War isn't the solution? Sorry, as horrible as war is (and it is horrible, we have shed far too much blood in places like Europe) sometimes it is the solution. Through war we gained our independence, secured our independence, ended slavery in the south, ended German and Japanese imperialism, liberated South Korea, and strangled the Soviet Union. Have we used force in places where it was not neccesary? We sure have, Will I excuse it? Nope. Is that the point of my getting on the soap-box? Nope. You have an ill-informed sterotype that Americans think war is okay, we don't think war is okay, we understand that war is sometimes neccesary. Here is a quick question for you, how much peace did Chamberlin buy when he sold out the Sudetenland? How many people did he condemn to death in cities and camps and on the battlefield by failing to understand that tyrants can not be reasoned with? Our country wants war? You have failed to inform yourself on the anti-war demonstrations. Our country needs war? We need it for what exactly? Our economy is founded on the principles of war? Ah, that must be the military-industial complex boogeyman knocking on your door. While I respect the opinions of Europeans, I find them just a bit hypocritical, for centuries past the Europeans waged uncountable wars. Have you ever read the history of Europe? It is a history of war, wars of conquest, wars of plunder, wars of religon. Have the EU mandated school books just whitewashed all of the blood spilled by europeans? Now that they are unable or unwilling to engage in war it suddenly becomes a 'bad thing'. Your comment about no police state is not exactly true, our occupation of Germany and Japan was, for a period of time, technically a police state. It seems to have helped foster quite a bit of peace. Let me guess, your response will be somethng along the lines of 'stupid, fat, lazy, gun toting, fox watching, SUV driving, baby eating, war mongering, racist, bigot, sexually repressed, religious fanatic, ignorant of anything outside your borders - have I forgotten any of the sterotypes you 'level-headed' Europeans like to use - American, if you don't think like us Europeans, you must be wrong.'
It is nice to have a decent conversation for a change. Not only does it now appear that Saddam posed zero threat, it seems that he had been trying to open a low-level dialog with the US in the 90's and that his advisors told him to make a condolence speech after 9/11 and he decided not too. All that money spent and all those people killed for nothing. We could have gotten him on to rejoin the community of nations. Heck, we got Libya to come in from the cold. He was still terrified of Iran. It would not have been that difficult to convince him that his best chance for long-term survival was with the west, not against it. Now there are those who would call that appeasement. I disagree, this is not Chamberlin giving the Sudetenland to Hitler. This is someone looking to put the past behind them. Hopefully the next U.S. administration learns a lesson from all this and makes an effort to a)mend fences and b)try to think long term. It is easy to give in to fantasies of isolationism, but they are just that fantasies. It would be nice to be able to spend Christams in Paris at some point in time in the future without getting constantly harrased (well, for something other then not speaking French, that I expect). Anyways, nice chatting with you.
Interesting points. However, I never said it (the Iraq war) was a good thing and the US did not make anything from the oil-for-food program, US companies were barred from buying Iraqi oil.
Sure everyone condemmed the kiddnapping... but they still got kidnapped and they're still not back. It does no good to have Muslim leaders back you if the Muslim people do not.
I also understand the concept of realpolitik in both the domestic and foreign policy sense. However, sometimes the right thing to do is not the popular thing to do.
All that being said, in no way should anything that I have said be taken to mean I support this war. I personally feel that Iraq should not have been discussed until Afghanistan was finished. I am a firm believer in consolidating gains before gambling more. Not that I had an issue with removing Saddam, the US bears a fair share of the repsonsibility for keeping him in power and therfore bears a fair share of the responsibility for removing him. With the end of the coldwar, those we supported for idealogical reasons should be removed for ethical reasons.
Actually I get quite a bit from Reuters, less so from BBC because I find their website is not "quick news reading" friendly. No, I don't watch Fox and generally only look at their web news to see their counter-spin.
Altrough there is no way that France will deploy troops for this war, I kindly remind you that in Gulf War 1, the French were present, and were the one who went the farest (sp?) in the desert. They penetrated further in Irak than any other nation, USA included.
First, the unit(s) from France we actually French Foreign Legion, not French nationals. Second, they were artillery units which pretty much precludes them from being in front of anything.
Don't confuse the unwillingness to enter a war that 99% of the population opposes with its inability to do so.
