When one is presented with bullshit, it is appropriate to call it such. Your assertion that the US troups are welcomed as heros was complete and utter bullshit. I stand by what I said.
I suggest learning a little more about the world that you are living in, maturing a little, and then looking for a so-called 'serious' discussion.
So, the USA has been feeding people feet-first into running wood chippers? Tying people up, blindfilding them, then throwing them off buildings? Throwing a bunch of women into a small room so they can be raped whenever someone feels like it?
Where do you get this trash from? Let me guess... Fox News, right? OK fine. Lets pretend for a minute that this BS actually happened. It happened thanks to the support that the US gave Saddam for the first 2 decades of his rule. And lets not forget Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and hundres of other secret US torture camps. And the US's practice of extraordinary renditions.
As for the nonsense regarding law-abiding Iraqis wanting the USA gone, you're wrong again. I've a brother who served in Iraq - they essentially get heros' welcomes whenever they meet people when on patrol.
Either your brother or you are liers. The US troups are hated by all but the top 1% of the population: the collaboraters.
In fact, that's exactly what the "insurgents" are trying to do... except they aren't insurgents. They're carted in from the surrounding countries and usually end up targetting Iraqis.
A handful of foreigners come from neighbouring countries to try to fight off the invaders. I don't see the problem. They are in a far better moral position that the invaders themselves. And you can't undermine the legitimacy of the Iraqi resistance simply because there are some foreign fighters on their side. Of course if there were no foreign fighters in the country, there wouldn't be a problem, would there?
Read that again: the terrorists are blowing up Iraqis.
The Americans have blown up a hell of a lot more civilians that the so-called 'terrorists' could ever hope to. And keep in mind that the Sunnis and Shiites are both united in their opinion of the terrorists targetting Iraqi civilians: they are widely believed to be American Block Opts and Israeli army attacks, that are meant to be blamed on the Iraqi resistance. link
Check the Iraqi death toll - over 10,000. Guess who ISN'T using precision-guided weapons? Where did you pull that figure from? I figure it came from where your intelligence is centred: your anus. However I'll pretent that you're right, and answer your question. Since the US have killed over 100,000, and the 'terrorists' have killed 10,000, I suppose that means the US are the ones that aren't using precision-guided weapons.
As for anyone in the current administration being a war criminal, consider this: the USA has had the right (some would say the duty) to attack Iraq again as soon as Saddam broke the peace treaty he signed when the USA kicked his butt out of Kuwait.
What utter trash! Simply having a 'treaty' on a piece of paper doesn't give the US, or any other country, the right to invade another country and kill hundres of thousands of civilians. And keep in mind that Iraq wasn't invaded because of your treaty - if this were a legitimate excuse, the US would have been falling over themeselves to use it instead of having to fabricate the 'evidence' and spend millions on their war propogandy... which people such as yourselves have fallen desperately under the power of.
He'd been breaking his agreements for almost a decade, attacking US planes patrolling the area he wasn't allowed to keep forces in, etc.
What fucking right do some arrogant US arseholes have telling other people where they can and can't fly planes - in their own country!
Pull out now, without a stable government and adaquately trained police and military personnel in adequate numbers? Are you insane? Absent the rule of law, a power vacuum will always be filled by the most vicious, evil persons - because they generally kill everyone else.
That's exactly what's happening now.
the real solution is to allow a democratically established government to mature and supporting law enforcement arms to strengthen
You can never achieve democracy under occupation - particularly under occupation of the US, with their latest tricks they've learned from the Israeli army.
Another problem with this response is that it assumes that we have the right to decide when exactly a satisfactory, democratic government has matured, etc, etc. This is none of our business. It's up the Iraqi people, and if you read surveys of Iraqi civilians, the one thing that stands out is that they are 100% united over the issue of the occupation: they want us out, NOW! In fact ALL the candidates for the so-called election were falling over themselves to claim that they would be the ones to bring the occupation to and end and eject the US troups first - clearly because they knew this is what the population wanted. If you are serious about your calls for democracy, you should consider what the people of Iraq want: the opportunity to rebuild their country and their political situation without the constant threat of military aggression.
and while we wait, get the bastards that planned and supported the illegal, murderous acts on civilians.
I 100% agree with you on this one. Blair, Bush and Howard, and a large portion of their political colleges should face war crimes charges.
Stop invading other countries and pull out of the ones you've already invaded. It's cheaper, it's much more ethical, and it's going to give you a far safer solution.
Yes, they went in against the will of the people and killed many of them in the process, but Saddam wasn't exactly the world's most compassionate man, now was he?
