Sure, Saddam Hussein has a well established history with Al Qaeda. They tried to assassinate him at least twice. That's got to be the finest example of 'merikan ignorance about the Middle East I've read in a long time.
And I'm sure you know a lot more about proliferation of nuclear weapons in Iraq than Muhammad ElBaradei (who said that there was overwhelming evidence that the tubes were intended for conventional weapons) or Madeline Albright.
Who the hell is David Kay? A guy that was in Iraq at least five years ago... He has no authority or legitimacy in stating anything about the present situation.
The "coalition" is a band of third-world nations hoping for a handout. Real world powers among them, Micronesia, Ethiopia... other countries that have 19,000 people in them. To say that it equates to more support than the 1991 is just plain stupid at best, and at worst is an outright lie.
Right, that's why the 51st is fighting again. That's why the Pentagon admitted that the 8000 number was more like 400. The people who surrendered lied about their rank in order to get better treatment.
Umm Qasr was supposed to be an early victory--a town of eight-hundred. The town wasn't "taken early." Or maybe you think if you grab a pistol and sneak into your neighbor's living room while he's in his bedroom that his house is yours.
Muhammad ElBaradei, the chief weapons inspector in charge of investigating Iraq's nuclear program has specifically stated that the "evidence" provided by the bush administration was forged and that there is no evidence of a renewed nuclear program.
I can see that this is going to lead nowhere.
I disagree with you, that's okay. But don't try pushing propaganda like it's fact. If you've got resources that give the evidence, than do it. Don't just recite propaganda and expect me to believe that it's anything but propaganda.
If you've got the links to back up your position, then post them.
Since this thread started, you've consistently said, "show me proof" while making outlandish claims about bombs strapped to buildings and misfiring SAM launcers. Since this thread began, you haven't provided a whit of evidence to support your position. Since this thread began, I've consistently provided links. So unless you want to start posting evidence to support your claims, don't bother asking for it anymore.
First of all, since the bush administration is partaking of an illegal act by invading Iraq, utlimately whatever caused the blast, the responsibility still lies with them.
Second, since the bush administration has consistently lied about the status of what's happening, I'm more apt to believe the pictures, the reports and the eyewitness accounts of people on the ground than anything the bush administration says.
Third, I did provide evidence. Yes, the links aren't conclusive, but I certainly can find some that will state with certainty and have "proof" that the US did bomb both marketplaces. Since I understand you are quite sceptical of the Iraqi media (as you well should be), I picked links from Western media sources. You are right, none of them have provided damning proof, but neither has the bush administration provided proof that it didn't bomb those marketplaces. The bush administration, by invading illegally, has put itself in the position that it needs to provide credible proof against it.
Are all the bombs dropped on Iraq the same size? And how do you know the explosion was smaller than any of the ordinance the bush administration is using?
The point is not who suffers more. The point is not whether Saddam is a bad guy.
Go back and look at my post. Find where I'm defending Saddam. I'm not doubting anything you've written, but it still doesn't make what the bush administration is doing right.
It doesn't excuse the illegitimate invasion and occupation of another country. I can only hope that the haughty weak-minded fool and his puppet-masters will be held accountable for their crimes, just as I hope that Saddam Hussein will be held accountable for his crimes.
The point is that invading Iraq is an illegitimate action taken against the people of Iraq and our friends and family members who are dying over there.
If the bush administration was actually working through the UN then I would be right there cheering this on. I am in no way a Saddam supporter, but I don't think that the US has any right to do this without the support of the United Nations and a real, legitimate coallition.
Unless it is attacked first, the UN is the only organization which has legitimacy in addressing any problems that the US may have with another country. The bush administration can't simply decide when and where it's going to do things.
The US was neither being attacked, nor was under the threat of attack, but the UN charter specifically states that no country can invade another without either being attacked first.
This is the point. It is an unjust war.
The scary thing is, if men like bush had control during the cold war, there wouldn't be a US. If any of us were still around, we'd be eating radioactive grubs in the cold of a nuclear winter.
There's a history of diplomacy and regard for other nations that has brought the US to where it is now. The bush administration began by reversing everything Clinton did while in power, now they've decided to turn back the clock sixty years, and they won't stop until the world is as unstable as it was in 1943.
