This is Amazon's one-click crap again. Once someone invented cookies, for identifying a returning user, all "inventions" that used cookies to, er, you know, identify a returning user should have become non-patentable.
Likewise, once anyone has invented using programs over a network, then simply patenting the use of an individual program should no longer be valid as it has become an obvious extension of the prior art.
The US patent system should just be scrapped now; it is actually worse than nothing.
The days you speak of required a force restart of the computer if a program froze.
I see that regularly on OSX too. Quark and Indesign seem to be the best combination if you want to see it too.
Why would I want options in a menu available that aren't appropriate for what is being clicked on?
Well, you wouldn't. But the inability of Windows programmers to make things context sensitive doesn't undermine the idea of having common options on the mouse, where you already have your hand in all likelyhood.
just hit F10 to see all open windows for the application you're currently in, and hit F9 if you want to see and choose from all open windows.
Didn't know that one, thanks.
Who drags disks to the trash anymore?
Lots of people who, like me, used OS from the days of the original Mac. You're right though, it's a bad habit.
For a start off, you're not dragging it to the trash, you're dragging it to the eject icon. Which is what the trash can turns into when you drag a removavble drive.
Which is not intuitive. How is the user supposed to guess that the trash will turn... Actually, just fuck off, you moron.
I perhaps should have pointed out that I don't own the Macs I have to use at work from time to time, so I'd really like to see these things sorted out as factory-settings. I know I can add a mouse, but that's not a solution unless I start carrying one around.
There are two things which drive me up the wall: the lack of virtual desktops and window management. I like having a desktop for art, another for browsing and email, and another for various monitoring programs. On the Mac it's all stuffed onto one desktop. The other thing is how difficult it can be to find a particular window or get to the desktop when there are lots of windows open. I can't even shade a window (at least as far as I know) to quickly look behind it.
This latter feeds into the confusing/hard to use issue. Modern screens are big and its a pain to have to go up to the top all the time to get at things which should be hung off the individual windows or be available via a right-click context menu. One mouse button was never enough and it's less so today.
I find the file dialog completely baffling at times with its odd multi-panel display which seems to achieve nothing other than to restrict the space for display of the actual folder I'm examining.
The file layout in OSX is a mess with some old Mac system folders and some new Unix-style system folders.
The dock gets overcrowded since every app is bunged into it; at home I use the virtual desktops to divide up the dock too and make things a lot clearer.
And don't get me started on the ancient bugbear of dragging a disc to the bin to eject it. Every time I have to do that I feel a tinge of fear that the intuative action - wiping the disc - is going to occur. Not such a big deal with CD/DVD but the big external drive gives me chills.
I could probably list a bunch of other things if I had one of them in front of me now.
I have to stop you there, I'm afraid. The current Mac UI does not work well, in fact it sucks. I have to use it for work occasionally and it's ugly, slow, unfeatured and totally confusing most of the time.
The Mac was once a joy to use; those days are long gone.
This is of course highly subjective, but I do get tired of the other subjective opinion (Mac UI is great) being thrown about as if it were a law of the universe.
Which one comes with C, Fortran, C++, lisp, java, PHP, python and perl compilers/interpreters; pdf generator; typesetting software; office programs; image editing software; a database; webserver; cd/dvd ripper; support for by camera's raw mode; a good flight simulator; and a choice of four browsers as standard?
Black is indeed a colour: just check any dictionary
Concise OED, ninth ed: "Black, n , very dark, having no colour from the absorbtion of all or nearly all incident light". Black is not a colour, it is the absense of colour. Black paint is simply paint which removes all colours equally and (if perfectly black) totally. Black in Photoshop is 0% red, 0% green, 0% blue, in otherwords the absense of colour.
When you assert that God does not exist, you are driving down the road.
When I say "I do not believe that god exists" I am refusing to get into the car. If I say to you that "The Moomins exist" and you reply "I don't believe you", in what way are you making a religious statement?
Your argument is coloured by an assumption that the existance of God(s) is in some way self-evident and therefore you see any different position as a reaction away from that. But it's not, I didn't start where you did so I'm not moving in reaction to that position.
Again, you inject your faith into it and pre-suppose God is a fictional character.
No. I presuppose that both are in books. The issue is that one book is as good as another. You are injecting from nowhere the axiom that the Bible is by definition a special book and "Moominland Midwinter" is not and comparing the two is unreasonable. Why? What is the basis for this?
You are adding faith, I am stating what happens when faith is not applied: one is left with two books, nothing more and nothing less. Both have characters in them. Some are believable and some are not. That's a simple objective observation.