Don't be bought by that arguement. We were supposed to have gone into Iraq because of the imminent threat posed by Saddam's WOMD. As has been widely discussed, WOMD was the banner that the US decided on, and the UK's task was to assist 'fix' intelligence around the issue... which they did remarkably well. Now that it's clear there were no WOMD and the fabricated 'evidence' is falling apart, our government would love us to all forget their rantings on WOMD, and instead appreciate how much of a better place the world is now that Saddam is gone. If you go around repeating this, you've turned into one of their media outlets. Regime change was never approved by any body, whether the UN, the UK, or even the USA ( officially of course ). The UN resolution which they hid behind was based on letting weapons inspectors in to find their phantom WOMD. They complied, but the US couldn't accept this ( alterior motives ), and jumped the gun. Legally, we have set an absolutely appalling record. Imagine if the tables were turned, and Saudi Arabia accused the US / UK / Australia of having WOMD.
Now back to the "Saddam is gone" arguement. The US & UK have been *best* buddies with Saddam for 2 decades. They have always known what he's been up to, and have given him chemical weapons, and sent US military personnel to examine the results of using them... on Saddam's own people... but of course you'll never hear the US adding that they provided the chemical weapons and stood back taking notes. So Saddam is gone. So fucking what? That's not what they went in for. It's the backup excuse now that the WOMD excuse has dried up. Is Iraq a better place now? I just went to a forum with Donna Mulhearn, who was a human shield in Iraq. She's been back 3 times, taking videos, doing interviews with civilians, etc. When she asked people what it was like now that Saddam is gone, their response was absolutely fucking shocking. They all long for the "good old days" when it was safe to go outside, there was electricity, you could buy petrol without queuing for 3 days, there was law and order, and their families were still alive. Not to mention all the stuff like ripping up laws over foriegn ownership of companies, resources ( oil ), media, etc. Not one of them said they were better off now.
You also have to ask yourself: who has replaced Saddam. Have a look at the local police - they're hiring ex-baathist hitmen and long-standing party members. That gives you *some* idea of the atmosphere they're trying to create. But for the icing on the cake, Allawi has widely been reported to have been a hitman himself, and has shot dead blinded prisoners as an example to his forces. Link: http://ww1.sundayherald.com/43458 Please note that I haven't linked to some obscure ultra-leftist site... the Sunday Herald is a major paper. There are plenty more articles on the topic. So please don't go around claiming that the world is better off without Saddam. Bad as Saddam was, and gone as he is now, the world is not better off, because he's simply been replaced with another carbon copy. The US insisted.
The US & UK have good intentions
You'll never understand world politics while you have that view. The US & UK act in the interests of big business. If they appear to have good intentions, it's because they pay millions to multiple PR firms. That and the media is an extreme right-wing orgy.
And what's this cause you're talking about? I've heard of no manifesto from al Qaeda, other than bringing about the downfall of the evil west.
an inquiry proved that the war was not actually an illegal war.
Yes it's called a whitewash. What do you expect when the people doing the investigating were appointed by the people who are the target of the investigation. I think you'll find public opinion is very much against you on this one, 'inquiry' or not.
So you admit to having a chip on your shoulder. I don't have a chip, I'm just fed up with your attitude.
Once again you are demonstating the characteristics you are describing, while I don't believe I'm displaying any of them. Perhaps your subconsious is trying to tell you something, and you're projecting it onto me?
"You have a chip. I don't have a chip. You're fucked. I'm great". Sounds pretty stupid, eh? Well it's taken straight from the horse's mouth. So remove that chip from your shoulder and that foor from your mouth and get back on topic.
In the face of such a disaster people like you see fit to throw blame around and say that it was a justified response, it wasn't.
Justified from whose point of view? The world is not full of people with experiences identical to your own. While YOU don't think it was justified, there are millions of people around the world who are 'fed up' with the attitude and foreign policy of the big industrial powers and the death and destruction they are causing.
When is it ever justified to kill civilians? Yes civilians will have been caught in crossfire in places like iraq
You really have no idea what's happening in Iraq, do you? ALL the deaths are civilians. They're not just dying in crossfires. They're dying in military checkpoints styled on the Israeli way ( God help them ). They're dying in their own homes that get shelled because the US 'believe it was a terrorist haven'. They're dying in the street from heat exhaustion because there'e no power, 2 years after the invasion. They're dying for driving too close to US humvees. They're dying because they happened to live in Fallujah, which was carpet-bombed into oblivion. And people like you come out and claim that 'it might just be possible that on the odd occasion that a small number of entirely accidental fatalities may or may not occur'. Bullshit. OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND HAVE DIED. How many crossfires are there, anyway?
it was not the intension to go to kill and civilians
I've got news for you. This was exactly the plan, and even if it wasn't, they are ALL civilians. Not only that, NONE of them had any weapons of mass destruction, making them ALL INNOCENT.
which is exactly what the terrorists did, they targetted INNOCENT people
That's right. They targetted innocent people. Get over it. Our governments have targetted innocent people before, and they'll do it again. I belive Iran is next. Instead of getting hysterical over less than 100 deaths, try to put it in perspective and think of the 100,000+ deaths in Iraq caused directly by the invasion. I'm not saying London wasn't a tragedy. I'm just saying that it won't do people any good to NOT put the event in it's correct context - against a backdrop of illegal invasions, occupations, torture and abuse scandels, corrupt contract scoring, election fraud, and other trash that Bush, Blair and Howard insist on dragging us all through.
