"Guns are legally required to be registered to their owners, unlike copiers or computers, for starters."
Actually, no. In most places in the US (outside of some major cities and a few east-coast states) there's no mandatory licensing of firearms. Even in those limited places with mandatory licensing, it's usually only handguns. Long rifles and shotguns, by and large, are unregulated. B/c I've inherited or purchased the firearms I do have long before background checking, there is absolutely squat-all record of them by any government agency.
Not that that invalidates the rest of your arguement, but blasting somebody else for making straw man arguements while makeing unfounded (and incorrect) assertions isn't exactlty convincing.
"Unless, of course, your competition is the last(?) installment of Star Wars. Who in their right mind is going to open another sci-fi movie against that?"
As I recall, Warner Bros did exactly that in 1999 with pretty good results....
Nothing at all. You were trying to install the software on a system that didn't meet the requirements printed on the outside of the box, and it didn't work. Big Surprise.
Did you read the system requirements on the outside of the box before you purchased it? 'Cause on mine, it specifically says that an internet connection is required. You can argue that the connection requirement shouldn't be there, but you can't argue that their software didn't work as advertised. Not playing it on principle b/c it says it requires a connection and you don't have one makes about as much sense as not playing it on the principle b/c it requires a better graphics card than you've got.
I have a SA DVR from Cox communications; while the interface isn't wonderful, the complete integration with Cox's digital cable is seamless, and since it has two tuners I can watch one show and record another, both off of the digital signal. It has yet to crash once on me (had it for ~ 9 months)
A couple of months ago, a new entry showed up in the play menu of my DVR rented from Cox cable-- "Copy to VCR".
They don't spend a lot of effort documenting it, but I can hit that, and the composite out on the DVR goes straight into my DVD recorder, no extra stuff from the DVR showing up on the screen. This feature doesn't eat up one of the tuners, so it's possible with my set-up to watch one show, record another to the HD, and backup another to DVD, all without any hacks or extra effort on my part. Total cost-- $12/month, no upfront hardware cost, no contracts, no mess.
I don't think anyone (who has some rational thoughts) would disagree that Lucas has an incredible imagination, and a real skill at developing the outline and concept for a great movie-- it's when he tries to write dialog and direct it that his skill level drops down below that of a ten year old with a camcorder.
Why was TESB the best movie of the original trilogy? Somebody else wrote the dialog and directed it (ahem, co-wrote and co-directed). Sadly, Lucas is powerful enough to do it his way now-- Get me more Ewoks!
This is slashdot; it's my Rob-given right to take any quote out of context, totally destroying the meaning;). I agree with you, the intention isn't evil. It's just dumb.
Why have blackouts at all? From the DirectTV website (NFL Sunday Ticket FAQs):
Q: Reasons for NFL blackouts: A:
To make sure the team benefits from a stadium full of enthusiastic fans.
To protect home game attendance of the teams.
To assure the entertainment value of a full stadium -- for people in the stands and for people watching TV.
To protect local television coverage.
So does the blackout have the desired effect? This year in San Diego, with blackout, vs. last year with all games on TV, average attendance is DOWN 14% (reference). This despite the Chargers doing much better (4-3) than their normal season (almost always losing). And with other teams (like K.C. who almost always sells out) with normal attendance, some (like Seattle) with much higher attendance (new stadium). I'd suggest that the blackouts result in lost "butts in seats", lost attendance, and lost fans.
It would be bad enough to have to pay to watch the game in the privacy of my own home.
The bizarre thing about the NFL is that you can't even pay to see the local game if it's not sold out-- the game is blacked out on pay-per-view, Sunday Ticket(tm), anything else-- if you live in a football town and the game doesn't sell out, the NFL doesn't care if your a quadraplegic child cancer patient-- if you're not in the stadium, you're not watching the game. Why? According to DirectTV (from their website):
Q: Reasons for NFL blackouts: A:
To make sure the team benefits from a stadium full of enthusiastic fans.
To protect home game attendance of the teams.
To assure the entertainment value of a full stadium -- for people in the stands and for people watching TV.
To protect local television coverage.
Idiots. The blackout has not only not encouraged me to go to Chargers games this year, it's made me apathetic to the point that I'm not watching the away games.
We're doing the experiment in San Diego, and so far it looks like the blackout is hurting ticket sales.
