This survey might make it look like most Americans are willing to give up liberties just because they're stupid, but if you knew the whole story you'd think otherwise.
64% of the responses were culled from the survey for being unreadable. The most common response was: 3kljFD(#lj kwj3- *(ED.
>And what the US and UK have been doing in Iraq in the last few years is not UN-sanctioned. If those bombings had been put to vote during the last few months...
Bombing radar instillations when Iraq tries to shoot down your planes is within the discression of those enforcing the internation law.
>The US have stated that the purpose of the sanctions is to get rid of Saddam. Even if you believe this (which you shouldn't)...
Well, every nation in the free world has said that these sanctions are to attack Saddam. If it weren't true, wouldn't some democratic government out there disagree? Hell, why wouldn't a large group of well-educated non-bigoted people like those on slashdot disagree? But, that's not absolute proof...
How about you check? Go to un.org, look up the Iraq sanctions, read what is says under a "why we're doing this" section and ask "If this still is so wrong, is it just an honest mistake or is it a conspiracy?"
Oh, but I know someone here who is very angry and says a lot of mean things that don't seem to survive close inspection! YOU!!
> The US has stood by and callously blocked the import of essential medicines, anaesthetics and spare parts. The US government is fully aware of their complicity in the suffering and death of innocent Iraqi civilians.
I'm always arguing this. The US is essentially the military arm of the UN; and this is a UN sanction. If you want to complain, complain to the UN. But, don't complain too loudly--the UN is doing a good job offering aid to the people of Iraq.
Text from the UN web site: "The [Security] Council has resorted to mandatory sanctions as an enforcement tool when peace has been threatened and diplomatic efforts have failed. In the last decade, such sanctions have been imposed against Iraq, the former Yugoslavia, Libya, Haiti, Liberia, Rwanda, Somalia, UNITA forces in Angola, Sudan, Sierra Leone..."
I was wrong that the UN action against Iraq was not official.
Here's the resolution: 678 (29 November 1990) "Authorizes Member States... to use all necessary means" to bring Iraq into compliance with previous Security Council resolutions if it did not do so by 15 January 1991. [Quote from bottom right of first page, item 2 under 'The Security Council.'] (Link: http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1990/678e.pdf)
I didn't mean that the Somalia aid was a failure. It just went into a short, unplanned direction.
Now, there is a UN resolution demanding that Israel return all illegally obtained land since the early 1970's. We should've supported that one... Oh, well.
The UN didn't SEND anyone into Iraq, but the UN security council was a large organizer of those countries that attacked Iraq--though not through an official charter. The UN then imposed sanctions on Iraq. Our carriers are there enforcing those sanctions now.
Somalia was UN humanitarian aid work that went bad. So yes, they were behind it. It's the unanimous resolution 794(1992) that brought the US into it. It was "to help create a secure environment for the delivery of humanitarian aid in Somalia" and authorized, under Chapter VII of the Charter, the use of "all necessary means" to do so.
But you're right, the drug war in South America, Panama, and the whole Quadafi shindig weren't UN ideas.
Low cost housing doesn't do anything about homelessness--and never did. It just keeps the poor poor. That's the problem we need to face.
State taxes for a national program we already have (which is socialist already) is not a socialist idea. And I don't propose giving everyone "enough money" or fix anything huge with cash. I just want to get money out of the equation for poor schools. It's easy. It can done. It's almost free.
I don't expect private schools to be any better than public. But, it takes away the cynicism going around that public schools offer second-class education and that Reps and Senators don't care because their kids go to private schools.
I hear countries calling the US isolationist, and others calling it a bully. Well, what are we?
Have YOU heard of the US pushing the UN around? I've only heard about the US not paying dues, not attending meetings, and not agreeing with other countries--and being voted off panels, made fun of, and ignored because of it.
The US doesn't decide who goes to war on who. Every country decides and every country acts. Why do OUR forces go in such greater numbers than any others? We have the technology to save the lives of our men, and the citizens we are bombing. We're helping out the only way we can.
I'd like a more advanced curriculum for those who can use it--advanced classes, semester vs year long classes; grades definied by ability--not age; less sports getting in the way; school choice; and state-wide funding, not local.
But, the stupid kids would feel left behind if the smarter kids go into more advanced classes... We can't have that! Equal opportunity isn't enough, we must enforce equal performance!
I've been hearing from the news that he hates our culture--open sex, money grubbing, etc.