Don't you think that this applies to almost every country in the world?
Yes I do, and yes this is a problem - good on your for spotting it.
Sound like double standards to me. But I suspect this analysis is lost on you.
Do you have problem comprehending English?
Not at all. I was seeing if you could comprehend my point re: double standards. Clearly you cannot. Do you have a comprehension problem?
Are you implying that there was no terrorism before the invasion? Are you saying that Al Qaeda wasn't a terrorist organization before the invasion? Are you saying no one ever strapped a bomb to the chest and pulled the cord on a crowded bus before the invasion?
That's a very immature argument to be taking up. I'm clearly not saying that there was no terrorism before the invasion of Iraq. The invasion of Iraq is but one example of would clearly drives people towards terrorism. Can you not understand this? Can you only comprehend complete opposites, ie Iraq caused ALL terrorism, vs Iraq has nothing to do with ANY terrorism. You must widen your appreciation of the world before you can make proper sense of why things happen. Your previous paragraph takes your argument no-where, and certainly does nothing for other people's appreciation of your intelligence.
Now I know you can't comprehend English, because I said no such thing.
No, no, please, not back to that argument again... you were doing so well:)
You've passed beyond the veil of rationality and I must cease conversing with you because it has become pointless.
Oh dear. Didn't like my last point? Considering you can't handle the previous ones, I'm not surprised. Return when you have matured.
Says who? You? The mainstream media? Maybe Dubya and Bliar? The ones who lied to us over WOMD?
How exactly are the terrorists going to achieve a global Islamic state by blowing things up? It's an absurd statement to make. And it's overlooking the glaring coincidence that those being attacked are those who attacked them first. Surely if the terrorists were after a global islamic state, or simply to achive the most death and destruction, they wouldn't be so picky about who they blew up.
Short of our conversion to their particular sect of Islam and their twisted social norms
Whose twisted social norms. It's our twisted social norms that bought about the situation. We officially invaded Iraq and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, based on what was known to be a lie. The handful of terrorists who attacked London are NOT BY ANY MEANS behaving according to their social norms. They are reactionary extremists. They are an incredibly small cross-section of ( allegedely ) Islamic society. Where do you get off declaring the entire Islamic world 'twisted' etc simply because of the actions of some reactionaries?
The terrorism isn't about economics, imperialism, capitalism or anything else the left like to apologize to the terrorists for.
I'm not apologising for anyone. I'm simply pointing out the double-standards the western world seems happy to live with.
The Al Qaeda brand of terrorism is simply about xenophobia.
Oh bullshit. It's about making a statement. It's about saying to the world, "You continue to abuse our people, and you will continue to get more of this". It's reactionary. Take away what they're reacting to, and they will disappear too. I would, however, say that OUR brand of state-sponsored terrorism is based on xenophobia.
Wrong. They sexed up reports. They then covered this up. Someone was killed over it, right?
the war was not an illegal war
Wrong. It was a war crime: an illegal war of aggression, entered on false pretenses ( see above point re: sexing up intelligence )
and to be quite frank most of the problems the developing countries have with the developed world come from the US
Not the US. Imperialism. And the UK knows all about imperialism. The fact that the US happens to be the biggest imperial power in no way precludes the UK from grabbing their piece of the spoils of war.
Incidently, you seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder so grow up.
When they did go into Afghanistan and Iraq, they declared war, thereby agreeing to abide by the rules of war and not do something like, i don't know, kill innocent people as they were on the bus to work.
What bullshit! So the UK declared war... on 2 innocent countries... and now you're saying that they are in the right because of the fact that they declared war... and thereby agreed... not to kill any innocent people. So what about the hundreds of thousands of innocent people they killed? That's some pretty fucked up logic right there. And what about Abu Graib? You can't join the coalition of the killing and then claim that your hands are clean, and it was the nasty Americans that did all the killing an torturing? You're ( UK and USA ) both in it up to your eyeballs, as we are here in Australia.
I think that saying "look, we're coming and we're coming armed" is a little less extreme (not to say hideously discourteous, dishonourable, cowardly...) than killing a busload of people.
No, it's a lot more extreme. Of course I'm using the number of innocent people who died as the measuring stick. What measuring stick are you using? You whinge about killing a busload of people. How many busloads could you fill with Iraqi people who have been killed. The problem with your analysis is that other people's lives aren't worth as much to you as westerner's lives, and that's sad. In fact that's what the whole problem is.