Again: what is the origin of your presupposition that comparing these sets of characters is not valid? What characteristic of the Bible distinguishes it from the Moomin books? Or from the Bhagavad Gita or Lord of the Rings, or - most pertinently - the epic of Gilgamesh? What is there about the Bible that allows you to say that it can not be simply looked at as a text written by someone somewhere that has no intrinsic veracity? There is nothing I can see, which leaves us with the conclusion that it is you who are adding something to the picture, you who is making a faith based statement, not me. I'm just saying this is a book, nothing more.
Look: over there on the horizon: it's the topic! Wave goodbye, everyone!
Explain what the difference is the and why first one is a matter of religion but not the second one.
I already did. The second one is all one knows at birth; it is the basic state from which one moves, it is not a position one has to move to. The statement that god exists is a position one has to take up, usually when very young and inexperienced. I never did because my parents worked hours that prevented them going to church until I was old enough to think for myself by which time I had seen and read lots of stories and could see that there was no inherent difference between "God exists" and "Aslan exists" or "the Moomins are real, you know."
With no more evidence for the first of these than the last there was no reason to move from the position I had (that every one has) at birth. Not getting into a car for a drive is not a type of journey, and not beleving in a god is not a type of religion.
The key here is that non-existance is not a quality of a deity or anything else just as black is not a colour.
Anything is better than facing the fact that you are rather arrogantly asserting a religious faith of your own and condemning those who don't have your faith.
"God exists."
"Gandalf exists."
These two statements have the same content: a character in a book is claimed to be real. Explain what the difference is and why disagreeing with the first one is an act of religion but not the second one.
The assertion that God/etc is a fictional character is nothing more than an assertion of religious faith.
In that case asserting that Gandalf the wizard and Bagpuss are fictional characters is an assertion of reglious faith. If that's how you want to define religious faith then go ahead, but don't think it has anything to do with real life.
Yes, yes. Sorry and all that. "Muslims don't like jews". There, happy? It's still a sweeping generalisation anyway. I am well aware of the distinction but I think that one small mistake, given that you've written pages without getting anything right, is hardly a hanging offense.
Concerning Iran's nuclear weapons program which you deny exists, here is some further documentation:
Gosh, yes. That is damning isn't it. It's not like the same material exists in every major library and university in the world or anything, is it? In fact, I have seen better material, since those documents mentioned in your link did not even have dimensions marked which are critical to making a bomb. Have you a link from someone in power in Iran who "announced" the intent to make a bomb? You claimed there was such an announcement; where is it?
I think you operate from a "hate the United States first" M.O. and let everything flow from that, including the idea that the U.S. is the ultimate arch-villain in everything, regardless of the facts.
I think you operate from a "my country right or wrong" MO and let everything flow from that, including the idea that the government would never lie and never become corrupt, regardless of the facts.
In fact, even though I had a friend killed by American-backed terrorists back in the 80's, I am aware that of the 300 million or so people who live there, very few are really bad people. But with very few exceptions, the American election system has been a sham for most of the country's history and the actual rulers have all been taken from the aristocracy (some of whom were great leaders like FDR). When your leadership is drawn from a small clique like that there is always the danger that they will become disconnected from the people - the worst case scenario being a monarchy - and that's what's happened now. Rumsfeld is a classic example of this. He has failed so often and so spectacularly that in any sort of meritocracy he might actually be in jail. Because he is operating in a self-supporting circle of people who have no responsibility except to each other, he has stayed in or near power for half his adult life. This is not a disease of America as a whole but of the tiny fraction of people who run it for their own advantage.
That is just a statement of your religious faith. You have a faith that there is no God, and you project it on others.
Not believing in fictional characters is no more a statement of faith than not collectiong stamps is a hobby. Not believing is the basic state all humans are born into, it is belief which represents the movement into a faith-based position.
Certainly someone who commited the crimes that Saddam did could not have had any belief in gods.
In a similar vein, Bush says he's a christian but since he breaks the most funimental tenant of that religion on a daily basis, we can conclude that he is not in fact a christian. I dare say he might think he is, but that's more a measure of how stupid he is.
Can you name ONE United States Secretary of State who ever faced a national vote?
True, but I also can't name one that spent so much of their time preaching about democracy while also telling elected governments to not carry out their election promises. The hypocracy is the issue here, and she has it in spades.
They've announced a nuclear bomb building program
Link please.
and the intent to use it in their prime foreign policy goal of exterminating another nation.
Link please. I mean to the nuclear bit; it's hardly a secret that the jews and muslims have been at eachother's throats for 800 years or so. Currently the body count is about 10:1 Palistinians to Israelis. Israel has nukes and had not even signed the NPT, nor will it ever as it holds that it is its god-given right to use those weapons if it wants to.
It is obvious that the intent is to avoid war, and to get Iran to back down from its belligerance.