But, yes, some people hate us because we're "so free." When Russia became a capatalist nation, many of it's people felt "out in the cold" so to speak. Under communism they had guaranteed jobs and a very watchfull eye on crime, but now they're worrying about how to get jobs and how crime control is even possible without an oppressive state. The reaction during the changes was, "And this is BETTER?!"
Many Arab nations are similar. They don't think it's possible that crime can be controlled without the government into everyone's business. (Well, the US isn't a good example of it working, but everyone else is.) These smaller nations are THANKFULL that they are being oppressed and hate us because we are not.
Schools are not more and more for the rich. Every child is REQUIRED by law to go to a school through most of High School. If you want to know why inner city schools get little money, it's social welfare.
The Democrats started the "low cost housing" idea--besides ruining the lives of many poor people and increasing crime rates--each apartment is worth about $20. Well, school funding is based on property taxes and local millages....
If you want fair schools, take funding entirely to the state level so every school gets equal dollars per student or have free private school charters for everyone. (Republican ideas.)
As for the US bombing everyone... We only do what the UN says. And it's not just the US that's the army of the UN. Most Democratic countries bomb along with us--you just don't hear anyone complaing about it. It's in style to hate the US.
Look at the war we had in Iraq. Most every major nation in the civilized world bombed Iraq--and not just those in the UN!!
American airports could adopt European style security. Right now, you could walk onto an American plane with an AK-47 on your back and attract little attention. (Slight exageration.)
I think 60 minutes did a special a few months ago were they snuck a bunch of guns and explosives onto a couple of planes easily.
It's not a question of "better" security. It's using the security we were supposed to have in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
This survey might make it look like most Americans are willing to give up liberties just because they're stupid, but if you knew the whole story you'd think otherwise.
64% of the responses were culled from the survey for being unreadable. The most common response was: 3kljFD(#lj kwj3- *(ED.
>And what the US and UK have been doing in Iraq in the last few years is not UN-sanctioned. If those bombings had been put to vote during the last few months...
Bombing radar instillations when Iraq tries to shoot down your planes is within the discression of those enforcing the internation law.
Or since it's not software it may not count.
It could lead to hardware encryption being legal. Gonna' have to get me some.
So, what does this mean for quantum encryption?
It can't be intercepted! Will the research be illegal now?
>Mental note: Kill Random People.
Just the random ones?
Adobe puts a back door into it's ROT-13.
The lifetime of a logical contrarian is short. He soon finds what's right and sadly agrees.
>The US have stated that the purpose of the sanctions is to get rid of Saddam. Even if you believe this (which you shouldn't)...
Well, every nation in the free world has said that these sanctions are to attack Saddam. If it weren't true, wouldn't some democratic government out there disagree? Hell, why wouldn't a large group of well-educated non-bigoted people like those on slashdot disagree? But, that's not absolute proof...
How about you check? Go to un.org, look up the Iraq sanctions, read what is says under a "why we're doing this" section and ask "If this still is so wrong, is it just an honest mistake or is it a conspiracy?"
Oh, but I know someone here who is very angry and says a lot of mean things that don't seem to survive close inspection! YOU!!
> The US has stood by and callously blocked the import of essential medicines, anaesthetics and spare parts. The US government is fully aware of their complicity in the suffering and death of innocent Iraqi civilians.
I'm always arguing this. The US is essentially the military arm of the UN; and this is a UN sanction. If you want to complain, complain to the UN. But, don't complain too loudly--the UN is doing a good job offering aid to the people of Iraq.
Text from the UN web site: "The [Security] Council has resorted to mandatory sanctions as an enforcement tool when peace has been threatened and diplomatic efforts have failed. In the last decade, such sanctions have been imposed against Iraq, the former Yugoslavia, Libya, Haiti, Liberia, Rwanda, Somalia, UNITA forces in Angola, Sudan, Sierra Leone..."
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/INTRO.htm
I was wrong that the UN action against Iraq was not official.
... to use all necessary means" to bring Iraq into compliance with previous Security Council resolutions if it did not do so by 15 January 1991. [Quote from bottom right of first page, item 2 under 'The Security Council.'] (Link: http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1990/678e.pdf)
Here's the resolution: 678 (29 November 1990) "Authorizes Member States
I didn't mean that the Somalia aid was a failure. It just went into a short, unplanned direction.
Now, there is a UN resolution demanding that Israel return all illegally obtained land since the early 1970's. We should've supported that one... Oh, well.
Good use of language.
