.
I went through a lot of coin to gain that experience. After a while, at college, if you couldn't get through two 'sets' on one coin, you waited in line. Great memories.
You might critise the UN but 70 years ago there was no international agency to feed the starving and no notion of an international court (however flawed).
The League of Nations was around almost 80 years ago and they tried to appease Hitler instead of confronting him.
Syria, Libya and Cuba don't have seats on the security council.
I would argue that the UK/US action has put this back by decades, causing more long-term harm to world peace than they have solved.
I would argue that the Secretary Generals by standing so forcibly against colonialism instead of trying to promote economic and political stability have caused more long-term harm to world peace than they have solved. May Dag Hammerskjold burn in hell.
Secondly, if the original UN resolution was enough, why did the US/UK seek a second?
Actually, there were over 14 resolutions on Iraq, so you're asking about a 'second' resolution is ridiculous. The US was merely going to ask for a confirmation of what had already been stated.
They're called 'facts'. You can find them yourself. Start searching for truth instead of grandstanding for virtue. You'll be a wiser man for it.
Alright, hombre. Here we go. First off, Saddam failed to comply with the cease fire. Regardless of whether or not he has WMD. In fact, that's almost besides the point. By not complying, Bush could take whatever action he chose regardless of what the U.N. thought because they already gave the U.S. the power to fight back in '91. By not disclosing the mobile weapons labs, Saddam was in material breach. By not permitting the inspectors to gain entry on arrival, Saddam was in material breach. By having long range missiles, Saddam was in material breach. You get the idea. Thus the law was not taken into anybody's hands, but the US and UK were trying to UPHOLD the law. France was trying to force a change by demanding the U.S. subject it's sovereign rights and prior authority to another vote in the U.N. However, once they made clear that they would essentially revoke the right to use force by vetoing the 19th resolution on Iraq, the U.S. smartly withdrew. The U.N. has squandered it's authority by retroactively sanctioning two conflicts that it said should not have happened (Bosnia and Gulf War II) and by not creating stability where it should (Congo, Zaire, Somalia, Rhwanda). I would say that has more to do with the politics of the Secretary General than with the US or UK. Now considering the UN's record of working with leaders of states like Libya and Syria and Cuba and giving them stature as equal nations to countries like the US and UK, what makes you think the US should subject themselves to the disproportionate sense of 'Justice' that these countries would try to inflict through litigation? Do you ever read the tripe that North Korea writes about the US? Do you think an ICC would give them the time of day? I don't think the US should turn over either its sovereignty or the rights of its citizens to that of another country. It goes against the Constitution for one and it is idiotic for another. As for your line about a 'wild west' notion of justice, here's a clue, my man, we've been there all along. You just haven't been paying attention. Take a class in Internation Relations and get a grip.
You're right. I should know this as I park near the Chrysler plant in Newark on Mopar Drive. Oh well, it was late, I was bitter. Thanks for the correction.
Crazy thing about Moonraker, remember the glass crystal that was used to hold the gas that was going to kill people? The diagram of it clearly shows it was being made by Venini the premier glassmake in Venice. My wife worked for their U.S. distributorship for a while. Oh well, it's OT, but I always thought it pretty crazy that Drax was using an outside vendor that never bothered to ask why he need all of these vials or that might have gotten suspicious.
Even more OT, didn't the pass code to the lab sound like Close Encounters?
GM (General Motors) is the largest company in the world
Hence my use of the word 'about' and the phrase 'one of' and qualified it all with both money earned and diversity of products.
GM only makes cars as far as I know, considering how they spin off divisions (e.g. EDS, Mopar, Delphi)
But hey, at least you felt you could contribute and that should count for something.
Is there a corporation rich enough to become a "super power"?
GE accounts for 1% of the US GDP and it's about the biggest F'ing company in the world (in terms of dollars and diversity) AND they make weapons systems. So, I'd say 'No'.
Of course, they could kick France's ass, but then, so did Greenpeace.
