Yes, I see a problem -- I see you trying to rationalize an irrationally paternalistic approach to the situation. It's paternalistic because it says the US can judge which countries deserve a seat at the nuclear table based on their form of government, and it is irrational because it has no bearing on reality -- if Iran chooses to make nukes, they will do so whether or not the US invades, and there's not much we can do about it militarily.
I see you trying to rationalize using a different standard to understand the likely actions of a country based on what role religion plays in the government. And it's bullshit, empirically. There is no evidence religious governments have acted irrationally -- in fact, empirical studies have shown that statecraft trumps religious or other ideology. More importantly, empirical evidence with respect to Iran has shown us that its government has not attacked its neighbors militarily (though it, like many other governments including the nuclear-armed DPRK or the nuclear-armed IRP, has postured aggressively in the diplomatic arena). Assuming that a piece of technology will change this fact seems rash, to say the least.
yes, then what? exactly how would using nukes change that situation? The genocidal punishment of 23 million North Koreans (plus who knows how many South Koreans and Chinese "collateral damagees") for the actions of their leader may satisfy your desire for a mean-spirited revenge in such a situation, but it doesn't seem like it would make the world any better or safer. Should we do something if NK did that? Of course; I'm just not sure that "nuking them" is a very imaginative or appropriate response.
The reason is that these countries are, ostensibly, sane, although I am beginning to wonder about Russia. Iran is ruled by a bunch of fanatics that believe in fairy tales and are attempting to bring about the return of the 12th Imam. The countries on your list have not used nukes, excepting the US pre-understaing-much-about-the-long-term-impact. We haven't since.
Yes you're right the US is the only country that has ever used nukes, and though we haven't done so since, it's pretty clear the reason had nothing to do with restraint on the part of the United States -- it is well documented, for example, that Eisenhower and Nixon both considered using nuclear weapons in China and North Vietnam. So as far as using nukes, perceived "sanity" does not seem to be the major deterrent. In fact, the major deterrent seems to be nukes in the hands of our enemies. As far as whether Iran is "sane," I would suggest you look at what they've done, not just the idiotic religious rhetoric of the country's titular leaders. Iran simply has not behaved aggressively in international affairs. They have not invaded their neighbors despite their sabre-rattling towards Israel (though Iraq invaded Iran in 1980). The Iranian military is no joke, to be sure, and nukes will make it more powerful, but that is really a major concern only for anyone unwise enough to attempt to invade Iran. Pakistan's and India's governments are also filled with millenarian fundamentalists (and, hell, we've had quite a few of those in power here in the United States as well!) but the fact is that when the chips are down, these states have acted like states, and have not used their nuclear weapons "irrationally." I see no reason to believe Iran would.
All that said, I am still against a nuclear Iran; I just don't think we can realistically do much more than we are already doing about it. Get the UN to castigate them, sure; encourage government reform, definitely; but if you think invading Iran is going to help anything you are living in an absurd fantasy land with John McCain.
its the bizarre desperate and failing attempt at rationalization that accepts nuclear proliferaiotn in the name of nuclear disarmament. and so far, that absurdity is what you represent to me
I'm not rationalizing anything, and I'm trying to justify anything. I'm simply stating the truth that sooner or later the US will probably have to learn to deal with a nuclear Iran just like we learned to deal with a nuclear China, India, Pakistan, etc. Frankly, it's a fact whether or not we bomb Iran or engage in unspecified acts of "covert sabotage." We're long past the situation in 1981 where a single nuclear reactor could be bombed to end a nuclear program -- if Iran decides to make nuclear weapons, the US really isn't going to be able to stop it, no matter what you or John McCain thinks.
And regarding your comment about rape - fuck off. That's an idiotic comparison that has nothing to do with Iranian nuclear weapons.
frankly, your words are morally and logically incoherent, unless you enunciate the conditions under which you would engage in violent conflict with iran
Frankly, you're completely full of shit. But I'll go ahead and answer your logical fallacy anyway -- the US should engage in violent conflict with Iran if and only if Iran attacks or clearly presents an imminent violent threat to the United States. The mere presence of a nuclear weapon wouldn't do that, unless there is some evidence they were actually going to use it for something other than deterrence. The fact is, nuclear weapons have only been used twice in human history, and both times were more than 60 years ago.