As for China, I think its our right to lodge a formal complaint, and do what we can right now through sanctions (but of course we won't because it would be devastating to the pocketbooks of those in control, not to mention the economy at large). But there's two forms of diplomacy, the carrot and the stick. The US has been successfully using carrot diplomacy for sixty years. It has worked quite well (and by carrot diplomacy, I don't mean the bribes that the bush administration is paying its illegitimate "coalition").
Carrot diplomacy is slow--it takes longer than an election cycle to work, so it really wouldn't be in the interest of the bush administration to use it.
Finally, I think it's just plain wrong to try pushing our own ideals on other peoples. It's a haughty, self-important smugness that caused the attacks of September 11. I think Saddam is as illegitimate as the bush administration.
The point I'm trying to make is that these "business deals" simply serve to legitimize the horror.
The fact that these business deals are taking place now is a testament to what "liberation" really is.
It's puff-piece propaganda that's not just in bad taste, it's supposed to take our eyes from the senseless deaths that are happening right now, and will continue happening for a long time to come.
God, what a perfect representation of what is important to the bush administration. I thought Slashdot may actually avoid this type of propaganda called "reporting."
Women and children are being killed. Our friends, neighbors, brothers and sisters are killing them/being killed, and what is the US media reporting? What do we hear about?
Who makes the bucks from war.
Never mind that has already taken a heavy toll on any US legitimacy (the founding principles of the nation itself are threatened to be as illegitimate as its current "president"). Never mind that it's at a cost of billions in tax dollars (that our children, and their children will be paying for). Never mind that it will cost thousands of lives before it is finished (and possibly hundreds of thousands of lives as the ranks of Al Qaeda grow). Never mind that it's barely even begun!
Have you no decency? If you want to report on Iraq, report on something legitimate. Report on what's happening rather than the propaganda puff-pieces.
Report on the 28 year old plumber who drowned after being ordered to cross a canal in full battle dress. Or the 20 year old lifeguard who drowned trying to save him.
Report on the seven year old girl lying in a pool of her own blood, her intestines laying beside her.
Report on the fact that the people of Iraq don't want to be "liberated." And that our friends and families will be the ones to pay the highest price of all because of the dreadful mismanagement and miscalculation of the bush administration.
Fuck rebuilding. Fuck Saddam. There's an unjust war being wrought upon the innocent civilians of Iraq, as well as the innocent soldiers of the United States. This is not their war, this is the war of a few greedy people who don't even legitimately hold the positions they currently abuse.
The bush administration has shown time and again that it has no care for legitimacy, or truth. From the moment the first Florida recount started, they have shown that they care only for protecting their own interests. They have never had the interests of the US in mind. They have never cared about those men and women who are suffering and dying right now.
With a smug smile they say, "We will liberate you from your God, your money, and your dignity."
The assumed point your whole post relies upon is that the UN wasn't going to do anything about Iraq.
We know that the UN was in the process of doing something about Iraq. The Security Council passed unanimously a resolution that brought this issue to the forefront. The UN was working on the issue--and the issue required more time.
I don't doubt for one moment that the only reason that weapons inspections were so successful in the last two months was because there was the constant, perceivable threat of action if Hussein didn't fall into line.
That doesn't change the issue though; the UN wasn't acting like the good rubber-stamp authority that the bush administration wanted, so he went out and created his own. Invading a country without warrant and without international backing is the same thing Hussein did twelve years ago. Nothing is different.
You haven't given anything akin to a reason as to why the vast majority of the world community would want Saddam Hussein to have chemical or biological weapons. I mean, obviously since they're not siding up with the "heroic" invaders, they must want Saddam to have these weapons. Why after sending their own troops to potentially die twelve years ago, would all these nations suddenly side up with Saddam? They proved back then that they are willing, when it is necessary, to do everything needed to preserve the stability of the world community.
Fit that into your "French bad, 'merika good" worldview.
Nothing you've said addresses the issues raised in my post.
It's not about whether we should invade or not, but how it is done. The only thing flatly rejected by the French (you remember, the people who made it possible for this little country cede from the British Empire a few years back) was a timeline.
But maybe it's too hard to see that not all issues are black and white when you're trying to reduce the entire world to "good guys" and "bad guys."
Go ahead, read my post. Find where I'm defending Saddam.
If you want someone to have a hate-radio debate with you about how great the bush administration is, well you've come to the wrong place.
You don't seem to be reading, so I'll make it clear:
no one has been defending Saddam or the actions the government of Iraq has taken against its citizens. No one.
The point is that a diplomatic solution was underway. Until diplomacy fails, there is absolutely no reason to use force.