You do realize that Iraq's non-disclosure of WMD mandated an end to the cease-fire of '91. BTW, I'd love to know where these 2000 inspectors are or were. I know there was a U.S. team of around 120, but the street violence has been too big of a problem for them to work effectively. Nonetheless, caches keep being found and get sent back for testing. Also, I wonder how Blix et al. worked for 12 years, considering they got kicked out in '98. This was the pretext for the cruise missile barrage by clinton, supported by congress, that nobody protested. In fact, more missiles were used in that attack than in '91. I'm sure you were protesting then, weren't you? Just like during Bosnia, when the U.S. acted unilaterally, you did protest that as well didn't you? Just checking how consistent you are.
OK, nice to see how you finish with a couple of insults.
You repeatedly denigrate American intelligence and question how 'informed' we are, and yet 'heaven forfend' if any barb is cast your way.
You can tell you're a liberal because you can dish it but you can't eat it, and you refuse to be swayed by facts.
Arafat is a terrorist. That's not name calling, it's what he is. It's how he got started, it's why he wears the scarf. It's like calling Castro a revolutionary. It's an accurate definition.
There has been a line of militant Israelis who feel that they'll never be able to co-exist with the Palestinians, especially with Arafat leading them. This goes back to Jabotinsky and Ben-Gurion if you care to delve a little deeper into Middle East history.
If the Palestinians would stop attacking Israeli civilians, I'm sure the Israelis would stop attacking the homes of terrorists.
As for relinquishing land gained/lost in a fight, I think a level of trust has to be gained before that will happen. However, since Arafat had a promise of those lands from Barak and not only turned it down, but renewed terror strikes, I highly doubt it.
Be as hopeful and as misinformed as you choose to be. But please don't act like you're more intelligent than Americans because the leadership of your country (or Hollywood) supposes it to be true.
You're not that smart, skipper. Wake up.
Just a quick question. How long were you willing to give Hans Blix et al.? I mean the U.S. has been at it for around 8 weeks and seems to have found two or three mobile weapons labs, chem/bio delivery weapons and residue from WMD. What are you looking for as 'proof' and how long are you willing to wait? Because if it's as long as the 12 years the U.N. had, then you shouldn't complain about the progress.
The obvious answer, and the one that I believe to be true, is that there were none. Given that this was the whole justification for the war, I think the whole setup stinks.
Then elect other leadership. It is a democracy, isn't it?
How does this work? If it was not a country then how could it contain Jordan? What was it - a f**king continent?
This was the original delineation based on the Sykes-Picot agreement whereby France and the UK were determining what the partitioned remains of the Ottoman Empire would look like. This is European history. Surely you're aware of it, if even a dumb American like me knows about it.
This is all a rather pointless argument as Isreal was not a state 60 years ago but no-one in the west would argue that it should not exist now.
However, there was British Palestine which was a defined territory in which the Palestinians lived.
Right, of which a section was used to create the state of Israel. In fact, this was inherently accepted by the then leader Palestine/Transjordan, the Emir Hussein.
Your argument is like arguing that Zimbabwe or Ghana have no right to exist as nations because they weren't proper independant countries 60 years ago.
No, it isn't. The Palestinians have 'lost' whatever land they had in Palestine either through sale (the majority of it), war (each Arab conflict with Israel has result in Israeli land gains) or fleeing under false preconceptions (that the Arab countries would fight a war and win the land back).
Israel has constantly sought to improve the lot of Palestinians, building power generation, introducing modern farming, etc.
Interesting that most Americans have the same misconceptions about Arafat - his charter includes provision for an Isreali state and he agreed to the Oslo accord that included an Isreali state.
Bull. Look at points one and two if you don't believe me. If we Americans are coming away with this notion, it's because THAT'S WHAT THE PALESTINIANS ARE SAYING.
The Isrealis then broke the Oslo accord by continuing to build settlements. Interestingly Sharon has stated on several occasions that there will never be a Palestine but I don't see you criticising him for that.
Ehud Barak tried to withdraw forces which resulted in an increase in violence. The subsequent loss of faith in the government, coupled with Arafat's refusal to agree to the partitioning of Israel/Palestine resulted in Sharon's election.