For the past decade or so, blackouts were prevented by the city purchasing all the unsold tickets-- every home game was a sell out, courtesy of the taxpayers. This year, the clause was killed and so non-sold out home games (which is every home game) is blacked out. By the NFL's logic, therefore, you'd expect higher attendance at the game, right?
So far, with three home games this season, average attendance is DOWN 14%! It looks like even the perennial biggest seller of the year, the Raiders game this weekend, won't sell out and so will be blacked out. The net result of the blackout? NOBODY CARES. The chargers are having a pretty decent season (4-3 so far, usually we're 1-6 at this point) and NOBODY CARES. When you take the games off the TV, the audience doesn't take it upon themselves to spend $100 each to go to the game, they just find something else to do Sunday. Lost ticket revenue, lost TV revenue, lost fans. Idiots.
"TV contracts are lucrative, but ticket sales are the lifeblood."
Maybe so, but does blacking out the TV actually increase ticket sales? Our city is doing the experiment, and as far as I can tell (they're not releasing numbers as far as I've heard) bringing the blackout back doesn't seem to be upping attendance.
I live in San Diego, where we didn't have black-outs the last few seasons, courtesy of an a$$-raping contract between the Chargers and our crooked-as-a-twisty-straw city council that guarenteed them the revenue of a sell-out for every game-- the city would pay them full ticket price for every unsold seat. After much wrangling and public outcry, that clause has been terminated, and every non-sellout home game (which is every game excapt the Raiders) is now blacked out.
Know what? I don't know a single person who's gone to more games because of it. My group of friends averaged one or two games a year, and we're going to one this year. They lost the TV revenue, and it doesn't look like they're upping seat sales-- the blackout just makes people not care as much. I used to watch pretty much every home game, and the Chargers got the TV revenue from it. This year, I don't even know what their record is, haven't made the effort to watch the away games in a while, just don't care anymore. That is not good marketing.
Just curious, if one was to pay cash for that TV or PC, would they require identification? Seems like otherwise, it would be easy to send the bill off into the ether. Requiring picture ID when purchasing a TV ought to get the folks here frothing at the mouth;)
On the other hand, I'm surprised that the slashdot elite aren't ecstatic over this; if they're collecting the info when you buy a complete TV or PC, it wouldn't affect the "real geek" who built their box from components ordered from several sources. Only the people who bought a TV or a pre-built PC would be charged. The "real geek" could order their SuSE compatible TV tuner card from the US and freeload all they want;)
"It's simple, call the police and have them sited for trespassing. See, there are laws for this sort of thing."
Oh yes, call the police. They might take a report over the phone. If you're lucky enough to know who the trespasser is, their name and address, you might get a citation mailed to them. Get the police to drive by when you've got a non-threatening trespass going on? Give me a break. In San Diego, you can't even get the cops to come by if your car gets totalled in a hit and run, with the runner leaving paint scrapes and parts of their bumper behind. Actually investigate a non-violent crime? Not likely. Despite having outrageous taxes.
Given the complete failure of big-city police to provide even the basics of "serve-and-protect" despite running up huge bills (look up California CHP's "Chief's disease") citizens don't have a lot of choice but to protect themselves.
My criticism isn't about some "conspiracy theory", it's a criticism of the business model, as well as (going off on a tangent here) the illegal exploitation of monopoly positions in the retail distribution of music (i.e. best buy and the rolling stones DVD), getting on the air (Clear Channel's payola via program directors), and public performance (ticketmaster) that requires a multimillion dollar investment for a band to "make it".
No conspiracy, just a bunch of folks exploiting their monopoly position to make money off of an outmoded distribution channel, and doing their best to get the government of the US to keep them on life support.
Of course the industry wants to bundle bad tracks with good, or to raise the price-- if people just buy what they want, it wrecks their whole business model of investing heavily in a few "artists" and making sure they make it-- if people just listen to the few tracks of the few artists they like, not enough money will be flowing through the system for the execs to skim the requisite off the top. CD sales would go down, and... oh wait;)
The tax rates in S.D. are higher, dumbass. Per capita, I'm paying more than I would be back in Kansas. Quite a bit more. So is everybody else. So, if San Diego can't figure out how to give me a decent level of police service at the ridiculous tax rates they charge, the folks back home must be fuckin' geniuses to figure out how to give better service for less money. Didn't do too well in math, did you?
"Great. Fantastic. That would be an acceptable outcome. They should go into another field where they won't ruin peoples lives."