You're also making the fatal mistake of assuming that those who attacked London have the ability to wage a traditional war. They don't. Nor are they interested in waging war. And this is what pisses off Dubya and Bliar so much. The 'terrorists' are simply drawing people's attention to their cause. The problem for those in so-called 'civilised' societies is that our media and our governments refuse to even admit that there is an issue, and instead try to push everything aside by saying "they hate our freedom". What bullshit!
We Irish aren't known for our love of the English, but I don't think that you'd find any person in this country who'd believe that London deserved this to happen to them.
Well I think it's possible that there were people who deserved this. Those who knew the facts vs lies on the WOMD issue, for example. And those who blindly followed Bliar into the war. It's not enough to simply say "well I didn't know we were wrong". The British people claim to live in a democracy. Well there are responsibilities that go with that, ie you are responsible for the actions of your elected representatives. Didn't know? Too bad. It's a democracy. It's your responsibility to know, and to prevent atrocities such as the invasion and occupation of Iraq occuring in your name.
Now back to your statement that you don't think you could find anyone who'd belive that London deserved this to happen. How's this for you? I've seen a number of posts here and in other places, and even seen people on BBC saying, that London 'had it coming', and that it was 'only a matter of time'. To me, that's a diplomatic, freudian-slip kinda way of saying that London deserved it. Having said that, I would not wish it on anyway, and I don't condone the attacks. I simply see karma at work.
Yes I heard that the Israelis knew about the attacks prior to them happening. Apparently they've been behind a lot of the bombings in Iraq that have been blamed on 'insurgents'.
Whether the Israelis, CIA, MI5, or simply some pissed off Arabs ( and God knows they've got a lot to be pissed off about these days ), nothing would surprise me.
Not going to happen. Problem is that this is the last resort for them. Maybe it's time for people to stop blaming the boogey-man and start considering why things happen. And no it doesn't happen because they're fanatics, or they hate our 'freedom' or any fucking bullshit like that. It's happening because of the foreign policy of the major industrial nations. How can you possibly say that British people are 'totally' unrelated? They were a major partner in the illegal invasion of Iraq. They were responsible for knowingly lying to the world over WOMD claims. And now London's been attacked. And idiots like you stick your heads in the sand and claim that you're 'totally unrelated'. It doesn't work like that.
Yes the British went into Iraq and Afghanistan, but they're been fairly well controlled for the most part. This is extremism at its worst.
You fucking what? You admit to invading TWO completely innocent countries ( both run by former oh-so-close allies of the US and UK, by the way ), and then in the next breath claim that you were fairly well controlled for the most part! It's one or the other. Certainly not both at the same time. And that little bit about extremism at it's worst... I think extremism at it's worst would be waging an illegal war of conquest. Any response to such an illegal war of conquest surely must be considered less extreme.
Like it or not, Blair and Bush had a hell of a lot to do with this attack. With the number of innocent people they've killed, how can anyone be surprised that a handful of survivors got together to get some payback?
The US and UK know about payback, right? Remember Iraq, and how they were paid back for what a group of Afghanis did?
When I listened to Blair's response, I couldn't help but think that his description of the attack on London could very well have applied to the attack on Iraq... apart from the small fact that only a handful of people died in London.
Honestly people, death and destruction is bad, no matter who is involved. One thing I can't handle, however, is hypocritical arseholes like Bliar, Dubya and hoWARd bombing the Christ out of other countries and then proclaiming their shock when someone stikes back.
Remember that Bliar was well aware before the invasion of Iraq that the decision to go to war had been made, and that intelligence was being 'fixed' around the policy. So how innocent is Bliar, or the British people who returned him to power? Certainly not as innocent as the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have been killed since the invasion.
i'd be more inclined to think that radiation dissipates quicker than ice ages come and go
You'd be inclined to be wrong. Waste from power plants has a half-life in the millions of years. When a radioactive product reaches it's half-life, that means it will have halved in radioactivity. Many, many ice ages will go by before the radiation 'dissipates' to safe levels.
Of course. But those in power aren't interested in doing what's in the best interest of the people, but in the best interest of their supporters... or investors... as Baby Bush so delicately puts it.
Of course with a pricetag this high, the project will never go ahead. The US has enough trouble financing it's balance of payments deficit without worrying about cleaning up after itself.
The US's answer is to move to nuclear power - a remarkably stupid idea, an unfortunately one that the Australian government has signalled it will investigate.
If you feel motivated to do something on the energy / environmental front, I'd say that the carbon issue is a moot point compared to the nuclear issue. Rally around that instead. At least with a carbon catastrpohe the earth will be able to recover within hundreds of thousands of years. With a nuclear catastrpohe, that's it. No more chances.
but that doesn't mean I can't have critics on usability
You didn't criticise on usability. You complained you couldn't find a screenshot, and that when you did, you didn't understand what it was.