This is similar to Schroeder being re-elected on an anti-US platform and I don't see you criticizing him about that, do you?
And for an American to claim that the EU is not interested in peace in the middle East is a joke - who do you think tried to keep negotiations going between Isreal and Palestine whilst being shat on by Bush?
Well, I'll make more claims. The UK and France spent far more time figuring out how to get more out of the Middle East than in trying to create any kind of stability in the region.
Currently, Russia and France and Germany make more in arms sales than in other sales to Palestine, Syria and Iran.
Why do you think there have been over 70 resolutions condemning Israel by the UN but NO resolutions condemning Palestinian terrorism?
Do you think there might be peace of there were no violence for more than two weeks? Well, that was one of the Oslo accords and guess what, it was the Palestinians that broke it.
You know for a Euro you sure don't know shit about history. Or current events.
Maybe you get off your high horse, come to American and get an education. Eh, fucktard?
Have a look at some of the analysis of the recent peace deal brokered between Isreal and the Palestinians. If you look into Sharon's responses (particularly the 14 points the Isreal wants revised) it becomes clear that this Isreal is just interested in delaying tactics whereas the Palestinians have unconditionally accepted the deal.
If you had a more balanced press in the US you would see understand the situation a bit better - Arafat has been trying to negotiate for the last couple of years through the EU, Isreal has blocked every attempt.
You think the EU is interested in Peace? Seriously. Arafat has been at the head of the PLO for over 30 years and has NEVER pushed for peace internally.
In fact, one of the points in his charter is that NO Israel should exist. What exactly do you think Israel's bargaining position should be on that issue?
The press is quite liberal in the US, I'll give you that, however, there is nothing that would change my mind that Palestinians have a right to land they either sold, left because of promises from other Arab countries or lost in wars.
BTW, originally 'Palestine' (it was never a country, mind you) included what is now Jordan. Why doesn't Jordan partition land, instead forcing Palestinians to live in camps for 50 years?
Can your balanced picture give me guidance there?
I saw no evidence of this before the war (the british government even had to doctor an old PhD thesis because of the lack of real proof), and more importantly I see none now.
Ah, so since YOU saw no evidence of threat, I guess that means that there was none.
Have to make sure the NSA is aware of this new stipulation on threat disclosure.
Of course that is where the similarity ends, now Arafat seems to be interested in peace but has no power to do anything about it, whereas Sharon has plenty of power but no interest in peace.
Who do you think was making the most money off of the Iraq oil-for-food program? Why do you think France and Russia didn't want it to end? Do you think they were more interested in oil-money than ending a threat? Did I say the U.S. didn't deal with bad people? Did I suggest the U.S. was innocent? No. But you'd rather put words in my mouth and defeat a straw man than to argue effectively or cogently.
UBL was a lavishly funded friendly when he was 'freedom fighting' with the mujaheddin... too bad he turned out to be a terrorist like the other lot; but then it was the reds to play the role of the bad dudes.
UBL didn't need our funding. The mujahadeen, however, did. And yes, enemy of our enemy is our friend. After all, how much trouble could a handful of Muslim fanatics with guns, mines and Stinger missiles possibly cause us?
You'll certainly recall that most of the civilian deaths and miseries in South America have some serious connections with US administration efforts in 'protecting national interests' by funding and training liberticide regimes.
Small point: Outside of Chile, most of those regimes were very Communist and very anti-US. The areas where the U.S. played a direct role like Panama, Costa Rica and, before the Communists, El Salvador, tended to have better track records than the Communist regimes that tended to spring up.
You think Hugo Chavez is going to improve the standard of living in Venezuela? I mean, he's with the worker's party, right? Right?
BTW... when Saddam was fighting iranians he was US's best freind; do you beleive the asshole fought them with slingshots?
I pointed out that most of the arms Saddam had were bought from Russia, France or Germany, NOT the U.S. This does not mean the U.S. was not complicit. It would explain why the AK-47 was the weapon of choice, though, wouldn't it.