The UN didn't SEND anyone into Iraq, but the UN security council was a large organizer of those countries that attacked Iraq--though not through an official charter. The UN then imposed sanctions on Iraq. Our carriers are there enforcing those sanctions now.
Somalia was UN humanitarian aid work that went bad. So yes, they were behind it. It's the unanimous resolution 794(1992) that brought the US into it. It was "to help create a secure environment for the delivery of humanitarian aid in Somalia" and authorized, under Chapter VII of the Charter, the use of "all necessary means" to do so.
But you're right, the drug war in South America, Panama, and the whole Quadafi shindig weren't UN ideas.
And Bush did something wrong then? Did ANYONE do more than suspect the usual?
Low cost housing doesn't do anything about homelessness--and never did. It just keeps the poor poor. That's the problem we need to face.
State taxes for a national program we already have (which is socialist already) is not a socialist idea. And I don't propose giving everyone "enough money" or fix anything huge with cash. I just want to get money out of the equation for poor schools. It's easy. It can done. It's almost free.
I don't expect private schools to be any better than public. But, it takes away the cynicism going around that public schools offer second-class education and that Reps and Senators don't care because their kids go to private schools.
I hear countries calling the US isolationist, and others calling it a bully. Well, what are we?
Have YOU heard of the US pushing the UN around? I've only heard about the US not paying dues, not attending meetings, and not agreeing with other countries--and being voted off panels, made fun of, and ignored because of it.
The US doesn't decide who goes to war on who. Every country decides and every country acts. Why do OUR forces go in such greater numbers than any others? We have the technology to save the lives of our men, and the citizens we are bombing. We're helping out the only way we can.
nifty
What about Kosovo? We laid off bombing for a while? We did still go in and blow stuff up...
The answer's pretty simple. Democrats.
I'd like a more advanced curriculum for those who can use it--advanced classes, semester vs year long classes; grades definied by ability--not age; less sports getting in the way; school choice; and state-wide funding, not local.
But, the stupid kids would feel left behind if the smarter kids go into more advanced classes... We can't have that! Equal opportunity isn't enough, we must enforce equal performance!
Like shit we do.
How advanced are the testing methods? I was under the impression it's one of those "many days, thousand dollars, 50% right" type of tests.
I never said reluctantly. But always according to UN orders.
I've been hearing from the news that he hates our culture--open sex, money grubbing, etc.
But, yes, some people hate us because we're "so free." When Russia became a capatalist nation, many of it's people felt "out in the cold" so to speak. Under communism they had guaranteed jobs and a very watchfull eye on crime, but now they're worrying about how to get jobs and how crime control is even possible without an oppressive state. The reaction during the changes was, "And this is BETTER?!"
Many Arab nations are similar. They don't think it's possible that crime can be controlled without the government into everyone's business. (Well, the US isn't a good example of it working, but everyone else is.) These smaller nations are THANKFULL that they are being oppressed and hate us because we are not.
It's screwey, but that's the way it is.
I know this is politically incorrect, and maybe insensitive, but isn't that behavior reasonable?
Schools are not more and more for the rich. Every child is REQUIRED by law to go to a school through most of High School. If you want to know why inner city schools get little money, it's social welfare.
The Democrats started the "low cost housing" idea--besides ruining the lives of many poor people and increasing crime rates--each apartment is worth about $20. Well, school funding is based on property taxes and local millages....
If you want fair schools, take funding entirely to the state level so every school gets equal dollars per student or have free private school charters for everyone. (Republican ideas.)
As for the US bombing everyone... We only do what the UN says. And it's not just the US that's the army of the UN. Most Democratic countries bomb along with us--you just don't hear anyone complaing about it. It's in style to hate the US.
Look at the war we had in Iraq. Most every major nation in the civilized world bombed Iraq--and not just those in the UN!!
There are a lot of titanium guns out now--and they're nify. Very nifty.
You really must hold one. They feel light like plastic.
Before WWII, Hawaii was not a state, right?
American airports could adopt European style security. Right now, you could walk onto an American plane with an AK-47 on your back and attract little attention. (Slight exageration.)
I think 60 minutes did a special a few months ago were they snuck a bunch of guns and explosives onto a couple of planes easily.
It's not a question of "better" security. It's using the security we were supposed to have in the first place.
You're another person that doesn't like UN police actions?
Well, I don't either.
Ever since WWII we've been bombing anyone the UN tells us to--and that gets everyone but the UN angry at us.