I have a good friend, who practiced as an outpatient surgeon for twelve years in L.A. He never had a single malpractice claim against him. About three years ago, he decided that the malpractice rates, HMO b.s., and the fact that he couldn't recoup his costs from medicare patients (the majority of his patients) wasn't worth it. Took off and got a non-physician but healthcare related job, and never looked back.
Yes, healthcare in the U.S. sucks. And we deserve exactly what we've got.
I live in the People's Republic of California, and I pay considerably more than my parents do in local taxes (property taxes higher, more than 1c higher sales tax, higher state income tax).
In my parent's town (small town Kansas), stuff like this gets hunted down. In San Diego, you've pretty much got to get shot to get the local cops out of their offices (unless, of course, you're speeding or something). We just pretty much accept that the local cops are worthless, and get on with our lives. Higher taxes aren't the answer-- revising the various levels of civil service so that the competant got raises, and the incompetent got fired, would be. Ah well. Time to privatize the police as well, I guess...
(c) The owner of the GM patent could theoretically sue the neighboring farmer for patent infringement and demand license fees. Sounds idiotic, but as far as I know (IANAL), this is legally possible.
This is not just legally possible, but it has already happened. Here comes the lawyers....
"It was not a matter of just knocking down buildings but hitting us hard with our economy & striking fear in its citizens. Killing all those innocent people was an added bonus for them."
Well, we've certainly paid them back, and in spades. We've knocked down a heck of a lot more than two buildings in Iraq, and we've killed 5000-10000 of their civilians, way way more than died in 9-11. Of course, it'd be cool if we could actually prove that Iraq had something to do with 9-11, but you know, details, details. We had to make up for only nailing ~1,800 civilians in Afghanistan, that didn't quite draw us even.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
That's the text to the fourth amendment. It doesn't take too much of a leap to consider bank records to be part of one's "papers and effects", such as they'd exist in 1791. There's already a process in place for the executive branch to search those, they just have to get a member of the judicial branch to approve it-- part of our checks and balances. Eliminating those is a very, very bad idea indeed.
Wow, there's just so much innocence in that post I'm not sure where to start.
"how is that the fault of our President?"
Well, he's the boss. He took an oath to uphold the constitution. And, like any CEO, he's responsible for the legal and ethical conduct of his employees. If he were to promptly deal with abuses through termination and legal sanctions against those officers of the government who abuse their power, it wouldn't be his fault. Instead, he and his appointed attorney general call anyone who voices objections to their methods "unpatriotic" and an enemy of the state. That's why I say it's his fault.
No, you certainly can't get everyone to like you. But I do think it's possible to conduct oneself in such a way that others aren't committing suicide to cause you harm. Seems to work pretty well for most of the rest of the world-- not too many terrorists bombing Australia or New Zealand, now are there?
"or are you too selfish not to come to the aid of others that are unable to stand up for themselves?"
No, I'm totally in favor of helping those who can't stand for themselves. But, if that help is in the form of an armed invasion, I'd like to see the majority of the free governments of the world working together to do so (kinda like in 1991...). Not trumping up charges of the existance of weapons of mass destruction, of which no traces whatsoever have been found, to justify moving in singlehandedly and wiping out a government.
If we're going to help those who can't help themselves, then why the hell aren't we in Sierra Leone, the Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Angola, Uganda, or Myanmar working to overthrow totallitarian regiemes and local warlords that have killed as many if not more of their own people than Saddam ever did? I think you're being a bit naive to think that our actions in Iraq are about helping others, they're about securing a strategic resource, and in my opinion, a personal vendetta in return for Saddam's plans to kill the president's father.
Contrary to what seems to be your opinion, the rest of the world aren't our "children". We're not responsible for punishing them, or setting the rules. That patronizing attitude is one of the prime motivators that cause a lot of other people to hate us (that, and the fact that our foreign aid is pretty much directly linked to what we can extract from the country in terms of exploitable resources). Until the US stops acting like Clint Eastwood in a spaghetti western, and starts acting like a responsible world government interested in working through diplomacy first, and armed force second, our risk of repeating something like 9-11 or worse is going to continue to rise.
Slashdot Mirror
"Guns are legally required to be registered to their owners, unlike copiers or computers, for starters."
Actually, no. In most places in the US (outside of some major cities and a few east-coast states) there's no mandatory licensing of firearms. Even in those limited places with mandatory licensing, it's usually only handguns. Long rifles and shotguns, by and large, are unregulated. B/c I've inherited or purchased the firearms I do have long before background checking, there is absolutely squat-all record of them by any government agency.