I even have a nice jpg documenting Rumsfeld shaking hands with the bastard (this is strictly speaking a private enterprise initiative but undoubtedly some state support & evaluation was provided).
Wow. That means Rumsfeld completely supported, funded and gave the rubber stamp to Saddam, doesn't it?
Next time you want to comment on something try to avoid bitchy fox-addict texan redneck comments unless you don't want to sound ridiculous and pointless
And the next time you want to make a point, avoid reactionary, demagogic, ANSWER-sponsored tripe that sounds trite on the handout, but lacks factual basis or grounding in reality.
I can't believe you mentioned the Rumsfeld picture. What a dope. Cripes, we have million of photos of clinton and arafat, what does that tell us?
Slashdot Mirror
and yet, you manage to find time to read SLashdot...... ;)
With a setup line like that, I was wondering how long it would take.
Earlier this year I decided to learn Java. I'd spent some time using JavaScript without really getting my hands too dirty but I'd pushed it way to far and realized I needed a bigger hammer.
The first sentence seems to indict the dude. This is mostly because the wording was not well chosen. Nevertheless, when someone says they're deciding to 'learn Java' because they've used JavaScript without getting their 'hands too dirty', the following analysis will be suspect, if not for the possible confusion between technologies than because of the inability to communicate effectively.
I don't know about you, but I don't have the time or patience to read crap. And I'm pretty sure that was my whole point, if you read my post, that is.
If you want an informed review of this book, you should probably look elsewhere.
You could say that about half the book reviews (maybe more as I rarely read them anymore). I only checked out this one because of the first sentence, I knew the comments would be far more interesting than the review.
Actually the only thing I've seen that's prettier for web applications is... here we go: c# :)
I see you're wearing your flame-proof suit.
That's nice.
You wouldn't happen to have any clues about that, would you?
Because of statements he made over 50 years ago?
Do you associte Robert Byrd or Harry Truman with the Klan? These prominent democrats were both members. In fact, Strom was a democrat when he was anti-desegregation.
It would seem to be that one should probably consider the democrats a racist party since they're not convinced that blacks can make it without affirmative action.
So, since you're condemning the words of a democrat, perhaps you're a Republican?
He served whites.
Actually, he pumped a ton of money into education focusing heavily on minority districts when he was governor, but I guess the obit that asshole Adam Clymer wrote in the NY Times didn't mention that, eh?
At least Clymer does mention he was one of the first Southern Senators to hire blacks onto his staff.
Get a clue before you post your mindless ramblings and insult a dead man you have no clue about.
I went through a lot of coin to gain that experience.
After a while, at college, if you couldn't get through two 'sets' on one coin, you waited in line.
Great memories.
WHAT mobile weapons labs? Links please.
Here you go.
You might critise the UN but 70 years ago there was no international agency to feed the starving and no notion of an international court (however flawed).
The League of Nations was around almost 80 years ago and they tried to appease Hitler instead of confronting him.
Syria, Libya and Cuba don't have seats on the security council.
Syria does.
I would argue that the UK/US action has put this back by decades, causing more long-term harm to world peace than they have solved.
I would argue that the Secretary Generals by standing so forcibly against colonialism instead of trying to promote economic and political stability have caused more long-term harm to world peace than they have solved. May Dag Hammerskjold burn in hell.
Secondly, if the original UN resolution was enough, why did the US/UK seek a second?
Actually, there were over 14 resolutions on Iraq, so you're asking about a 'second' resolution is ridiculous. The US was merely going to ask for a confirmation of what had already been stated.
They're called 'facts'. You can find them yourself. Start searching for truth instead of grandstanding for virtue. You'll be a wiser man for it.
Alright, hombre. Here we go.
First off, Saddam failed to comply with the cease fire. Regardless of whether or not he has WMD. In fact, that's almost besides the point. By not complying, Bush could take whatever action he chose regardless of what the U.N. thought because they already gave the U.S. the power to fight back in '91.