Coders don't quite need a Access-like tool, they know how to type SQL statements themselves
Get a clue. The coder still types the SQL. I don't provide a query builder like Access does, I simply pass the SQL that the programmer defines to the database server and then populate the fields on their form... it eliminates manually updating every field on the form, and then manually checking and constructing an SQL command to update the database with changes from the fields. In this respect, I think that programmers certainly do need such a tool.
It may come as a surprise, but I actually do a lot of C++ and Perl coding
You're right. I'm surpised. In fact I'm in a state of disbelief. The fact that your 'criticism' of my project doesn't actually relate to it at all says that you're just an average Joe that went looking for screenshots, decided on what the project was without reading or thinking, and then returned to bitch about your confusion.
How can you claim to be a programmer when your first complain was that you were confused by my extremely simple code examples on the web page?
It's written in Perl, and uses Gtk2. I think both of these points make it ideal for RAD database development. It's *far* easier to write your application logic in Perl than in C++. And Gtk2 is also far superior to QT ( flame away ).
I've already got the whole setup working perfectly under Linux, Windows and OS-X. It includes a form module, datasheet module, and report writing module ( exports to PDF ).
So while you're waiting... check it out. Maybe even help out with development:)
We've been using OpenOffice since about build 627 ( beta of OOo-1.0.0 I think ), and I wouldn't even say that it couldn't "often" manage to correctly render Word documents. I would say that it "occassionally" couldn't render Word documents correctly.
A lot has happened since then. The new OOo-2.0-pre builds are very impressive. The only features that I've come across that doesn't render correctly are: - rotated images - OLE objects - VB macros
I believe there are plans to get OLE objects working after 2.0 is released, and there is also an active bug ( feature request ) for the rotated images. I forgive the OOo team for not paying too much attention to VB compatibility - while it would be nice, it's a horrible waste of resources to chase after.
Of course that's not to say that there aren't bugs, but the basic framework is in place for very good compatibility, and for over 90% of businesses, I think switching even now in the beta period would be quite easy.
I agree that most Perl code looks like shit. But I strongly disagree with Python's way of forcing everybody into the same shape.
You can write nicely geometric code in Perl though ( and I agree with you that good code should look geometric ). Have a look at some of my code on http://entropy.homelinux.org
Slashdot Mirror
When one is presented with bullshit, it is appropriate to call it such. Your assertion that the US troups are welcomed as heros was complete and utter bullshit. I stand by what I said.
I suggest learning a little more about the world that you are living in, maturing a little, and then looking for a so-called 'serious' discussion.
Wow! What a comeback. Return as an AC and post absolutely zero content. Must have taken some thinking.
Where do you get this trash from? Let me guess ... Fox News, right? OK fine. Lets pretend for a minute that this BS actually happened. It happened thanks to the support that the US gave Saddam for the first 2 decades of his rule. And lets not forget Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and hundres of other secret US torture camps. And the US's practice of extraordinary renditions.
Either your brother or you are liers. The US troups are hated by all but the top 1% of the population: the collaboraters.
A handful of foreigners come from neighbouring countries to try to fight off the invaders. I don't see the problem. They are in a far better moral position that the invaders themselves. And you can't undermine the legitimacy of the Iraqi resistance simply because there are some foreign fighters on their side. Of course if there were no foreign fighters in the country, there wouldn't be a problem, would there?
The Americans have blown up a hell of a lot more civilians that the so-called 'terrorists' could ever hope to. And keep in mind that the Sunnis and Shiites are both united in their opinion of the terrorists targetting Iraqi civilians: they are widely believed to be American Block Opts and Israeli army attacks, that are meant to be blamed on the Iraqi resistance. link
That's exactly what's happening now.
You can never achieve democracy under occupation - particularly under occupation of the US, with their latest tricks they've learned from the Israeli army.
Another problem with this response is that it assumes that we have the right to decide when exactly a satisfactory, democratic government has matured, etc, etc. This is none of our business. It's up the Iraqi people, and if you read surveys of Iraqi civilians, the one thing that stands out is that they are 100% united over the issue of the occupation: they want us out, NOW! In fact ALL the candidates for the so-called election were falling over themselves to claim that they would be the ones to bring the occupation to and end and eject the US troups first - clearly because they knew this is what the population wanted. If you are serious about your calls for democracy, you should consider what the people of Iraq want: the opportunity to rebuild their country and their political situation without the constant threat of military aggression.
I 100% agree with you on this one. Blair, Bush and Howard, and a large portion of their political colleges should face war crimes charges.
Stop invading other countries and pull out of the ones you've already invaded. It's cheaper, it's much more ethical, and it's going to give you a far safer solution.