The point is that force should be the last resort, not the first.
The point is that you can't expect your neighbors to live by any other standards than the ones you hold for yourself.
The point is that there are obligations that the United States has to other countries that the bush administration has thumbed its nose at.
The point is, the UN is the body which has charge in these affaris, not the bush administration. The bush administration has made itself a threat to every other nation on earth.
Finally, as to your assumption that I'm some kind of French/German/Russian/EU citizen: don't kid yourself. I was born in the US, am a Veteran and am still in the US. I think you might give a second thought to that assumption; to me your anti-otherism is simply rebranded racism/hate.
I'm not trying to argue your point (I think most people are glad--for better or worse--that some certainty can finally be be found in all of this.), but right now polls like this are little more than kneejerk reaction.
The USA Today poll has this disclaimer below the poll itself:
Polls conducted entirely in one day, such as this one, are subject to additional error or bias not found in polls conducted over several days.
It's not about the country. It's about being a member of the world community. Iraq is a soverign nation. now that the bush administration has bumbled its way across the ideal of sovereignty, no nation can feel safe.
The real irony is that Saddam's bumbling invasion of Kuwait--doing the same exact thing bush is now doing--was the beginning of all this. Nations came together against Iraq because Iraq had jeapordized the sovereignty of all nations by simply deciding to invade a weaker neighbor.
All those UN resolutions that the bush administration points to as justification for their present action were retribution for Iraq's invasion of another sovereign nation.
Now that's irony.
While bush destroys decades of partnerships with other nations like France and Germany, trading those allies for countries like Ethiopia, while bush scuttles the last remaining vestige of authority that the United Nations had, the bush administration tells us that they are doing what is best for 'merika and all us 'merikans.
Now that's irony.
The "coallition of convenience" is an irony in itself because somehow the bush administration expects us to believe that a bunch of third-world nations hoping for a handout consitutes support of the international community.
The real President Bush had the support of the world to enforce the sovereignty of nations. Our bush has had to buy a band of nations to make a rubber-stamp "coallition."
No one was trying to save Saddam or the government of Iraq. They were asking for diplomacy to be given a chance.
They were asking for the bush administration to utilize the same restraint that we expect all other nations to use.
That's not the point though. The point is that the initial act--no matter who actually did it--was used as an excuse to prosecute people who had nothing to do with it one way or another.
Why is it that every time I give reasons, explanations and evidence for my position, you simply proceed to call me names, or retort with something akin to "no it's not." No reasons, no explanations--just like a six year old.
You talk around the subject by saying things like, "I've yet to buy a resource kit." Whoopee, Sheldon. So in your line of work, you don't need a resource kit. Well, I have needed to buy them simply because the sad-sack OS itself doesn't do essential things that the Resource Kits provide. Because it doesn't do the same things that I get in every other OS I listed before.
I've waited since the beginning of this thread for you to actually start making an argument rather than the childish names you keep calling people. I guess I had too much faith in you.
I respect your opinion and your experience, sir, but I will not stand for your rudeness.
To put it plain and simple: you are an angry old man. Take out your anger somewhere else; no one here has done anything to merit your anger and your bald faced rudeness.
You know, even though you have been consistently attacked me we were doing okay until this:
This is one of the most assinine statements I've yet to see. The add-ons don't provide any major functionality, and are generally nothing more than fluff.
I guess that's why I have to buy a Windows Resource Kit for every version of Windows that Microsoft creates. I guess that's why I have to buy Microsoft's software development tools too. In order to get near the same functionality that I get included with my Linux/BSD/Mac OS X boxes, I have to spend more and more money.
But I guess if you consider the Developer Studio a piece of "Fluff," well then you're entitled to your opinion.
And come on, is this supposed to refute me:
No, that is not Microsoft's strategy.
Is that actually supposed to mean something other than a statement of personal opinion. Hint: normally one would give reasons for their beliefs at this point, rather than attacking the person you are arguing against.
Sheldon, I have attempted to make this a discussion of ideas. I have given you the benefit of the doubt, when time and time again, you have insisted on attacking me.
I'm not going to waste any more of my time with this. If, at any point in the future, you decide that you actually want to talk about your viewpoint, and show me why mine is wrong, rather than your half-baked perception of who I am, then you know where to find me.
Well since you obviously can correct my mistakes, why don't you.