By not disclosing the mobile weapons labs, Saddam was in material breach. By not permitting the inspectors to gain entry on arrival, Saddam was in material breach. By having long range missiles, Saddam was in material breach.
You get the idea.
Thus the law was not taken into anybody's hands, but the US and UK were trying to UPHOLD the law.
France was trying to force a change by demanding the U.S. subject it's sovereign rights and prior authority to another vote in the U.N. However, once they made clear that they would essentially revoke the right to use force by vetoing the 19th resolution on Iraq, the U.S. smartly withdrew.
The U.N. has squandered it's authority by retroactively sanctioning two conflicts that it said should not have happened (Bosnia and Gulf War II) and by not creating stability where it should (Congo, Zaire, Somalia, Rhwanda).
I would say that has more to do with the politics of the Secretary General than with the US or UK.
Now considering the UN's record of working with leaders of states like Libya and Syria and Cuba and giving them stature as equal nations to countries like the US and UK, what makes you think the US should subject themselves to the disproportionate sense of 'Justice' that these countries would try to inflict through litigation?
Do you ever read the tripe that North Korea writes about the US? Do you think an ICC would give them the time of day?
I don't think the US should turn over either its sovereignty or the rights of its citizens to that of another country. It goes against the Constitution for one and it is idiotic for another.
As for your line about a 'wild west' notion of justice, here's a clue, my man, we've been there all along. You just haven't been paying attention.
Take a class in Internation Relations and get a grip.
You're right. I should know this as I park near the Chrysler plant in Newark on Mopar Drive.
Oh well, it was late, I was bitter.
Thanks for the correction.
Crazy thing about Moonraker, remember the glass crystal that was used to hold the gas that was going to kill people? The diagram of it clearly shows it was being made by Venini the premier glassmake in Venice.
My wife worked for their U.S. distributorship for a while.
Oh well, it's OT, but I always thought it pretty crazy that Drax was using an outside vendor that never bothered to ask why he need all of these vials or that might have gotten suspicious.
Even more OT, didn't the pass code to the lab sound like Close Encounters?
Bah, it's late and I'm rambling. Off to bed.
GM (General Motors) is the largest company in the world
Hence my use of the word 'about' and the phrase 'one of' and qualified it all with both money earned and diversity of products.
GM only makes cars as far as I know, considering how they spin off divisions (e.g. EDS, Mopar, Delphi)
But hey, at least you felt you could contribute and that should count for something.
Is there a corporation rich enough to become a "super power"?
GE accounts for 1% of the US GDP and it's about the biggest F'ing company in the world (in terms of dollars and diversity) AND they make weapons systems.
So, I'd say 'No'.
Of course, they could kick France's ass, but then, so did Greenpeace.
You do realize that Iraq's non-disclosure of WMD mandated an end to the cease-fire of '91.
BTW, I'd love to know where these 2000 inspectors are or were. I know there was a U.S. team of around 120, but the street violence has been too big of a problem for them to work effectively. Nonetheless, caches keep being found and get sent back for testing.
Also, I wonder how Blix et al. worked for 12 years, considering they got kicked out in '98. This was the pretext for the cruise missile barrage by clinton, supported by congress, that nobody protested. In fact, more missiles were used in that attack than in '91.
I'm sure you were protesting then, weren't you?
Just like during Bosnia, when the U.S. acted unilaterally, you did protest that as well didn't you?
Just checking how consistent you are.
Interesting that none of you morons has any knowledge of the multitude of peaceful Islamic communtities around the world.
List every Islamic democracy in the world right now that is at peace and where Christians can practice freely.
I will be waiting...
OK, nice to see how you finish with a couple of insults.
You repeatedly denigrate American intelligence and question how 'informed' we are, and yet 'heaven forfend' if any barb is cast your way.
You can tell you're a liberal because you can dish it but you can't eat it, and you refuse to be swayed by facts.
Arafat is a terrorist. That's not name calling, it's what he is. It's how he got started, it's why he wears the scarf. It's like calling Castro a revolutionary. It's an accurate definition.