In fact the US has consistantly demanded the impossible from Iran knowing that by so doing they will be backed into a corner and probably start to fight back, which will give the needed excuse to attack them. As I said before, Iran is entitled to aid with the nuclear programme; it is America who is leading the effort to prevent that treaty obligation being met, and as a result making it impossible for the Iranian government to rein-in their PM. The US's actions could not be better designed to increase support for extremists in Iran for the simple reason that it is designed to increase support for extremists in Iran.
When Russia stepped in and said it would enrich the uranium, thus allowing Iran to have nuclear power without developing technology which could be used to make bombs, the US pushed the issue to the Security Council. The only reason to do that was to harden the Iranian position and probably scupper the deal, which it looks like it has. America does not want a peaceful Iran and is working hard to prevent it.
Why is such a census necessary? Iraq Body Count has stepped up to do the job.
Counting the number of casulties is part of the army's job as it is a fundimental part of assessing the cost and efficency of a military campaign in the modern age. Iraq Body Count is a cash-strapped organisation who can only make estimates within wide margins due to the many layers of security between them and where the action is. It should be no more than an independant check on the military figures, instead it's all there is.
No, you are the one who doesn't give a shit about them. You wanted them to stay under Saddam's rule.
No, I wanted Saddam removed during the first Gulf War. In fact, I didn't want Saddam in charge at all. But America did, and kept him there for decades while he tortured and slaughtered anyone he wanted. I'm glad to see him gone, and I wish they'd pack in this stupid trial and hang the bastard, since the whole world know's he's guilty. But by having no plan for what happened after the war apart from which companies would get which oil fields, the current mess and the thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths were pretty well assured. But no one in the White House cares about that.
I side with the Iraqi people.
No you don't. You side with fools and liars who tell you transparent crap about Iraq. You are an idiot and a gift to dictators everywhere. You know nothing about your own country and still less about the world in general. You confuse words with actions and fiction with fact. You have no critcal ability and a blind faith in people who have absolutely no interest in you or your well-being. If you were five years old and still believed Santa that would be fine, but for an adult you are bordering on the mentally retarded.
Iraq could have been made better, it may yet be better one day. With Saddam gone that is at least a possibility. But another much bigger possibility now is that the current fighting between factions will allow the establis
If the war in Iraq has no connection to al Qaeda, why is one of the major insurgent forces in Iraq called "Al Qaeda in Iraq?"
Because the war in Iraq has allowed "al-Qaeda" to become active in a country where they were (according to the US government's own 9/11 report) not welcome before the war.
Also: how do you join al-Qaeda? You say (possibly to yourself) "I'm in al-Qaeda"; that's the extent to which it exists as an organisation; there is or was a core around OBL, but the vast majority of the people using the term now will have never seen him, nor have even the most remote connection with him. It's a bit like someone in America calling their group "Defenders of the Alamo"; there's no reason to think they'll have certificates from Davy Crockett.
Come on, if we are there for the oil, then why are the Iraqis voting? Why aren't we voting for their president?
The answer to both questions is: because they don't have any power. They can vote until the cows come home but the contracts which have been signed and are in place today say that most of Iraq's oil production belongs to America in perpetuity. In other words, if the Iraqi's want their oil back to sell as they see fit on the world markets they'll have to declare war on America. Not going to happen. Not for more than ten minutes, anyway.
So, yeah. Have an election, vote for who you like. Vote for Spongebob Squarepants! Why not? Doesn't mean anything but I suppose it's a good excuse for a party.
They've pretty much announced their intent to nuke Israel
Yeah, yeah. Arabs don't like jews. News at eleven. Israel has actually announced that they'll bomb Iran if they start building basically anything that they don't like the look of. If Cuba said that about America you'd be singing a different song, wouldn'd you, my little warmonger?
Unless you think it is OK for a regime to have nuclear weapons when they have announced their intent to exterminate an entire nation of millions of people.
Well, I suppose America does its killings without the announcements. Does that make it better? I'm not sure.
The US has shown no signs of wanting to rule the world. It has shown every sign of wanting to help solve global problems,
Funny how the problems it wants to solve are always the ones that make money, isn't it? Helicopters flying in to help villagers stuck in the mud? Invoice will be in the post, sir, please pay promptly. World War One, nice little earner; only country to make a profit on it from the sales of arms to its "allies". World War Two against the most overtly evil threat in modern history. Sorry not interested; but we'll sell you some equipment. In the end, made a profit, the only country to do so in both world wars. People being oppressed in Zimbabwe? Sorry, no oil, not interested. People being oppressed in Nigeria, okay... Oh, they're being oppressed by the oil industry. No, sorry can't help you there either. Call us if the locals sieze the oil rigs though and we'll sell you some helicopter gunships.
As before, the US ends up acting in concert and cooperation with a large number of allies.
As before the allies have been told to get on side or find out what the wrath of the US will mean in trade terms.
If that were true, we would not keep all our treaties as we have been doing for decades.
No you haven't.
The US actions in this regard are quite legal
No they aren't. International law is another thing America ignores at its whim.