The only thing you've done in this thread, has been accuse others of ignorance. You have appealed to authority (i.e. I've been using computers since 1982...), but you still haven't given a whit of evidence to support your claims; nor have you responded to the arguments that others have made.
I really don't mean to make this personal--that's just a waste of your and my time. But the fact is, your responses, since they are directed at me, rather than the subject matter, force me to draw attention to the fact that you're not discussing the subject. I asked if you were trolling simply because you were making ad hominem attacks against those who don't support your position.
If you feel I'm wrong, well then correct me, but don't assume that I have some nefarious motives to "mislead" people.
Although the actual numbers may be incorrect, the poster is correct in their observation.
Generally prices go downward whenever there is competition in any marketplace. Since Microsoft's MO has always been innovation through immitation, of course Microsoft has been the impetus for prices to go down in a number of cases. Microsoft imitates the competition just well enough, and lowers the price just enough to take business away from competitors.
But this is, in general misleading. Because Microsoft's strategy has always been to match the prices of competition, then charge for add-ons, plus packs, professional versions, etc. Microsoft has always made it easy to get onto the treadmill; they know they'll be getting money back via "upgrades" or other add-ons that should have been a part of the system to begin with.
Why has the price of a top of the line PC gone from $4000 in 1982 to less than a quarter of that today? Why has the PC dramatically improved its performance since 1982? Because there was competition.
Why, in general, is Microsoft software the same cost that it was when it was originally introduced? Why, in general, has Microsoft software always been so low in quality? Because Microsoft has done everything in its power to stifle competition.
The only competition that's been able to withstand Microsoft's competition stifling strategy so far has been Open Source. Now that Open Source products are being seen as a viable alternative to Microsoft products, we're finally seeing Microsoft stop the customer gouging that they've become so famous for.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, Saddam Hussein has a well established history with Al Qaeda. They tried to assassinate him at least twice. That's got to be the finest example of 'merikan ignorance about the Middle East I've read in a long time.
And I'm sure you know a lot more about proliferation of nuclear weapons in Iraq than Muhammad ElBaradei (who said that there was overwhelming evidence that the tubes were intended for conventional weapons) or Madeline Albright.
Who the hell is David Kay? A guy that was in Iraq at least five years ago... He has no authority or legitimacy in stating anything about the present situation.
The "coalition" is a band of third-world nations hoping for a handout. Real world powers among them, Micronesia, Ethiopia... other countries that have 19,000 people in them. To say that it equates to more support than the 1991 is just plain stupid at best, and at worst is an outright lie.
Right, that's why the 51st is fighting again. That's why the Pentagon admitted that the 8000 number was more like 400. The people who surrendered lied about their rank in order to get better treatment.
Umm Qasr was supposed to be an early victory--a town of eight-hundred. The town wasn't "taken early." Or maybe you think if you grab a pistol and sneak into your neighbor's living room while he's in his bedroom that his house is yours.
Muhammad ElBaradei, the chief weapons inspector in charge of investigating Iraq's nuclear program has specifically stated that the "evidence" provided by the bush administration was forged and that there is no evidence of a renewed nuclear program.
I can see that this is going to lead nowhere.
I disagree with you, that's okay. But don't try pushing propaganda like it's fact. If you've got resources that give the evidence, than do it. Don't just recite propaganda and expect me to believe that it's anything but propaganda.
If you've got the links to back up your position, then post them.
You have some real warped sense of 'self defense.' Or maybe you can provide some evidence of when and where the US was attacked.
The UN has authority in this situation, not the bush administration.
The bush administration has lied about aluminum tubes supposedly acquired for enriching uranium, "the war will take weeks, not months", Iraq was actively trying to acquire uranium, the "coallition of convenience" is made up of nations who support the bush administration's invasion, 35 countries are providing "critical support" in the coallition of convenience, the "coallition of convenience" is larger than the 1991 gulf war, 8000 soldiers of the 51st division surrendered, Umm Qasr was taken on Sunday, er... no, Monday... no, make that Tuesday.9 times Umm Qasr was "taken."
I could go on and on and on, but I know I'm probably just wasting my time.
Since this thread started, you've consistently said, "show me proof" while making outlandish claims about bombs strapped to buildings and misfiring SAM launcers. Since this thread began, you haven't provided a whit of evidence to support your position. Since this thread began, I've consistently provided links. So unless you want to start posting evidence to support your claims, don't bother asking for it anymore.
First of all, since the bush administration is partaking of an illegal act by invading Iraq, utlimately whatever caused the blast, the responsibility still lies with them.