There has been a line of militant Israelis who feel that they'll never be able to co-exist with the Palestinians, especially with Arafat leading them. This goes back to Jabotinsky and Ben-Gurion if you care to delve a little deeper into Middle East history.
If the Palestinians would stop attacking Israeli civilians, I'm sure the Israelis would stop attacking the homes of terrorists.
As for relinquishing land gained/lost in a fight, I think a level of trust has to be gained before that will happen. However, since Arafat had a promise of those lands from Barak and not only turned it down, but renewed terror strikes, I highly doubt it.
Be as hopeful and as misinformed as you choose to be. But please don't act like you're more intelligent than Americans because the leadership of your country (or Hollywood) supposes it to be true.
You're not that smart, skipper. Wake up.
Just a quick question. How long were you willing to give Hans Blix et al.?
I mean the U.S. has been at it for around 8 weeks and seems to have found two or three mobile weapons labs, chem/bio delivery weapons and residue from WMD.
What are you looking for as 'proof' and how long are you willing to wait?
Because if it's as long as the 12 years the U.N. had, then you shouldn't complain about the progress.
The obvious answer, and the one that I believe to be true, is that there were none. Given that this was the whole justification for the war, I think the whole setup stinks.
Then elect other leadership. It is a democracy, isn't it?
How does this work? If it was not a country then how could it contain Jordan? What was it - a f**king continent?
This was the original delineation based on the Sykes-Picot agreement whereby France and the UK were determining what the partitioned remains of the Ottoman Empire would look like. This is European history. Surely you're aware of it, if even a dumb American like me knows about it.
This is all a rather pointless argument as Isreal was not a state 60 years ago but no-one in the west would argue that it should not exist now.
Actually Hamas makes this very argument.
However, there was British Palestine which was a defined territory in which the Palestinians lived.
Right, of which a section was used to create the state of Israel. In fact, this was inherently accepted by the then leader Palestine/Transjordan, the Emir Hussein.
Your argument is like arguing that Zimbabwe or Ghana have no right to exist as nations because they weren't proper independant countries 60 years ago.
No, it isn't. The Palestinians have 'lost' whatever land they had in Palestine either through sale (the majority of it), war (each Arab conflict with Israel has result in Israeli land gains) or fleeing under false preconceptions (that the Arab countries would fight a war and win the land back).
Israel has constantly sought to improve the lot of Palestinians, building power generation, introducing modern farming, etc.
Interesting that most Americans have the same misconceptions about Arafat - his charter includes provision for an Isreali state and he agreed to the Oslo accord that included an Isreali state.
Bull. Look at points one and two if you don't believe me. If we Americans are coming away with this notion, it's because THAT'S WHAT THE PALESTINIANS ARE SAYING.
The Isrealis then broke the Oslo accord by continuing to build settlements. Interestingly Sharon has stated on several occasions that there will never be a Palestine but I don't see you criticising him for that.
Ehud Barak tried to withdraw forces which resulted in an increase in violence. The subsequent loss of faith in the government, coupled with Arafat's refusal to agree to the partitioning of Israel/Palestine resulted in Sharon's election.
This is similar to Schroeder being re-elected on an anti-US platform and I don't see you criticizing him about that, do you?
And for an American to claim that the EU is not interested in peace in the middle East is a joke - who do you think tried to keep negotiations going between Isreal and Palestine whilst being shat on by Bush?
Well, I'll make more claims. The UK and France spent far more time figuring out how to get more out of the Middle East than in trying to create any kind of stability in the region.
Currently, Russia and France and Germany make more in arms sales than in other sales to Palestine, Syria and Iran.
Why do you think there have been over 70 resolutions condemning Israel by the UN but NO resolutions condemning Palestinian terrorism?
Do you think there might be peace of there were no violence for more than two weeks? Well, that was one of the Oslo accords and guess what, it was the Palestinians that broke it.
You know for a Euro you sure don't know shit about history. Or current events.
Maybe you get off your high horse, come to American and get an education. Eh, fucktard?