Not that that invalidates the rest of your arguement, but blasting somebody else for making straw man arguements while makeing unfounded (and incorrect) assertions isn't exactlty convincing.
Not after, but about six weeks before.
The Matrix
"Unless, of course, your competition is the last(?) installment of Star Wars. Who in their right mind is going to open another sci-fi movie against that?"
As I recall, Warner Bros did exactly that in 1999 with pretty good results....
What's wrong with this picture?
Nothing at all. You were trying to install the software on a system that didn't meet the requirements printed on the outside of the box, and it didn't work. Big Surprise.
Did you read the system requirements on the outside of the box before you purchased it? 'Cause on mine, it specifically says that an internet connection is required. You can argue that the connection requirement shouldn't be there, but you can't argue that their software didn't work as advertised. Not playing it on principle b/c it says it requires a connection and you don't have one makes about as much sense as not playing it on the principle b/c it requires a better graphics card than you've got.
I have a SA DVR from Cox communications; while the interface isn't wonderful, the complete integration with Cox's digital cable is seamless, and since it has two tuners I can watch one show and record another, both off of the digital signal. It has yet to crash once on me (had it for ~ 9 months)
A couple of months ago, a new entry showed up in the play menu of my DVR rented from Cox cable-- "Copy to VCR".
They don't spend a lot of effort documenting it, but I can hit that, and the composite out on the DVR goes straight into my DVD recorder, no extra stuff from the DVR showing up on the screen.
This feature doesn't eat up one of the tuners, so it's possible with my set-up to watch one show, record another to the HD, and backup another to DVD, all without any hacks or extra effort on my part. Total cost-- $12/month, no upfront hardware cost, no contracts, no mess.
I don't think anyone (who has some rational thoughts) would disagree that Lucas has an incredible imagination, and a real skill at developing the outline and concept for a great movie-- it's when he tries to write dialog and direct it that his skill level drops down below that of a ten year old with a camcorder.
Why was TESB the best movie of the original trilogy? Somebody else wrote the dialog and directed it (ahem, co-wrote and co-directed). Sadly, Lucas is powerful enough to do it his way now-- Get me more Ewoks!
Shoud definitly appeal to emacs users, no?
This is slashdot; it's my Rob-given right to take any quote out of context, totally destroying the meaning ;). I agree with you, the intention isn't evil. It's just dumb.
Why have blackouts at all? From the DirectTV website (NFL Sunday Ticket FAQs):
Q: Reasons for NFL blackouts:
A:
To make sure the team benefits from a stadium full of enthusiastic fans.
To protect home game attendance of the teams.
To assure the entertainment value of a full stadium -- for people in the stands and for people watching TV.
To protect local television coverage.
So does the blackout have the desired effect? This year in San Diego, with blackout, vs. last year with all games on TV, average attendance is DOWN 14% (reference). This despite the Chargers doing much better (4-3) than their normal season (almost always losing). And with other teams (like K.C. who almost always sells out) with normal attendance, some (like Seattle) with much higher attendance (new stadium). I'd suggest that the blackouts result in lost "butts in seats", lost attendance, and lost fans.
Remember, mass specs measure mass over charge (m/z). The peak at 8 is probably double charged methane (16/2=8)
It would be bad enough to have to pay to watch the game in the privacy of my own home.
The bizarre thing about the NFL is that you can't even pay to see the local game if it's not sold out-- the game is blacked out on pay-per-view, Sunday Ticket(tm), anything else-- if you live in a football town and the game doesn't sell out, the NFL doesn't care if your a quadraplegic child cancer patient-- if you're not in the stadium, you're not watching the game. Why? According to DirectTV (from their website):
Q: Reasons for NFL blackouts:
A:
To make sure the team benefits from a stadium full of enthusiastic fans.
To protect home game attendance of the teams.
To assure the entertainment value of a full stadium -- for people in the stands and for people watching TV.
To protect local television coverage.
Idiots. The blackout has not only not encouraged me to go to Chargers games this year, it's made me apathetic to the point that I'm not watching the away games.
We're doing the experiment in San Diego, and so far it looks like the blackout is hurting ticket sales.
For the past decade or so, blackouts were prevented by the city purchasing all the unsold tickets-- every home game was a sell out, courtesy of the taxpayers. This year, the clause was killed and so non-sold out home games (which is every home game) is blacked out. By the NFL's logic, therefore, you'd expect higher attendance at the game, right?