But just think of the money you'll save when you can browse the Omninet using remote mind-control in 3245AD while those Dell suckers are stuck with forking out for Dell's by-then outdated brain-implant technology.
Aww that's nothing; instead, think of beating all those Dell users to "first post" on slashdot once their time-travel technology becomes a standard feature of MacBooks!
fair enough, but what do you do once you are "against" iranian proliferation? John McCain (and many others) think that this means the U.S. should bomb Iran. I'm as against Iranian proliferation as I am against Korean, Bolivian, or Austrian nuclear proliferation -- but I am also against using phony claims of an imminent Iranian nuclear threat to justify hypocritical policy choices. If Iran does choose to go nuclear, that will be a decision that I have little influence on, and I'm not about to advocate bombing Iran to stop it. I'm more likely to advocate looking at how we all will manage to live in a world with an Iranian nuclear deterrent (and the reality is I think there will be a nuclear Iran eventually, though not nearly as quickly as the neocons want us to believe). I see no reason Iran would be any more irresponsible with its nuclear deterrent than India or Pakistan or China or any other member of the "nuclear club." The flip side of what you're saying is also true -- a nuclear Iran is a bad thing, but so is a nuclear Israel (or Russia or the US). There's no reason we should be more apeshit about a nuclear Iran than we are about any other nuclear state.
The whole point of nuclear weapons is to overtly have them; if your possession of them is truly "covert," you don't win a damn thing. Even Israel's nuclear program was an open secret for years because it allowed them to gain the effects of deterrence without openly proclaiming that they had a nuclear arsenal. But nobody seriously believed they didn't have one.
They called it 7 because they are finally catching up to the revolutionary MacOS, "System 7," which featured mind-blowing advances in computing like virtual memory and Balloon Help!
I am not sure about Hillary (you could've provided a link)
Hillary Clinton was a candidate in the U.S. Presidential election; here is some information about her and here is her website. She was also married to a former president of the U.S. Let me know if you need links or information about him too.
I am a middle eastern looking young male... well, not so young anymore, but still well under 50. And as I said in a previous post, I've never had any real problems with bringing a laptop past airport security on domestic or international flights. And I have had problems before -- big problems -- with airport security (and US Marshals) on a domestic flight. But none of those problems focused on a laptop, and I've never been asked to show what was on my laptop other than once I had to open it up and show that it actually did run. I suppose if someone looked like a child sex tourist flying from Bangkok they might be interested to see what photos are on their hard drive, but by and large their scrutiny is going to focus on whether you're a threat to the other passengers, but do you really think they are looking for vacation_photo_with_osama.jpg?
Put them on a CD-ROM and mail it. Put a freakin britney spears cover on the CD if you don't want anybody looking inside; you can probably even bring it in your luggage that way without incident. I've brought laptops through US customs at least half a dozen times since 2001 without incident; I've had to take it out of the bag and once I had to open it and let it wake up so the federal douchebag could see that it wasn't running linux or some other commie operating system, but I've never been asked to open directories or files or had to surrender it for any closer inspection.
As an American, I always had a problem with this expression because I thought, what's a Brit to do when someone is wearing pants that are rubbish? Are they to say, "my good fellow, those pants are completely pants!" But then someone corrected me and noted that they would say "those trousers are completely pants." I felt much better after that conversation.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not the flying car I wanted but this will have to do for now.
I don't know about reputable, but my source is John McCain.
you don't see a problem there?
Yes, I see a problem -- I see you trying to rationalize an irrationally paternalistic approach to the situation. It's paternalistic because it says the US can judge which countries deserve a seat at the nuclear table based on their form of government, and it is irrational because it has no bearing on reality -- if Iran chooses to make nukes, they will do so whether or not the US invades, and there's not much we can do about it militarily.