Don't be bought by that arguement. We were supposed to have gone into Iraq because of the imminent threat posed by Saddam's WOMD. As has been widely discussed, WOMD was the banner that the US decided on, and the UK's task was to assist 'fix' intelligence around the issue ... which they did remarkably well. Now that it's clear there were no WOMD and the fabricated 'evidence' is falling apart, our government would love us to all forget their rantings on WOMD, and instead appreciate how much of a better place the world is now that Saddam is gone. If you go around repeating this, you've turned into one of their media outlets. Regime change was never approved by any body, whether the UN, the UK, or even the USA ( officially of course ). The UN resolution which they hid behind was based on letting weapons inspectors in to find their phantom WOMD. They complied, but the US couldn't accept this ( alterior motives ), and jumped the gun. Legally, we have set an absolutely appalling record. Imagine if the tables were turned, and Saudi Arabia accused the US / UK / Australia of having WOMD.
... on Saddam's own people ... but of course you'll never hear the US adding that they provided the chemical weapons and stood back taking notes. So Saddam is gone. So fucking what? That's not what they went in for. It's the backup excuse now that the WOMD excuse has dried up. Is Iraq a better place now? I just went to a forum with Donna Mulhearn, who was a human shield in Iraq. She's been back 3 times, taking videos, doing interviews with civilians, etc. When she asked people what it was like now that Saddam is gone, their response was absolutely fucking shocking. They all long for the "good old days" when it was safe to go outside, there was electricity, you could buy petrol without queuing for 3 days, there was law and order, and their families were still alive. Not to mention all the stuff like ripping up laws over foriegn ownership of companies, resources ( oil ), media, etc. Not one of them said they were better off now.
... the Sunday Herald is a major paper. There are plenty more articles on the topic. So please don't go around claiming that the world is better off without Saddam. Bad as Saddam was, and gone as he is now, the world is not better off, because he's simply been replaced with another carbon copy. The US insisted.
Now back to the "Saddam is gone" arguement. The US & UK have been *best* buddies with Saddam for 2 decades. They have always known what he's been up to, and have given him chemical weapons, and sent US military personnel to examine the results of using them
You also have to ask yourself: who has replaced Saddam. Have a look at the local police - they're hiring ex-baathist hitmen and long-standing party members. That gives you *some* idea of the atmosphere they're trying to create. But for the icing on the cake, Allawi has widely been reported to have been a hitman himself, and has shot dead blinded prisoners as an example to his forces. Link: http://ww1.sundayherald.com/43458 Please note that I haven't linked to some obscure ultra-leftist site
You'll never understand world politics while you have that view. The US & UK act in the interests of big business. If they appear to have good intentions, it's because they pay millions to multiple PR firms. That and the media is an extreme right-wing orgy.
That's right. We've
Yes it's called a whitewash. What do you expect when the people doing the investigating were appointed by the people who are the target of the investigation. I think you'll find public opinion is very much against you on this one, 'inquiry' or not.
Once again you are demonstating the characteristics you are describing, while I don't believe I'm displaying any of them. Perhaps your subconsious is trying to tell you something, and you're projecting it onto me?
"You have a chip. I don't have a chip. You're fucked. I'm great". Sounds pretty stupid, eh? Well it's taken straight from the horse's mouth. So remove that chip from your shoulder and that foor from your mouth and get back on topic.
Justified from whose point of view? The world is not full of people with experiences identical to your own. While YOU don't think it was justified, there are millions of people around the world who are 'fed up' with the attitude and foreign policy of the big industrial powers and the death and destruction they are causing.
You really have no idea what's happening in Iraq, do you? ALL the deaths are civilians. They're not just dying in crossfires. They're dying in military checkpoints styled on the Israeli way ( God help them ). They're dying in their own homes that get shelled because the US 'believe it was a terrorist haven'. They're dying in the street from heat exhaustion because there'e no power, 2 years after the invasion. They're dying for driving too close to US humvees. They're dying because they happened to live in Fallujah, which was carpet-bombed into oblivion. And people like you come out and claim that 'it might just be possible that on the odd occasion that a small number of entirely accidental fatalities may or may not occur'. Bullshit. OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND HAVE DIED. How many crossfires are there, anyway?
I've got news for you. This was exactly the plan, and even if it wasn't, they are ALL civilians. Not only that, NONE of them had any weapons of mass destruction, making them ALL INNOCENT.
That's right. They targetted innocent people. Get over it. Our governments have targetted innocent people before, and they'll do it again. I belive Iran is next. Instead of getting hysterical over less than 100 deaths, try to put it in perspective and think of the 100,000+ deaths in Iraq caused directly by the invasion. I'm not saying London wasn't a tragedy. I'm just saying that it won't do people any good to NOT put the event in it's correct context - against a backdrop of illegal invasions, occupations, torture and abuse scandels, corrupt contract scoring, election fraud, and other trash that Bush, Blair and Howard insist on dragging us all through.
Yes I do, and yes this is a problem - good on your for spotting it.
Sound like double standards to me. But I suspect this analysis is lost on you.