Fighting is easy, grinding out a victory logistically is painfully difficult. France has had to turn to the UN for help in the Ivory Coast. I find it unlikely that even if it wanted to it could maintain the levels of troops required for sustained combat operations.
The French army, while certainly a lot less as mighty as the American one is still not a joke, by far. They have good equipment, good training, and can be efficient in conflict (unless against the Germans, happily, we are now friendlier with the Germans than ever).
Combat wins battles, logistics win wars. It also takes a willingness to incur casualties, a willingness to sacrifice. It is my belief that in their heart-of-hearts, the French just are not willing. Could this be a reaction to the death of so many Frenchmen during WWI? Could be.
That precision done, you won't in fact see French troops in Iraq. The idea here is that we did everything to prevent the war, and that means we don't have a duty to go there and fix what the Bush adminstration has fucked up. And I totally agree with that.
France was making too much money off of oil-for-food to kill that cash cow. France also feared (rightly so) that any new government in Iraq would not be held responsible for the previous governments debt. France also decided that this was the perfect time to show itself as a counter-weight against American power and to portray itself as a friend to the muslim world (hey maybe they'll forget the 1,000,000 Algerians killed by France). Too bad it didn't help. By telling some of the smaller, newer EU countries to "shut-up" France simply showed its arrogance, that it wanted this to be the century of France, that it felt that it was time for the Americans to move off center stage and let France take over. For all their hard work in the Muslim world, it made no difference when those two journalists were kidnapped.
that would be a.44... the most powerful handgun in the world...
The funny thing is iirc the N. Koreans want Bush to be re-elected because they want to deal with a powerful leader that will get any deals through congress.
What I want is the president to be from the party that is in the minority in congress so that we'll stop spending money.
Do you realize that the first thing the people of Iraq are going to do once they get "democracy" is to "vote" in a shite theocracy? This just sucks all the way around. Nothing but sorrow and loss. What do we do then re-invade? Support a Sunni revolt? Help the Kurds establish an independent Kurdistan to the north? What do we do when Turkey rolls across the border to crush Kurdish independence? Not to mention stability and availablity of oil, not just to the US but to places like China. You talk of thinking long-term, think of the long-term implications of the US and China going to war over the Spratly Islands. Nothing happens in a geo-political vacuum.
Given the current two-party lock on national politics, would it be better to spend money (and win some) in municipal, county, and state elections? While not as glamorous as their national counterparts, politicians at the lower level can have a more immediate effect on peoples lives. In off year elections many of these positions go unchallanged or even unfilled, a small investment in organization could lead to significant political inroads.
nah, rule #1 is don't underestimate the power of ridicule as a political weapon. If the target fights back they look churlish, if they "take it" they open themselves to scorn. Either way they lose. On top of that it plays well to modern sound-bite, media-driven politics.
Look for example at world protests, the vast majority of protestors against political entities are who?
Students, that's who,
because going to a protest is so much cooler then going to class and who cares about class as long as mommy and daddy/the state still pick up the tab. Or one could argue they protest becasue they are clueless, their mushy little minds are foulded by neo-marxist, chomsky-ite (un)thinking. They've taken poli-sci 101 or some such other crap and now they think they understand how the world works; they think that going to cancun on spring break means that they can speak for the "oppressed masses" of the world. What crap.
Dave Barry is a humorist. He uses a mixture of hyperbole, sarcasm, and just plain silliness to get a fundemental point across (ie electronic voting will cause more issues then it solves). It could be viewed as social satire, but I'm not sure if 'satire' is the correct label.
The only thing worse then dependence on foreign oil is dependence on foreign food. The loss of the former will wipe out an economy, the loss of the latter will wipe out a population.
no, you can buy a backup of your computer (and the software that is on it - unless you initally bought a multi-seat license). However, if you attempt to 'make' a backup of your computer you will, in the process of manufacturing the parts, violate any number of IP statutes.
The same goes for the other products mentioned, unless all of the ip involved with the creation process is in the public domain, you can not 'make' a backup. You could attempt to license any non public domain IP, but then you are still buying not 'making' your backup.
Slashdot Mirror
Consumer ...err... citizen you are in violation of the DMCA. Please report for re-education.