Do you know who Rice is? Probably not. She never rants. She never even raises her voice. She just tells it like it is.
Yes, she is the ex-director of Chevron oil who has no qualifications for her job but has got there with the help of Dick Chaney, another director of Chevron oil who pulled some strings for his friend. She's the one who preaches about democracy. I suppose someone might have told her what that is, but she's shown no interest in being involved in the process herself. The Iranian election was very poor and far from fair. BUT IT WAS MORE OF AN ELECTION THAN RICE EVER FACED TO BECOME ONE OF THE MOST POWERFUL PEOPLE IN THE WORLD.
The problem of Iranian nuclear aggression is entirely created by the Iranian regime.
What nucelar aggression?! They haven't even got any nukes! They've never said they wanted them, they've never threatened to attack anyone with them if they had them. Rice has made this ALL up! How can you be so stupid? How can a country 10 years away from the capacity to nuke Israel be accused of nuclear aggression? It doesn't make any sense.
The US's actions in Iran has of course made it almost impossible now for the moderates who were trying to move the PM out of office to act. To do so now would be to look as if they were working for a foreign power. Which is exactly what Rice wants. Iran backing down now would screw up any chance of starting a war with them, and that would be a disaster for the rabble of cutpurses that currently make up the American cabinet.
I do have some faith that they can be kicked out before even more people die for nothing; I think American people are pretty decent when they know the facts but the propaganda machine keeps them in the dark. Most don't even seem to know how many Americans have dies in Iraq, they certainly have no idea how many Iraqis because the government refuses to count them. But they can tell us how much oil revenue has been lost due to terrorist attacks in installations. That's because they care about the oil. They don't give a shit about the Iraqis.
The oil theory makes little or no sense - unless you consider someone with an agenda who has no grasp of the situation and refuses to listen to contrary intelligence is using it as a path to personal power.
Well, that's the point to a degree. Look at some of the characters in this little play: Rice, director of Chevron, clever but clearly insane; Chaney, director of Chevron, not very bright; Bush, oil family, thick as pig-shit. These are people who have lived in the oil industry all their lives. It is entirely possible that they simply can not imagine, or that they are too pessimistic to imagine, a replacement for oil.
I am entirely happy to entertain the idea that the "invade for the oil" theory is both correct and totally misguided at the same time. I would put odds on Bush and Chaney being too stupid to rise above the motivation of simply lining their own pockets, while Rumsfeld and Rice are more power-oriented, but Wolfowitz is definately big on keeping the oil and was been tedious on the subject for coming on a decade; whether he's right or wrong doesn't change whether that's his motivation or not.
Rice is a straightforward, constructive, and honest woman, and is only dangerous if you are a fascist megalomaniac. Not only that, she is very smart, well spoken, and good-looking. A good choice for another President.
The CIA hired Saddam to assassinate the previous leader of Iraq, which he failed to do and had to hide out in Egypt while a professional assassin did the job, at which point Saddam was installed by the US as a puppet leader, who they consistantly supported for years before he "went rogue".
retaliating against Saddam Hussein
Retaliating for what, exactly? There are various options but I suspect you don't know what any of the real ones are.
But oops, you later DID lie and say that they were all gone. Despite overwhelming proof and evidence.
Which exists only in your mind. None have ever been found.
The terrorists are learning that if they commit atrocities and aggression, they might end up in one of those prisons.
Unfortunately innocent people, including children, are also learning that if they are the victims of a village argument over sheep or even just wearing the wrong colour trousers when the US sweep through that they can end up in the same prisons, or shipped off in a CIA jet to be tortured in Eastern Europe somewhere.
Rice and Rumsfeld are are an excellent example of the high moral ground.
Rumsfeld is a mythomaniac and Rice is probably the most unpleasant, nasty, hypocritical woman in the world; she's certainly the most dangerous.
Your post consists entirely of unsupported assertions which fly in the face of literally years of contrary evidence. As with so many people who simply don't understand what is going on in America, you take the approach that opponents of the US's actions are supporters of terrorists. We are not (well, I'm not), to many people there simply is no difference between the terrorists and the US. Both are worthy of condemnation. Both kill indiscriminately in pursuit of political goals, and most importantly, both use terror to make people do what they want them to. The terrorists are not good people; Saddam was not a good person, he was a shit and should have been hung at the end of the war. But the people who put him there and supported him while he killed his people are no better. Worse in some ways because they had the power to stop him and choose not to do so because they were happy with Saddam's performance against Iran. They decided that thousands of innocent lives were worth a pathetic political gain in a part of the world they had no business being in in the first place.
It doesn't make sense at all for that reason since there were already US companies involved in Iraqi oil.