Second, since the bush administration has consistently lied about the status of what's happening, I'm more apt to believe the pictures, the reports and the eyewitness accounts of people on the ground than anything the bush administration says.
Third, I did provide evidence. Yes, the links aren't conclusive, but I certainly can find some that will state with certainty and have "proof" that the US did bomb both marketplaces. Since I understand you are quite sceptical of the Iraqi media (as you well should be), I picked links from Western media sources. You are right, none of them have provided damning proof, but neither has the bush administration provided proof that it didn't bomb those marketplaces. The bush administration, by invading illegally, has put itself in the position that it needs to provide credible proof against it.
Are all the bombs dropped on Iraq the same size? And how do you know the explosion was smaller than any of the ordinance the bush administration is using?
Was that a Donny Rumsfeld quote, or a tricky Dick Cheney line?
Oh, and since you didn't manage to watch the news, let me catch you up on current events:
The bush administration bombed a crowded marketplace.
You seem to have missed the point.
The point is not who suffers more. The point is not whether Saddam is a bad guy.
Go back and look at my post. Find where I'm defending Saddam. I'm not doubting anything you've written, but it still doesn't make what the bush administration is doing right.
It doesn't excuse the illegitimate invasion and occupation of another country. I can only hope that the haughty weak-minded fool and his puppet-masters will be held accountable for their crimes, just as I hope that Saddam Hussein will be held accountable for his crimes.
The point is that invading Iraq is an illegitimate action taken against the people of Iraq and our friends and family members who are dying over there.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment.
Legitimacy makes all the difference.
If the bush administration was actually working through the UN then I would be right there cheering this on. I am in no way a Saddam supporter, but I don't think that the US has any right to do this without the support of the United Nations and a real, legitimate coallition.
Unless it is attacked first, the UN is the only organization which has legitimacy in addressing any problems that the US may have with another country. The bush administration can't simply decide when and where it's going to do things.
The US was neither being attacked, nor was under the threat of attack, but the UN charter specifically states that no country can invade another without either being attacked first.
This is the point. It is an unjust war.
The scary thing is, if men like bush had control during the cold war, there wouldn't be a US. If any of us were still around, we'd be eating radioactive grubs in the cold of a nuclear winter.
There's a history of diplomacy and regard for other nations that has brought the US to where it is now. The bush administration began by reversing everything Clinton did while in power, now they've decided to turn back the clock sixty years, and they won't stop until the world is as unstable as it was in 1943.
As for China, I think its our right to lodge a formal complaint, and do what we can right now through sanctions (but of course we won't because it would be devastating to the pocketbooks of those in control, not to mention the economy at large). But there's two forms of diplomacy, the carrot and the stick. The US has been successfully using carrot diplomacy for sixty years. It has worked quite well (and by carrot diplomacy, I don't mean the bribes that the bush administration is paying its illegitimate "coalition").
Carrot diplomacy is slow--it takes longer than an election cycle to work, so it really wouldn't be in the interest of the bush administration to use it.
Finally, I think it's just plain wrong to try pushing our own ideals on other peoples. It's a haughty, self-important smugness that caused the attacks of September 11. I think Saddam is as illegitimate as the bush administration.
Sorry, I have to go to work now.
Thanks again for your thoughtful comment.
The point I'm trying to make is that these "business deals" simply serve to legitimize the horror.
The fact that these business deals are taking place now is a testament to what "liberation" really is.
It's puff-piece propaganda that's not just in bad taste, it's supposed to take our eyes from the senseless deaths that are happening right now, and will continue happening for a long time to come.
I don't hold any party above another.
I says what I see.
So many of you have forgotten that it's not about political parties. It's about a people a world.
This administration most of all.
God, what a perfect representation of what is important to the bush administration. I thought Slashdot may actually avoid this type of propaganda called "reporting."
Women and children are being killed. Our friends, neighbors, brothers and sisters are killing them/being killed, and what is the US media reporting? What do we hear about?
Who makes the bucks from war.
Never mind that has already taken a heavy toll on any US legitimacy (the founding principles of the nation itself are threatened to be as illegitimate as its current "president"). Never mind that it's at a cost of billions in tax dollars (that our children, and their children will be paying for). Never mind that it will cost thousands of lives before it is finished (and possibly hundreds of thousands of lives as the ranks of Al Qaeda grow). Never mind that it's barely even begun!