Have a look at some of the analysis of the recent peace deal brokered between Isreal and the Palestinians. If you look into Sharon's responses (particularly the 14 points the Isreal wants revised) it becomes clear that this Isreal is just interested in delaying tactics whereas the Palestinians have unconditionally accepted the deal.
Not according to this they're not.
If you had a more balanced press in the US you would see understand the situation a bit better - Arafat has been trying to negotiate for the last couple of years through the EU, Isreal has blocked every attempt.
You think the EU is interested in Peace? Seriously. Arafat has been at the head of the PLO for over 30 years and has NEVER pushed for peace internally.
In fact, one of the points in his charter is that NO Israel should exist. What exactly do you think Israel's bargaining position should be on that issue?
The press is quite liberal in the US, I'll give you that, however, there is nothing that would change my mind that Palestinians have a right to land they either sold, left because of promises from other Arab countries or lost in wars.
BTW, originally 'Palestine' (it was never a country, mind you) included what is now Jordan. Why doesn't Jordan partition land, instead forcing Palestinians to live in camps for 50 years?
Can your balanced picture give me guidance there?
I saw no evidence of this before the war (the british government even had to doctor an old PhD thesis because of the lack of real proof), and more importantly I see none now.
Ah, so since YOU saw no evidence of threat, I guess that means that there was none.
Have to make sure the NSA is aware of this new stipulation on threat disclosure.
Of course that is where the similarity ends, now Arafat seems to be interested in peace but has no power to do anything about it, whereas Sharon has plenty of power but no interest in peace.
Dude, what are you smoking?
Now about the Clinton pictures. Of course he was shaking Arafat's hands. Why? Because during the 90's there was a peace mission going on.
What does Arafat have to do with peace?
Who do you think was making the most money off of the Iraq oil-for-food program?
Why do you think France and Russia didn't want it to end?
Do you think they were more interested in oil-money than ending a threat?
Did I say the U.S. didn't deal with bad people? Did I suggest the U.S. was innocent? No.
But you'd rather put words in my mouth and defeat a straw man than to argue effectively or cogently.
UBL was a lavishly funded friendly when he was 'freedom fighting' with the mujaheddin... too bad he turned out to be a terrorist like the other lot; but then it was the reds to play the role of the bad dudes.
UBL didn't need our funding. The mujahadeen, however, did. And yes, enemy of our enemy is our friend. After all, how much trouble could a handful of Muslim fanatics with guns, mines and Stinger missiles possibly cause us?
You'll certainly recall that most of the civilian deaths and miseries in South America have some serious connections with US administration efforts in 'protecting national interests' by funding and training liberticide regimes.
Small point: Outside of Chile, most of those regimes were very Communist and very anti-US. The areas where the U.S. played a direct role like Panama, Costa Rica and, before the Communists, El Salvador, tended to have better track records than the Communist regimes that tended to spring up.
You think Hugo Chavez is going to improve the standard of living in Venezuela? I mean, he's with the worker's party, right? Right?
BTW... when Saddam was fighting iranians he was US's best freind; do you beleive the asshole fought them with slingshots?
I pointed out that most of the arms Saddam had were bought from Russia, France or Germany, NOT the U.S. This does not mean the U.S. was not complicit. It would explain why the AK-47 was the weapon of choice, though, wouldn't it.
I even have a nice jpg documenting Rumsfeld shaking hands with the bastard (this is strictly speaking a private enterprise initiative but undoubtedly some state support & evaluation was provided).
Wow. That means Rumsfeld completely supported, funded and gave the rubber stamp to Saddam, doesn't it?
Next time you want to comment on something try to avoid bitchy fox-addict texan redneck comments unless you don't want to sound ridiculous and pointless
And the next time you want to make a point, avoid reactionary, demagogic, ANSWER-sponsored tripe that sounds trite on the handout, but lacks factual basis or grounding in reality.
I can't believe you mentioned the Rumsfeld picture. What a dope. Cripes, we have million of photos of clinton and arafat, what does that tell us?
Idiot.