War isn't the solution? Sorry, as horrible as war is (and it is horrible, we have shed far too much blood in places like Europe) sometimes it is the solution. Through war we gained our independence, secured our independence, ended slavery in the south, ended German and Japanese imperialism, liberated South Korea, and strangled the Soviet Union. Have we used force in places where it was not neccesary? We sure have, Will I excuse it? Nope. Is that the point of my getting on the soap-box? Nope.
You have an ill-informed sterotype that Americans think war is okay, we don't think war is okay, we understand that war is sometimes neccesary. Here is a quick question for you, how much peace did Chamberlin buy when he sold out the Sudetenland? How many people did he condemn to death in cities and camps and on the battlefield by failing to understand that tyrants can not be reasoned with? Our country wants war? You have failed to inform yourself on the anti-war demonstrations. Our country needs war? We need it for what exactly? Our economy is founded on the principles of war? Ah, that must be the military-industial complex boogeyman knocking on your door.
While I respect the opinions of Europeans, I find them just a bit hypocritical, for centuries past the Europeans waged uncountable wars. Have you ever read the history of Europe? It is a history of war, wars of conquest, wars of plunder, wars of religon. Have the EU mandated school books just whitewashed all of the blood spilled by europeans? Now that they are unable or unwilling to engage in war it suddenly becomes a 'bad thing'.
Your comment about no police state is not exactly true, our occupation of Germany and Japan was, for a period of time, technically a police state. It seems to have helped foster quite a bit of peace.
Let me guess, your response will be somethng along the lines of 'stupid, fat, lazy, gun toting, fox watching, SUV driving, baby eating, war mongering, racist, bigot, sexually repressed, religious fanatic, ignorant of anything outside your borders - have I forgotten any of the sterotypes you 'level-headed' Europeans like to use - American, if you don't think like us Europeans, you must be wrong.'
You forgot Rhodesia.
Mary, mary quite contrary how does your internet grow? ... something else, you get the picture.
With porn and warez and
you should of called them tree-hugging, ECOcommunists.
It is nice to have a decent conversation for a change. Not only does it now appear that Saddam posed zero threat, it seems that he had been trying to open a low-level dialog with the US in the 90's and that his advisors told him to make a condolence speech after 9/11 and he decided not too. All that money spent and all those people killed for nothing. We could have gotten him on to rejoin the community of nations. Heck, we got Libya to come in from the cold. He was still terrified of Iran. It would not have been that difficult to convince him that his best chance for long-term survival was with the west, not against it. Now there are those who would call that appeasement. I disagree, this is not Chamberlin giving the Sudetenland to Hitler. This is someone looking to put the past behind them. Hopefully the next U.S. administration learns a lesson from all this and makes an effort to a)mend fences and b)try to think long term. It is easy to give in to fantasies of isolationism, but they are just that fantasies. It would be nice to be able to spend Christams in Paris at some point in time in the future without getting constantly harrased (well, for something other then not speaking French, that I expect). Anyways, nice chatting with you.
Cripes a 1000 year old crime? Is there no staute of limitations?
nah it come from ... waching ... to much Star ... Trek
Interesting points. However, I never said it (the Iraq war) was a good thing and the US did not make anything from the oil-for-food program, US companies were barred from buying Iraqi oil.
... but they still got kidnapped and they're still not back. It does no good to have Muslim leaders back you if the Muslim people do not.
Sure everyone condemmed the kiddnapping
I also understand the concept of realpolitik in both the domestic and foreign policy sense. However, sometimes the right thing to do is not the popular thing to do.
All that being said, in no way should anything that I have said be taken to mean I support this war. I personally feel that Iraq should not have been discussed until Afghanistan was finished. I am a firm believer in consolidating gains before gambling more. Not that I had an issue with removing Saddam, the US bears a fair share of the repsonsibility for keeping him in power and therfore bears a fair share of the responsibility for removing him. With the end of the coldwar, those we supported for idealogical reasons should be removed for ethical reasons.
Actually I get quite a bit from Reuters, less so from BBC because I find their website is not "quick news reading" friendly. No, I don't watch Fox and generally only look at their web news to see their counter-spin.
Bitter? No, just a little sad.
First, the unit(s) from France we actually French Foreign Legion, not French nationals. Second, they were artillery units which pretty much precludes them from being in front of anything.