Have you no decency? If you want to report on Iraq, report on something legitimate. Report on what's happening rather than the propaganda puff-pieces.
Report on the 28 year old plumber who drowned after being ordered to cross a canal in full battle dress. Or the 20 year old lifeguard who drowned trying to save him.
Report on the seven year old girl lying in a pool of her own blood, her intestines laying beside her.
Report on the fact that the people of Iraq don't want to be "liberated." And that our friends and families will be the ones to pay the highest price of all because of the dreadful mismanagement and miscalculation of the bush administration.
Fuck rebuilding. Fuck Saddam. There's an unjust war being wrought upon the innocent civilians of Iraq, as well as the innocent soldiers of the United States. This is not their war, this is the war of a few greedy people who don't even legitimately hold the positions they currently abuse.
The bush administration has shown time and again that it has no care for legitimacy, or truth. From the moment the first Florida recount started, they have shown that they care only for protecting their own interests. They have never had the interests of the US in mind. They have never cared about those men and women who are suffering and dying right now.
With a smug smile they say, "We will liberate you from your God, your money, and your dignity."
Microsoft Exchange Directory service which failed to start because of the following error:
The operation completed successfully.
The assumed point your whole post relies upon is that the UN wasn't going to do anything about Iraq.
We know that the UN was in the process of doing something about Iraq. The Security Council passed unanimously a resolution that brought this issue to the forefront. The UN was working on the issue--and the issue required more time.
I don't doubt for one moment that the only reason that weapons inspections were so successful in the last two months was because there was the constant, perceivable threat of action if Hussein didn't fall into line.
That doesn't change the issue though; the UN wasn't acting like the good rubber-stamp authority that the bush administration wanted, so he went out and created his own. Invading a country without warrant and without international backing is the same thing Hussein did twelve years ago. Nothing is different.
You haven't given anything akin to a reason as to why the vast majority of the world community would want Saddam Hussein to have chemical or biological weapons. I mean, obviously since they're not siding up with the "heroic" invaders, they must want Saddam to have these weapons. Why after sending their own troops to potentially die twelve years ago, would all these nations suddenly side up with Saddam? They proved back then that they are willing, when it is necessary, to do everything needed to preserve the stability of the world community.
Fit that into your "French bad, 'merika good" worldview.
You seemed to have missed the point.
Nothing you've said addresses the issues raised in my post.
It's not about whether we should invade or not, but how it is done. The only thing flatly rejected by the French (you remember, the people who made it possible for this little country cede from the British Empire a few years back) was a timeline.
But maybe it's too hard to see that not all issues are black and white when you're trying to reduce the entire world to "good guys" and "bad guys."
Go ahead, read my post. Find where I'm defending Saddam.
If you want someone to have a hate-radio debate with you about how great the bush administration is, well you've come to the wrong place.
The point is that a diplomatic solution was underway. Until diplomacy fails, there is absolutely no reason to use force.
The point is that force should be the last resort, not the first.
The point is that you can't expect your neighbors to live by any other standards than the ones you hold for yourself.
The point is that there are obligations that the United States has to other countries that the bush administration has thumbed its nose at.
The point is, the UN is the body which has charge in these affaris, not the bush administration. The bush administration has made itself a threat to every other nation on earth.
Finally, as to your assumption that I'm some kind of French/German/Russian/EU citizen: don't kid yourself. I was born in the US, am a Veteran and am still in the US. I think you might give a second thought to that assumption; to me your anti-otherism is simply rebranded racism/hate.
The USA Today poll has this disclaimer below the poll itself:
It's not about the country. It's about being a member of the world community. Iraq is a soverign nation. now that the bush administration has bumbled its way across the ideal of sovereignty, no nation can feel safe.
The real irony is that Saddam's bumbling invasion of Kuwait--doing the same exact thing bush is now doing--was the beginning of all this. Nations came together against Iraq because Iraq had jeapordized the sovereignty of all nations by simply deciding to invade a weaker neighbor.
All those UN resolutions that the bush administration points to as justification for their present action were retribution for Iraq's invasion of another sovereign nation.
Now that's irony.
While bush destroys decades of partnerships with other nations like France and Germany, trading those allies for countries like Ethiopia, while bush scuttles the last remaining vestige of authority that the United Nations had, the bush administration tells us that they are doing what is best for 'merika and all us 'merikans.
Now that's irony.