To some degree but the limits on oil sales were limiting their usefulness. Much more importantly, with Saddam in charge there was no guarentee that he would not sell oil to China. It is of note that the majority of oil production in Iraq is now contractually bound to be sold to the US, even if another country were to offer a better price. Wolfowitz has worried for a long time about what happens when China starts to bid big bucks on the oil markets; the American economy might start seeing not just high prices but actual shortages. With world production having started to dip (guess which is the only big oil producer yet to peak? Starts with an I and ends with a war) he lobbied for a good ten years, quite overtly and publicly, that Iraq should have a new government who would secure supplies for the US.
9/11 gave him what he had been asking for. Into Afghanistan, build the oil pipeline there (and withdraw AS SOON as that was finished, leaving the UK to worry about rebuilding the country and handling the opium problem), then into Iraq, install US companies and US contracts there along with US copyright law (the very first laws put in place, really high priority for a humanitarian mission, eh?). Then into Iran to get a bit more oil, and finally Syria to get a route to the sea for easy transport of the oil with an extension of the Afghan pipeline.
The funny thing is how blatant they've been about all this. The evidence is in full view for anyone that looks. They've given speeches saying that this is what they're doing. But all the administration has to do is say "no, that's not true, blah blah blah democracy" and they can continue doing it while people support them.
it will be very hard to get oil out of Iraq in quantity for a very long time.
The important thing is that it'll be there when it's needed. The rest of the world may be facing shortages, but America won't. The plan might not work and might have flaws but it's pretty obvious that is the plan.
Are they building nukes? Have you any evidence? Has anyone anywhere shown any evidence of this? Iran is a signitory of the non-proliferation treaty and as a part of that they are not only allowed to have nuclear power but they are supposed to get help in building it. Now, because of Rice and Bush ranting on about how they should have to keep to the treaty and ALSO not be allowed to have nuclear power, the Iranians are rightly asking what the hell the point of that treaty is.
Once again, the problem American foreign policy is currently addressing in Iran is one created by American foreign policy.
Even after their religious figures there say that it is their God given right to have them and use them
And the difference with America is what exactly?
Yet again the question of Pakistan comes up: if it's okay for them to have nukes under a military dictatorship, why is a (dubious) democracy like Iran denied them? The simple answer is that the US wants to run the world and has simply decided that Iran is not to have either nucear power or nuclear weapons, which is in breach of their own treaty obligations. I know treaty obligations are meaningless to America and always have been, but I think it's still worth pointing out that the only illegal action occuring in the Iran-nuke context is by America.
Slashdot Mirror
Only turn on the GC when the inventory screen is up or during a cut scene.
TWW
Likewise, once anyone has invented using programs over a network, then simply patenting the use of an individual program should no longer be valid as it has become an obvious extension of the prior art.
The US patent system should just be scrapped now; it is actually worse than nothing.
TWW
I see that regularly on OSX too. Quark and Indesign seem to be the best combination if you want to see it too.
Why would I want options in a menu available that aren't appropriate for what is being clicked on?
Well, you wouldn't. But the inability of Windows programmers to make things context sensitive doesn't undermine the idea of having common options on the mouse, where you already have your hand in all likelyhood.
just hit F10 to see all open windows for the application you're currently in, and hit F9 if you want to see and choose from all open windows.
Didn't know that one, thanks.
Who drags disks to the trash anymore?
Lots of people who, like me, used OS from the days of the original Mac. You're right though, it's a bad habit.
Which is not intuitive. How is the user supposed to guess that the trash will turn... Actually, just fuck off, you moron.
I perhaps should have pointed out that I don't own the Macs I have to use at work from time to time, so I'd really like to see these things sorted out as factory-settings. I know I can add a mouse, but that's not a solution unless I start carrying one around.
This latter feeds into the confusing/hard to use issue. Modern screens are big and its a pain to have to go up to the top all the time to get at things which should be hung off the individual windows or be available via a right-click context menu. One mouse button was never enough and it's less so today.
I find the file dialog completely baffling at times with its odd multi-panel display which seems to achieve nothing other than to restrict the space for display of the actual folder I'm examining.
The file layout in OSX is a mess with some old Mac system folders and some new Unix-style system folders.
The dock gets overcrowded since every app is bunged into it; at home I use the virtual desktops to divide up the dock too and make things a lot clearer.
And don't get me started on the ancient bugbear of dragging a disc to the bin to eject it. Every time I have to do that I feel a tinge of fear that the intuative action - wiping the disc - is going to occur. Not such a big deal with CD/DVD but the big external drive gives me chills.
I could probably list a bunch of other things if I had one of them in front of me now.
TWW
Dickhead.
I have to stop you there, I'm afraid. The current Mac UI does not work well, in fact it sucks. I have to use it for work occasionally and it's ugly, slow, unfeatured and totally confusing most of the time.
The Mac was once a joy to use; those days are long gone.