I see you trying to rationalize using a different standard to understand the likely actions of a country based on what role religion plays in the government. And it's bullshit, empirically. There is no evidence religious governments have acted irrationally -- in fact, empirical studies have shown that statecraft trumps religious or other ideology. More importantly, empirical evidence with respect to Iran has shown us that its government has not attacked its neighbors militarily (though it, like many other governments including the nuclear-armed DPRK or the nuclear-armed IRP, has postured aggressively in the diplomatic arena). Assuming that a piece of technology will change this fact seems rash, to say the least.
Man, almost done with the comments, I'm glad someone finally remembered to whine about the mouse button.
yes, then what? exactly how would using nukes change that situation? The genocidal punishment of 23 million North Koreans (plus who knows how many South Koreans and Chinese "collateral damagees") for the actions of their leader may satisfy your desire for a mean-spirited revenge in such a situation, but it doesn't seem like it would make the world any better or safer. Should we do something if NK did that? Of course; I'm just not sure that "nuking them" is a very imaginative or appropriate response.
The reason is that these countries are, ostensibly, sane, although I am beginning to wonder about Russia. Iran is ruled by a bunch of fanatics that believe in fairy tales and are attempting to bring about the return of the 12th Imam. The countries on your list have not used nukes, excepting the US pre-understaing-much-about-the-long-term-impact. We haven't since.
Yes you're right the US is the only country that has ever used nukes, and though we haven't done so since, it's pretty clear the reason had nothing to do with restraint on the part of the United States -- it is well documented, for example, that Eisenhower and Nixon both considered using nuclear weapons in China and North Vietnam. So as far as using nukes, perceived "sanity" does not seem to be the major deterrent. In fact, the major deterrent seems to be nukes in the hands of our enemies. As far as whether Iran is "sane," I would suggest you look at what they've done, not just the idiotic religious rhetoric of the country's titular leaders. Iran simply has not behaved aggressively in international affairs. They have not invaded their neighbors despite their sabre-rattling towards Israel (though Iraq invaded Iran in 1980). The Iranian military is no joke, to be sure, and nukes will make it more powerful, but that is really a major concern only for anyone unwise enough to attempt to invade Iran. Pakistan's and India's governments are also filled with millenarian fundamentalists (and, hell, we've had quite a few of those in power here in the United States as well!) but the fact is that when the chips are down, these states have acted like states, and have not used their nuclear weapons "irrationally." I see no reason to believe Iran would.
All that said, I am still against a nuclear Iran; I just don't think we can realistically do much more than we are already doing about it. Get the UN to castigate them, sure; encourage government reform, definitely; but if you think invading Iran is going to help anything you are living in an absurd fantasy land with John McCain.
its the bizarre desperate and failing attempt at rationalization that accepts nuclear proliferaiotn in the name of nuclear disarmament. and so far, that absurdity is what you represent to me
I'm not rationalizing anything, and I'm trying to justify anything. I'm simply stating the truth that sooner or later the US will probably have to learn to deal with a nuclear Iran just like we learned to deal with a nuclear China, India, Pakistan, etc. Frankly, it's a fact whether or not we bomb Iran or engage in unspecified acts of "covert sabotage." We're long past the situation in 1981 where a single nuclear reactor could be bombed to end a nuclear program -- if Iran decides to make nuclear weapons, the US really isn't going to be able to stop it, no matter what you or John McCain thinks.
And regarding your comment about rape - fuck off. That's an idiotic comparison that has nothing to do with Iranian nuclear weapons.
frankly, your words are morally and logically incoherent, unless you enunciate the conditions under which you would engage in violent conflict with iran
Frankly, you're completely full of shit. But I'll go ahead and answer your logical fallacy anyway -- the US should engage in violent conflict with Iran if and only if Iran attacks or clearly presents an imminent violent threat to the United States. The mere presence of a nuclear weapon wouldn't do that, unless there is some evidence they were actually going to use it for something other than deterrence. The fact is, nuclear weapons have only been used twice in human history, and both times were more than 60 years ago.
if you make him walk the plank after you read it.