The "coallition of convenience" is an irony in itself because somehow the bush administration expects us to believe that a bunch of third-world nations hoping for a handout consitutes support of the international community.
The real President Bush had the support of the world to enforce the sovereignty of nations. Our bush has had to buy a band of nations to make a rubber-stamp "coallition."
No one was trying to save Saddam or the government of Iraq. They were asking for diplomacy to be given a chance.
They were asking for the bush administration to utilize the same restraint that we expect all other nations to use.
sorry, that should say persecute rather than prosecute.
Is it Friday yet?
That's not the point though. The point is that the initial act--no matter who actually did it--was used as an excuse to prosecute people who had nothing to do with it one way or another.
Sorry Sheldon, but that's just a meagre portion of what's included with the resource kit.
It's quite obvious that you haven't seen or used a resource kit. So, since you don't know what you're talking about, let me help you out.
Not only does it include information, but also applications that should have been included with the OS to begin with.
That works until it's your bank telling you you've got the wrong browser.
When this happened, I had long since trashed IE, so I was happy to out that Safari takes care of idiotic-browser-checks automatically.
Sure Sheldon.
Why is it that every time I give reasons, explanations and evidence for my position, you simply proceed to call me names, or retort with something akin to "no it's not." No reasons, no explanations--just like a six year old.
You talk around the subject by saying things like, "I've yet to buy a resource kit." Whoopee, Sheldon. So in your line of work, you don't need a resource kit. Well, I have needed to buy them simply because the sad-sack OS itself doesn't do essential things that the Resource Kits provide. Because it doesn't do the same things that I get in every other OS I listed before.
I've waited since the beginning of this thread for you to actually start making an argument rather than the childish names you keep calling people. I guess I had too much faith in you.
I respect your opinion and your experience, sir, but I will not stand for your rudeness.
To put it plain and simple: you are an angry old man. Take out your anger somewhere else; no one here has done anything to merit your anger and your bald faced rudeness.
But I guess if you consider the Developer Studio a piece of "Fluff," well then you're entitled to your opinion.
And come on, is this supposed to refute me:
Is that actually supposed to mean something other than a statement of personal opinion. Hint: normally one would give reasons for their beliefs at this point, rather than attacking the person you are arguing against.Sheldon, I have attempted to make this a discussion of ideas. I have given you the benefit of the doubt, when time and time again, you have insisted on attacking me.
I'm not going to waste any more of my time with this. If, at any point in the future, you decide that you actually want to talk about your viewpoint, and show me why mine is wrong, rather than your half-baked perception of who I am, then you know where to find me.
Good luck.
Well since you obviously can correct my mistakes, why don't you.
The only thing you've done in this thread, has been accuse others of ignorance. You have appealed to authority (i.e. I've been using computers since 1982...), but you still haven't given a whit of evidence to support your claims; nor have you responded to the arguments that others have made.
I really don't mean to make this personal--that's just a waste of your and my time. But the fact is, your responses, since they are directed at me, rather than the subject matter, force me to draw attention to the fact that you're not discussing the subject. I asked if you were trolling simply because you were making ad hominem attacks against those who don't support your position.
If you feel I'm wrong, well then correct me, but don't assume that I have some nefarious motives to "mislead" people.
Are you trolling, or do you have a point?
Although the actual numbers may be incorrect, the poster is correct in their observation.
Generally prices go downward whenever there is competition in any marketplace. Since Microsoft's MO has always been innovation through immitation, of course Microsoft has been the impetus for prices to go down in a number of cases. Microsoft imitates the competition just well enough, and lowers the price just enough to take business away from competitors.
But this is, in general misleading. Because Microsoft's strategy has always been to match the prices of competition, then charge for add-ons, plus packs, professional versions, etc. Microsoft has always made it easy to get onto the treadmill; they know they'll be getting money back via "upgrades" or other add-ons that should have been a part of the system to begin with.
Why has the price of a top of the line PC gone from $4000 in 1982 to less than a quarter of that today? Why has the PC dramatically improved its performance since 1982? Because there was competition.
Why, in general, is Microsoft software the same cost that it was when it was originally introduced? Why, in general, has Microsoft software always been so low in quality? Because Microsoft has done everything in its power to stifle competition.
The only competition that's been able to withstand Microsoft's competition stifling strategy so far has been Open Source. Now that Open Source products are being seen as a viable alternative to Microsoft products, we're finally seeing Microsoft stop the customer gouging that they've become so famous for.