This is of course highly subjective, but I do get tired of the other subjective opinion (Mac UI is great) being thrown about as if it were a law of the universe.
TWW
Oh! So, like, it must be free, yes?
TWW
Concise OED, ninth ed: "Black, n , very dark, having no colour from the absorbtion of all or nearly all incident light". Black is not a colour, it is the absense of colour. Black paint is simply paint which removes all colours equally and (if perfectly black) totally. Black in Photoshop is 0% red, 0% green, 0% blue, in otherwords the absense of colour.
When you assert that God does not exist, you are driving down the road.
When I say "I do not believe that god exists" I am refusing to get into the car. If I say to you that "The Moomins exist" and you reply "I don't believe you", in what way are you making a religious statement?
Your argument is coloured by an assumption that the existance of God(s) is in some way self-evident and therefore you see any different position as a reaction away from that. But it's not, I didn't start where you did so I'm not moving in reaction to that position.
Again, you inject your faith into it and pre-suppose God is a fictional character.
No. I presuppose that both are in books. The issue is that one book is as good as another. You are injecting from nowhere the axiom that the Bible is by definition a special book and "Moominland Midwinter" is not and comparing the two is unreasonable. Why? What is the basis for this?
You are adding faith, I am stating what happens when faith is not applied: one is left with two books, nothing more and nothing less. Both have characters in them. Some are believable and some are not. That's a simple objective observation.
Again: what is the origin of your presupposition that comparing these sets of characters is not valid? What characteristic of the Bible distinguishes it from the Moomin books? Or from the Bhagavad Gita or Lord of the Rings, or - most pertinently - the epic of Gilgamesh? What is there about the Bible that allows you to say that it can not be simply looked at as a text written by someone somewhere that has no intrinsic veracity? There is nothing I can see, which leaves us with the conclusion that it is you who are adding something to the picture, you who is making a faith based statement, not me. I'm just saying this is a book, nothing more.
Look: over there on the horizon: it's the topic! Wave goodbye, everyone!
TWW
I already did. The second one is all one knows at birth; it is the basic state from which one moves, it is not a position one has to move to. The statement that god exists is a position one has to take up, usually when very young and inexperienced. I never did because my parents worked hours that prevented them going to church until I was old enough to think for myself by which time I had seen and read lots of stories and could see that there was no inherent difference between "God exists" and "Aslan exists" or "the Moomins are real, you know."
With no more evidence for the first of these than the last there was no reason to move from the position I had (that every one has) at birth. Not getting into a car for a drive is not a type of journey, and not beleving in a god is not a type of religion.
The key here is that non-existance is not a quality of a deity or anything else just as black is not a colour.
TWW
"God exists."
"Gandalf exists."
These two statements have the same content: a character in a book is claimed to be real. Explain what the difference is and why disagreeing with the first one is an act of religion but not the second one.
TWW
In that case asserting that Gandalf the wizard and Bagpuss are fictional characters is an assertion of reglious faith. If that's how you want to define religious faith then go ahead, but don't think it has anything to do with real life.
TWW
Yes, yes. Sorry and all that. "Muslims don't like jews". There, happy? It's still a sweeping generalisation anyway. I am well aware of the distinction but I think that one small mistake, given that you've written pages without getting anything right, is hardly a hanging offense.
Concerning Iran's nuclear weapons program which you deny exists, here is some further documentation:
Gosh, yes. That is damning isn't it. It's not like the same material exists in every major library and university in the world or anything, is it? In fact, I have seen better material, since those documents mentioned in your link did not even have dimensions marked which are critical to making a bomb. Have you a link from someone in power in Iran who "announced" the intent to make a bomb? You claimed there was such an announcement; where is it?
I think you operate from a "hate the United States first" M.O. and let everything flow from that, including the idea that the U.S. is the ultimate arch-villain in everything, regardless of the facts.
I think you operate from a "my country right or wrong" MO and let everything flow from that, including the idea that the government would never lie and never become corrupt, regardless of the facts.
In fact, even though I had a friend killed by American-backed terrorists back in the 80's, I am aware that of the 300 million or so people who live there, very few are really bad people. But with very few exceptions, the American election system has been a sham for most of the country's history and the actual rulers have all been taken from the aristocracy (some of whom were great leaders like FDR). When your leadership is drawn from a small clique like that there is always the danger that they will become disconnected from the people - the worst case scenario being a monarchy - and that's what's happened now. Rumsfeld is a classic example of this. He has failed so often and so spectacularly that in any sort of meritocracy he might actually be in jail. Because he is operating in a self-supporting circle of people who have no responsibility except to each other, he has stayed in or near power for half his adult life. This is not a disease of America as a whole but of the tiny fraction of people who run it for their own advantage.
That is just a statement of your religious faith. You have a faith that there is no God, and you project it on others.