Not at all. I was seeing if you could comprehend my point re: double standards. Clearly you cannot. Do you have a comprehension problem?
That's a very immature argument to be taking up. I'm clearly not saying that there was no terrorism before the invasion of Iraq. The invasion of Iraq is but one example of would clearly drives people towards terrorism. Can you not understand this? Can you only comprehend complete opposites, ie Iraq caused ALL terrorism, vs Iraq has nothing to do with ANY terrorism. You must widen your appreciation of the world before you can make proper sense of why things happen. Your previous paragraph takes your argument no-where, and certainly does nothing for other people's appreciation of your intelligence.
No, no, please, not back to that argument again
Oh dear. Didn't like my last point? Considering you can't handle the previous ones, I'm not surprised. Return when you have matured.
Says who? You? The mainstream media? Maybe Dubya and Bliar? The ones who lied to us over WOMD?
How exactly are the terrorists going to achieve a global Islamic state by blowing things up? It's an absurd statement to make. And it's overlooking the glaring coincidence that those being attacked are those who attacked them first. Surely if the terrorists were after a global islamic state, or simply to achive the most death and destruction, they wouldn't be so picky about who they blew up.
Whose twisted social norms. It's our twisted social norms that bought about the situation. We officially invaded Iraq and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, based on what was known to be a lie. The handful of terrorists who attacked London are NOT BY ANY MEANS behaving according to their social norms. They are reactionary extremists. They are an incredibly small cross-section of ( allegedely ) Islamic society. Where do you get off declaring the entire Islamic world 'twisted' etc simply because of the actions of some reactionaries?
I'm not apologising for anyone. I'm simply pointing out the double-standards the western world seems happy to live with.
Oh bullshit. It's about making a statement. It's about saying to the world, "You continue to abuse our people, and you will continue to get more of this". It's reactionary. Take away what they're reacting to, and they will disappear too. I would, however, say that OUR brand of state-sponsored terrorism is based on xenophobia.
Wrong. They sexed up reports. They then covered this up. Someone was killed over it, right?
Wrong. It was a war crime: an illegal war of aggression, entered on false pretenses ( see above point re: sexing up intelligence )
Not the US. Imperialism. And the UK knows all about imperialism. The fact that the US happens to be the biggest imperial power in no way precludes the UK from grabbing their piece of the spoils of war.
Oh Bravo! I could say the same things about you.
What bullshit! So the UK declared war
No, it's a lot more extreme. Of course I'm using the number of innocent people who died as the measuring stick. What measuring stick are you using? You whinge about killing a busload of people. How many busloads could you fill with Iraqi people who have been killed. The problem with your analysis is that other people's lives aren't worth as much to you as westerner's lives, and that's sad. In fact that's what the whole problem is.
You're also making the fatal mistake of assuming that those who attacked London have the ability to wage a traditional war. They don't. Nor are they interested in waging war. And this is what pisses off Dubya and Bliar so much. The 'terrorists' are simply drawing people's attention to their cause. The problem for those in so-called 'civilised' societies is that our media and our governments refuse to even admit that there is an issue, and instead try to push everything aside by saying "they hate our freedom". What bullshit!
Well I think it's possible that there were people who deserved this. Those who knew the facts vs lies on the WOMD issue, for example. And those who blindly followed Bliar into the war. It's not enough to simply say "well I didn't know we were wrong". The British people claim to live in a democracy. Well there are responsibilities that go with that, ie you are responsible for the actions of your elected representatives. Didn't know? Too bad. It's a democracy. It's your responsibility to know, and to prevent atrocities such as the invasion and occupation of Iraq occuring in your name.
Now back to your statement that you don't think you could find anyone who'd belive that London deserved this to happen. How's this for you? I've seen a number of posts here and in other places, and even seen people on BBC saying, that London 'had it coming', and that it was 'only a matter of time'. To me, that's a diplomatic, freudian-slip kinda way of saying that London deserved it. Having said that, I would not wish it on anyway, and I don't condone the attacks. I simply see karma at work.
Yes I heard that the Israelis knew about the attacks prior to them happening. Apparently they've been behind a lot of the bombings in Iraq that have been blamed on 'insurgents'.
Whether the Israelis, CIA, MI5, or simply some pissed off Arabs ( and God knows they've got a lot to be pissed off about these days ), nothing would surprise me.
Not going to happen. Problem is that this is the last resort for them. Maybe it's time for people to stop blaming the boogey-man and start considering why things happen. And no it doesn't happen because they're fanatics, or they hate our 'freedom' or any fucking bullshit like that. It's happening because of the foreign policy of the major industrial nations. How can you possibly say that British people are 'totally' unrelated? They were a major partner in the illegal invasion of Iraq. They were responsible for knowingly lying to the world over WOMD claims. And now London's been attacked. And idiots like you stick your heads in the sand and claim that you're 'totally unrelated'. It doesn't work like that.