So far, with three home games this season, average attendance is DOWN 14% ! It looks like even the perennial biggest seller of the year, the Raiders game this weekend, won't sell out and so will be blacked out. The net result of the blackout? NOBODY CARES. The chargers are having a pretty decent season (4-3 so far, usually we're 1-6 at this point) and NOBODY CARES. When you take the games off the TV, the audience doesn't take it upon themselves to spend $100 each to go to the game, they just find something else to do Sunday. Lost ticket revenue, lost TV revenue, lost fans. Idiots.
"TV contracts are lucrative, but ticket sales are the lifeblood."
Maybe so, but does blacking out the TV actually increase ticket sales? Our city is doing the experiment, and as far as I can tell (they're not releasing numbers as far as I've heard) bringing the blackout back doesn't seem to be upping attendance.
I live in San Diego, where we didn't have black-outs the last few seasons, courtesy of an a$$-raping contract between the Chargers and our crooked-as-a-twisty-straw city council that guarenteed them the revenue of a sell-out for every game-- the city would pay them full ticket price for every unsold seat. After much wrangling and public outcry, that clause has been terminated, and every non-sellout home game (which is every game excapt the Raiders) is now blacked out.
Know what? I don't know a single person who's gone to more games because of it. My group of friends averaged one or two games a year, and we're going to one this year. They lost the TV revenue, and it doesn't look like they're upping seat sales-- the blackout just makes people not care as much. I used to watch pretty much every home game, and the Chargers got the TV revenue from it. This year, I don't even know what their record is, haven't made the effort to watch the away games in a while, just don't care anymore. That is not good marketing.
Just curious, if one was to pay cash for that TV or PC, would they require identification? Seems like otherwise, it would be easy to send the bill off into the ether. Requiring picture ID when purchasing a TV ought to get the folks here frothing at the mouth ;)
;)
On the other hand, I'm surprised that the slashdot elite aren't ecstatic over this; if they're collecting the info when you buy a complete TV or PC, it wouldn't affect the "real geek" who built their box from components ordered from several sources. Only the people who bought a TV or a pre-built PC would be charged. The "real geek" could order their SuSE compatible TV tuner card from the US and freeload all they want
"It's simple, call the police and have them sited for trespassing. See, there are laws for this sort of thing."
Oh yes, call the police. They might take a report over the phone. If you're lucky enough to know who the trespasser is, their name and address, you might get a citation mailed to them. Get the police to drive by when you've got a non-threatening trespass going on? Give me a break. In San Diego, you can't even get the cops to come by if your car gets totalled in a hit and run, with the runner leaving paint scrapes and parts of their bumper behind. Actually investigate a non-violent crime? Not likely. Despite having outrageous taxes.
Given the complete failure of big-city police to provide even the basics of "serve-and-protect" despite running up huge bills (look up California CHP's "Chief's disease") citizens don't have a lot of choice but to protect themselves.
My criticism isn't about some "conspiracy theory", it's a criticism of the business model, as well as (going off on a tangent here) the illegal exploitation of monopoly positions in the retail distribution of music (i.e. best buy and the rolling stones DVD), getting on the air (Clear Channel's payola via program directors), and public performance (ticketmaster) that requires a multimillion dollar investment for a band to "make it".
No conspiracy, just a bunch of folks exploiting their monopoly position to make money off of an outmoded distribution channel, and doing their best to get the government of the US to keep them on life support.
Of course the industry wants to bundle bad tracks with good, or to raise the price-- if people just buy what they want, it wrecks their whole business model of investing heavily in a few "artists" and making sure they make it-- if people just listen to the few tracks of the few artists they like, not enough money will be flowing through the system for the execs to skim the requisite off the top. CD sales would go down, and... oh wait ;)
--
"Me thinks you should try the math".
Methinks you should try the math-- when you add up all those even numbers with the "1" that started it all, you're always going to get an odd, eh?
--
The tax rates in S.D. are higher, dumbass. Per capita, I'm paying more than I would be back in Kansas. Quite a bit more. So is everybody else. So, if San Diego can't figure out how to give me a decent level of police service at the ridiculous tax rates they charge, the folks back home must be fuckin' geniuses to figure out how to give better service for less money. Didn't do too well in math, did you?