Not believing in fictional characters is no more a statement of faith than not collectiong stamps is a hobby. Not believing is the basic state all humans are born into, it is belief which represents the movement into a faith-based position.
Certainly someone who commited the crimes that Saddam did could not have had any belief in gods.
In a similar vein, Bush says he's a christian but since he breaks the most funimental tenant of that religion on a daily basis, we can conclude that he is not in fact a christian. I dare say he might think he is, but that's more a measure of how stupid he is.
TWW
True, but I also can't name one that spent so much of their time preaching about democracy while also telling elected governments to not carry out their election promises. The hypocracy is the issue here, and she has it in spades.
They've announced a nuclear bomb building program
Link please.
and the intent to use it in their prime foreign policy goal of exterminating another nation.
Link please. I mean to the nuclear bit; it's hardly a secret that the jews and muslims have been at eachother's throats for 800 years or so. Currently the body count is about 10:1 Palistinians to Israelis. Israel has nukes and had not even signed the NPT, nor will it ever as it holds that it is its god-given right to use those weapons if it wants to.
It is obvious that the intent is to avoid war, and to get Iran to back down from its belligerance.
In fact the US has consistantly demanded the impossible from Iran knowing that by so doing they will be backed into a corner and probably start to fight back, which will give the needed excuse to attack them. As I said before, Iran is entitled to aid with the nuclear programme; it is America who is leading the effort to prevent that treaty obligation being met, and as a result making it impossible for the Iranian government to rein-in their PM. The US's actions could not be better designed to increase support for extremists in Iran for the simple reason that it is designed to increase support for extremists in Iran.
When Russia stepped in and said it would enrich the uranium, thus allowing Iran to have nuclear power without developing technology which could be used to make bombs, the US pushed the issue to the Security Council. The only reason to do that was to harden the Iranian position and probably scupper the deal, which it looks like it has. America does not want a peaceful Iran and is working hard to prevent it.
Why is such a census necessary? Iraq Body Count has stepped up to do the job.
Counting the number of casulties is part of the army's job as it is a fundimental part of assessing the cost and efficency of a military campaign in the modern age. Iraq Body Count is a cash-strapped organisation who can only make estimates within wide margins due to the many layers of security between them and where the action is. It should be no more than an independant check on the military figures, instead it's all there is.
No, you are the one who doesn't give a shit about them. You wanted them to stay under Saddam's rule.
No, I wanted Saddam removed during the first Gulf War. In fact, I didn't want Saddam in charge at all. But America did, and kept him there for decades while he tortured and slaughtered anyone he wanted. I'm glad to see him gone, and I wish they'd pack in this stupid trial and hang the bastard, since the whole world know's he's guilty. But by having no plan for what happened after the war apart from which companies would get which oil fields, the current mess and the thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths were pretty well assured. But no one in the White House cares about that.
I side with the Iraqi people.
No you don't. You side with fools and liars who tell you transparent crap about Iraq. You are an idiot and a gift to dictators everywhere. You know nothing about your own country and still less about the world in general. You confuse words with actions and fiction with fact. You have no critcal ability and a blind faith in people who have absolutely no interest in you or your well-being. If you were five years old and still believed Santa that would be fine, but for an adult you are bordering on the mentally retarded.
Iraq could have been made better, it may yet be better one day. With Saddam gone that is at least a possibility. But another much bigger possibility now is that the current fighting between factions will allow the establis
Because the war in Iraq has allowed "al-Qaeda" to become active in a country where they were (according to the US government's own 9/11 report) not welcome before the war.
Also: how do you join al-Qaeda? You say (possibly to yourself) "I'm in al-Qaeda"; that's the extent to which it exists as an organisation; there is or was a core around OBL, but the vast majority of the people using the term now will have never seen him, nor have even the most remote connection with him. It's a bit like someone in America calling their group "Defenders of the Alamo"; there's no reason to think they'll have certificates from Davy Crockett.
TWW
"Podcast" = recording.
"Subscription" = paying for new recordings.
"Podcasting goes pay-to-play" = buying newly released audio recordings with money. Haven't we been doing that in music shops for decades?
Is this news just because the word "podcast" sounds more exciting than "a recording"?
TWW
The answer to both questions is: because they don't have any power. They can vote until the cows come home but the contracts which have been signed and are in place today say that most of Iraq's oil production belongs to America in perpetuity. In other words, if the Iraqi's want their oil back to sell as they see fit on the world markets they'll have to declare war on America. Not going to happen. Not for more than ten minutes, anyway.
So, yeah. Have an election, vote for who you like. Vote for Spongebob Squarepants! Why not? Doesn't mean anything but I suppose it's a good excuse for a party.
TWW
Yeah, yeah. Arabs don't like jews. News at eleven. Israel has actually announced that they'll bomb Iran if they start building basically anything that they don't like the look of. If Cuba said that about America you'd be singing a different song, wouldn'd you, my little warmonger?