To be fair, he was posting to slashdot from a dell.
But just think of the money you'll save when you can browse the Omninet using remote mind-control in 3245AD while those Dell suckers are stuck with forking out for Dell's by-then outdated brain-implant technology.
Aww that's nothing; instead, think of beating all those Dell users to "first post" on slashdot once their time-travel technology becomes a standard feature of MacBooks!
fair enough, but what do you do once you are "against" iranian proliferation? John McCain (and many others) think that this means the U.S. should bomb Iran. I'm as against Iranian proliferation as I am against Korean, Bolivian, or Austrian nuclear proliferation -- but I am also against using phony claims of an imminent Iranian nuclear threat to justify hypocritical policy choices. If Iran does choose to go nuclear, that will be a decision that I have little influence on, and I'm not about to advocate bombing Iran to stop it. I'm more likely to advocate looking at how we all will manage to live in a world with an Iranian nuclear deterrent (and the reality is I think there will be a nuclear Iran eventually, though not nearly as quickly as the neocons want us to believe). I see no reason Iran would be any more irresponsible with its nuclear deterrent than India or Pakistan or China or any other member of the "nuclear club." The flip side of what you're saying is also true -- a nuclear Iran is a bad thing, but so is a nuclear Israel (or Russia or the US). There's no reason we should be more apeshit about a nuclear Iran than we are about any other nuclear state.
The whole point of nuclear weapons is to overtly have them; if your possession of them is truly "covert," you don't win a damn thing. Even Israel's nuclear program was an open secret for years because it allowed them to gain the effects of deterrence without openly proclaiming that they had a nuclear arsenal. But nobody seriously believed they didn't have one.
And yet Apple will still probably sell a metric assload of new MacBooks.
how many metric assloads in a library of congress?
They called it 7 because they are finally catching up to the revolutionary MacOS, "System 7," which featured mind-blowing advances in computing like virtual memory and Balloon Help!
Oh you betcha they can!
Or she'll just claim the emails say the exact opposite of what they actually say, just like she did with the troopergate report.
That will put an end to hearing about her in the media I'm sure...
She looks like she would be interested in shopping and hairstyles. The world would be very boring if everyone looked like that.
WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?!
Yes it was duped but this new version is much better because it was fed through the algorithm. Good job slashdot!
I am not sure about Hillary (you could've provided a link)
Hillary Clinton was a candidate in the U.S. Presidential election; here is some information about her and here is her website. She was also married to a former president of the U.S. Let me know if you need links or information about him too.
I am a middle eastern looking young male ... well, not so young anymore, but still well under 50. And as I said in a previous post, I've never had any real problems with bringing a laptop past airport security on domestic or international flights. And I have had problems before -- big problems -- with airport security (and US Marshals) on a domestic flight. But none of those problems focused on a laptop, and I've never been asked to show what was on my laptop other than once I had to open it up and show that it actually did run. I suppose if someone looked like a child sex tourist flying from Bangkok they might be interested to see what photos are on their hard drive, but by and large their scrutiny is going to focus on whether you're a threat to the other passengers, but do you really think they are looking for vacation_photo_with_osama.jpg?
Put them on a CD-ROM and mail it. Put a freakin britney spears cover on the CD if you don't want anybody looking inside; you can probably even bring it in your luggage that way without incident. I've brought laptops through US customs at least half a dozen times since 2001 without incident; I've had to take it out of the bag and once I had to open it and let it wake up so the federal douchebag could see that it wasn't running linux or some other commie operating system, but I've never been asked to open directories or files or had to surrender it for any closer inspection.
It shouldn't matter what kind of pictures he takes. It is none of their business.
I think he was more concerned about our amusement than their business.
As an American, I always had a problem with this expression because I thought, what's a Brit to do when someone is wearing pants that are rubbish? Are they to say, "my good fellow, those pants are completely pants!" But then someone corrected me and noted that they would say "those trousers are completely pants." I felt much better after that conversation.
Actually, I rather like the idea of it being a lower class Scottish accent. Especially if she sounds pissed to the gills and says "shite" a lot.