"Great. Fantastic. That would be an acceptable outcome. They should go into another field where they won't ruin peoples lives."
I have a good friend, who practiced as an outpatient surgeon for twelve years in L.A. He never had a single malpractice claim against him. About three years ago, he decided that the malpractice rates, HMO b.s., and the fact that he couldn't recoup his costs from medicare patients (the majority of his patients) wasn't worth it. Took off and got a non-physician but healthcare related job, and never looked back.
Yes, healthcare in the U.S. sucks. And we deserve exactly what we've got.
--
I live in the People's Republic of California, and I pay considerably more than my parents do in local taxes (property taxes higher, more than 1c higher sales tax, higher state income tax).
In my parent's town (small town Kansas), stuff like this gets hunted down. In San Diego, you've pretty much got to get shot to get the local cops out of their offices (unless, of course, you're speeding or something). We just pretty much accept that the local cops are worthless, and get on with our lives. Higher taxes aren't the answer-- revising the various levels of civil service so that the competant got raises, and the incompetent got fired, would be. Ah well. Time to privatize the police as well, I guess...
--
(c) The owner of the GM patent could theoretically sue the neighboring farmer for patent infringement and demand license fees. Sounds idiotic, but as far as I know (IANAL), this is legally possible.
This is not just legally possible, but it has already happened. Here comes the lawyers....
--
"...the nit-picker in me is taking over..."
;)
"...Mars, Pluto, Alpha Century..."
The nit-picker in you needed to do a better job
That would be Alpha Centauri
"It was not a matter of just knocking down buildings but hitting us hard with our economy & striking fear in its citizens. Killing all those innocent people was an added bonus for them."
Well, we've certainly paid them back, and in spades. We've knocked down a heck of a lot more than two buildings in Iraq, and we've killed 5000-10000 of their civilians, way way more than died in 9-11. Of course, it'd be cool if we could actually prove that Iraq had something to do with 9-11, but you know, details, details. We had to make up for only nailing ~1,800 civilians in Afghanistan, that didn't quite draw us even.
--
You don't need a right to privacy here.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
That's the text to the fourth amendment. It doesn't take too much of a leap to consider bank records to be part of one's "papers and effects", such as they'd exist in 1791. There's already a process in place for the executive branch to search those, they just have to get a member of the judicial branch to approve it-- part of our checks and balances. Eliminating those is a very, very bad idea indeed.
--
Wow, there's just so much innocence in that post I'm not sure where to start.
"how is that the fault of our President?"
Well, he's the boss. He took an oath to uphold the constitution. And, like any CEO, he's responsible for the legal and ethical conduct of his employees. If he were to promptly deal with abuses through termination and legal sanctions against those officers of the government who abuse their power, it wouldn't be his fault. Instead, he and his appointed attorney general call anyone who voices objections to their methods "unpatriotic" and an enemy of the state. That's why I say it's his fault.
No, you certainly can't get everyone to like you. But I do think it's possible to conduct oneself in such a way that others aren't committing suicide to cause you harm. Seems to work pretty well for most of the rest of the world-- not too many terrorists bombing Australia or New Zealand, now are there?
"or are you too selfish not to come to the aid of others that are unable to stand up for themselves?"
No, I'm totally in favor of helping those who can't stand for themselves. But, if that help is in the form of an armed invasion, I'd like to see the majority of the free governments of the world working together to do so (kinda like in 1991...). Not trumping up charges of the existance of weapons of mass destruction, of which no traces whatsoever have been found, to justify moving in singlehandedly and wiping out a government.
If we're going to help those who can't help themselves, then why the hell aren't we in Sierra Leone, the Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Angola, Uganda, or Myanmar working to overthrow totallitarian regiemes and local warlords that have killed as many if not more of their own people than Saddam ever did? I think you're being a bit naive to think that our actions in Iraq are about helping others, they're about securing a strategic resource, and in my opinion, a personal vendetta in return for Saddam's plans to kill the president's father.
Contrary to what seems to be your opinion, the rest of the world aren't our "children". We're not responsible for punishing them, or setting the rules. That patronizing attitude is one of the prime motivators that cause a lot of other people to hate us (that, and the fact that our foreign aid is pretty much directly linked to what we can extract from the country in terms of exploitable resources). Until the US stops acting like Clint Eastwood in a spaghetti western, and starts acting like a responsible world government interested in working through diplomacy first, and armed force second, our risk of repeating something like 9-11 or worse is going to continue to rise.
--