Fighting is easy, grinding out a victory logistically is painfully difficult. France has had to turn to the UN for help in the Ivory Coast. I find it unlikely that even if it wanted to it could maintain the levels of troops required for sustained combat operations.
Combat wins battles, logistics win wars. It also takes a willingness to incur casualties, a willingness to sacrifice. It is my belief that in their heart-of-hearts, the French just are not willing. Could this be a reaction to the death of so many Frenchmen during WWI? Could be.
France was making too much money off of oil-for-food to kill that cash cow. France also feared (rightly so) that any new government in Iraq would not be held responsible for the previous governments debt. France also decided that this was the perfect time to show itself as a counter-weight against American power and to portray itself as a friend to the muslim world (hey maybe they'll forget the 1,000,000 Algerians killed by France). Too bad it didn't help. By telling some of the smaller, newer EU countries to "shut-up" France simply showed its arrogance, that it wanted this to be the century of France, that it felt that it was time for the Americans to move off center stage and let France take over. For all their hard work in the Muslim world, it made no difference when those two journalists were kidnapped.
that would be a .44 ... the most powerful handgun in the world...
The funny thing is iirc the N. Koreans want Bush to be re-elected because they want to deal with a powerful leader that will get any deals through congress.
What I want is the president to be from the party that is in the minority in congress so that we'll stop spending money.
useless?!?! heck no, off to graves registration with you. Enjoy the horror.
Do you realize that the first thing the people of Iraq are going to do once they get "democracy" is to "vote" in a shite theocracy? This just sucks all the way around. Nothing but sorrow and loss. What do we do then re-invade? Support a Sunni revolt? Help the Kurds establish an independent Kurdistan to the north? What do we do when Turkey rolls across the border to crush Kurdish independence? Not to mention stability and availablity of oil, not just to the US but to places like China. You talk of thinking long-term, think of the long-term implications of the US and China going to war over the Spratly Islands. Nothing happens in a geo-political vacuum.
Given the current two-party lock on national politics, would it be better to spend money (and win some) in municipal, county, and state elections? While not as glamorous as their national counterparts, politicians at the lower level can have a more immediate effect on peoples lives. In off year elections many of these positions go unchallanged or even unfilled, a small investment in organization could lead to significant political inroads.
nah, rule #1 is don't underestimate the power of ridicule as a political weapon. If the target fights back they look churlish, if they "take it" they open themselves to scorn. Either way they lose. On top of that it plays well to modern sound-bite, media-driven politics.
because going to a protest is so much cooler then going to class and who cares about class as long as mommy and daddy/the state still pick up the tab. Or one could argue they protest becasue they are clueless, their mushy little minds are foulded by neo-marxist, chomsky-ite (un)thinking. They've taken poli-sci 101 or some such other crap and now they think they understand how the world works; they think that going to cancun on spring break means that they can speak for the "oppressed masses" of the world. What crap.
now this: "Dead bugs can't develop resistence." would make for a cool sig.
What about for very large values of 1
> It's right there. The authority to apply a uniform tax throughout the land.
no, what it says is: all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform
it does not say uniform tax, all it says is that Federal Duties, Imposts, and Excises shall be uniform.
Dave Barry is a humorist. He uses a mixture of hyperbole, sarcasm, and just plain silliness to get a fundemental point across (ie electronic voting will cause more issues then it solves). It could be viewed as social satire, but I'm not sure if 'satire' is the correct label.
does "spend so much more per student" mean "spend so much more on a student"
> People will still play because they're either atticted or time committed.
or they may be basmented or even breakfast nooked
The only thing worse then dependence on foreign oil is dependence on foreign food. The loss of the former will wipe out an economy, the loss of the latter will wipe out a population.
>You can make a backup of your computer
no, you can buy a backup of your computer (and the software that is on it - unless you initally bought a multi-seat license). However, if you attempt to 'make' a backup of your computer you will, in the process of manufacturing the parts, violate any number of IP statutes.
The same goes for the other products mentioned, unless all of the ip involved with the creation process is in the public domain, you can not 'make' a backup. You could attempt to license any non public domain IP, but then you are still buying not 'making' your backup.
flying/driving under human control will be made illegal.