You fucking what? You admit to invading TWO completely innocent countries ( both run by former oh-so-close allies of the US and UK, by the way ), and then in the next breath claim that you were fairly well controlled for the most part! It's one or the other. Certainly not both at the same time. And that little bit about extremism at it's worst
Like it or not, Blair and Bush had a hell of a lot to do with this attack. With the number of innocent people they've killed, how can anyone be surprised that a handful of survivors got together to get some payback?
The US and UK know about payback, right? Remember Iraq, and how they were paid back for what a group of Afghanis did?
When I listened to Blair's response, I couldn't help but think that his description of the attack on London could very well have applied to the attack on Iraq ... apart from the small fact that only a handful of people died in London.
Honestly people, death and destruction is bad, no matter who is involved. One thing I can't handle, however, is hypocritical arseholes like Bliar, Dubya and hoWARd bombing the Christ out of other countries and then proclaiming their shock when someone stikes back.
Remember that Bliar was well aware before the invasion of Iraq that the decision to go to war had been made, and that intelligence was being 'fixed' around the policy. So how innocent is Bliar, or the British people who returned him to power? Certainly not as innocent as the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have been killed since the invasion.
But who does the world cry for?
You'd be inclined to be wrong. Waste from power plants has a half-life in the millions of years. When a radioactive product reaches it's half-life, that means it will have halved in radioactivity. Many, many ice ages will go by before the radiation 'dissipates' to safe levels.
Of course. But those in power aren't interested in doing what's in the best interest of the people, but in the best interest of their supporters ... or investors ... as Baby Bush so delicately puts it.
Of course with a pricetag this high, the project will never go ahead. The US has enough trouble financing it's balance of payments deficit without worrying about cleaning up after itself.
The US's answer is to move to nuclear power - a remarkably stupid idea, an unfortunately one that the Australian government has signalled it will investigate.
If you feel motivated to do something on the energy / environmental front, I'd say that the carbon issue is a moot point compared to the nuclear issue. Rally around that instead. At least with a carbon catastrpohe the earth will be able to recover within hundreds of thousands of years. With a nuclear catastrpohe, that's it. No more chances.
You didn't criticise on usability. You complained you couldn't find a screenshot, and that when you did, you didn't understand what it was.
Get a clue. The coder still types the SQL. I don't provide a query builder like Access does, I simply pass the SQL that the programmer defines to the database server and then populate the fields on their form
You're right. I'm surpised. In fact I'm in a state of disbelief. The fact that your 'criticism' of my project doesn't actually relate to it at all says that you're just an average Joe that went looking for screenshots, decided on what the project was without reading or thinking, and then returned to bitch about your confusion.
How can you claim to be a programmer when your first complain was that you were confused by my extremely simple code examples on the web page?
Coder you are not.
It's a coders' tool. It's not meant for people like you. Go back to solitaire.
Check out my project: Project: Axis (Not Evil)
... check it out. Maybe even help out with development :)
It's written in Perl, and uses Gtk2. I think both of these points make it ideal for RAD database development. It's *far* easier to write your application logic in Perl than in C++. And Gtk2 is also far superior to QT ( flame away ).
I've already got the whole setup working perfectly under Linux, Windows and OS-X. It includes a form module, datasheet module, and report writing module ( exports to PDF ).
So while you're waiting
Time to pimp my own project: Project: Axis Not Evil
...
Summary:
Collection of Perl modules providing the same type of solution as Access / Kexi:
- forms
- datasheets
- reports
It's based on Gtk2-Perl, and you use Glade2 to build your interface. I find Gtk2's layout to be far superior to QT.
Of course my solution isn't as integrated as Access / Kexi, but I'm working on that as well
Often?
We've been using OpenOffice since about build 627 ( beta of OOo-1.0.0 I think ), and I wouldn't even say that it couldn't "often" manage to correctly render Word documents. I would say that it "occassionally" couldn't render Word documents correctly.
A lot has happened since then. The new OOo-2.0-pre builds are very impressive. The only features that I've come across that doesn't render correctly are:
- rotated images
- OLE objects
- VB macros
I believe there are plans to get OLE objects working after 2.0 is released, and there is also an active bug ( feature request ) for the rotated images. I forgive the OOo team for not paying too much attention to VB compatibility - while it would be nice, it's a horrible waste of resources to chase after.
Of course that's not to say that there aren't bugs, but the basic framework is in place for very good compatibility, and for over 90% of businesses, I think switching even now in the beta period would be quite easy.
Linus has some interesting friends, doesn't he? I find it hard to believe that someone behaving like such a brat could produce anything 'innovative'.
I agree that most Perl code looks like shit. But I strongly disagree with Python's way of forcing everybody into the same shape.
You can write nicely geometric code in Perl though ( and I agree with you that good code should look geometric ). Have a look at some of my code on http://entropy.homelinux.org