Unless you think it is OK for a regime to have nuclear weapons when they have announced their intent to exterminate an entire nation of millions of people.
Well, I suppose America does its killings without the announcements. Does that make it better? I'm not sure.
The US has shown no signs of wanting to rule the world. It has shown every sign of wanting to help solve global problems,
Funny how the problems it wants to solve are always the ones that make money, isn't it? Helicopters flying in to help villagers stuck in the mud? Invoice will be in the post, sir, please pay promptly. World War One, nice little earner; only country to make a profit on it from the sales of arms to its "allies". World War Two against the most overtly evil threat in modern history. Sorry not interested; but we'll sell you some equipment. In the end, made a profit, the only country to do so in both world wars. People being oppressed in Zimbabwe? Sorry, no oil, not interested. People being oppressed in Nigeria, okay... Oh, they're being oppressed by the oil industry. No, sorry can't help you there either. Call us if the locals sieze the oil rigs though and we'll sell you some helicopter gunships.
As before, the US ends up acting in concert and cooperation with a large number of allies.
As before the allies have been told to get on side or find out what the wrath of the US will mean in trade terms.
If that were true, we would not keep all our treaties as we have been doing for decades.
No you haven't.
The US actions in this regard are quite legal
No they aren't. International law is another thing America ignores at its whim.
Do you know who Rice is? Probably not. She never rants. She never even raises her voice. She just tells it like it is.
Yes, she is the ex-director of Chevron oil who has no qualifications for her job but has got there with the help of Dick Chaney, another director of Chevron oil who pulled some strings for his friend. She's the one who preaches about democracy. I suppose someone might have told her what that is, but she's shown no interest in being involved in the process herself. The Iranian election was very poor and far from fair. BUT IT WAS MORE OF AN ELECTION THAN RICE EVER FACED TO BECOME ONE OF THE MOST POWERFUL PEOPLE IN THE WORLD.
The problem of Iranian nuclear aggression is entirely created by the Iranian regime.
What nucelar aggression?! They haven't even got any nukes! They've never said they wanted them, they've never threatened to attack anyone with them if they had them. Rice has made this ALL up! How can you be so stupid? How can a country 10 years away from the capacity to nuke Israel be accused of nuclear aggression? It doesn't make any sense.
The US's actions in Iran has of course made it almost impossible now for the moderates who were trying to move the PM out of office to act. To do so now would be to look as if they were working for a foreign power. Which is exactly what Rice wants. Iran backing down now would screw up any chance of starting a war with them, and that would be a disaster for the rabble of cutpurses that currently make up the American cabinet.
I do have some faith that they can be kicked out before even more people die for nothing; I think American people are pretty decent when they know the facts but the propaganda machine keeps them in the dark. Most don't even seem to know how many Americans have dies in Iraq, they certainly have no idea how many Iraqis because the government refuses to count them. But they can tell us how much oil revenue has been lost due to terrorist attacks in installations. That's because they care about the oil. They don't give a shit about the Iraqis.
TWW
Well, that's the point to a degree. Look at some of the characters in this little play: Rice, director of Chevron, clever but clearly insane; Chaney, director of Chevron, not very bright; Bush, oil family, thick as pig-shit. These are people who have lived in the oil industry all their lives. It is entirely possible that they simply can not imagine, or that they are too pessimistic to imagine, a replacement for oil.
I am entirely happy to entertain the idea that the "invade for the oil" theory is both correct and totally misguided at the same time. I would put odds on Bush and Chaney being too stupid to rise above the motivation of simply lining their own pockets, while Rumsfeld and Rice are more power-oriented, but Wolfowitz is definately big on keeping the oil and was been tedious on the subject for coming on a decade; whether he's right or wrong doesn't change whether that's his motivation or not.
TWW
Okay; file this guy under "just plain nuts".
TWW
The CIA hired Saddam to assassinate the previous leader of Iraq, which he failed to do and had to hide out in Egypt while a professional assassin did the job, at which point Saddam was installed by the US as a puppet leader, who they consistantly supported for years before he "went rogue".
retaliating against Saddam Hussein
Retaliating for what, exactly? There are various options but I suspect you don't know what any of the real ones are.
But oops, you later DID lie and say that they were all gone. Despite overwhelming proof and evidence.
Which exists only in your mind. None have ever been found.
The terrorists are learning that if they commit atrocities and aggression, they might end up in one of those prisons.
Unfortunately innocent people, including children, are also learning that if they are the victims of a village argument over sheep or even just wearing the wrong colour trousers when the US sweep through that they can end up in the same prisons, or shipped off in a CIA jet to be tortured in Eastern Europe somewhere.
Rice and Rumsfeld are are an excellent example of the high moral ground.
Rumsfeld is a mythomaniac and Rice is probably the most unpleasant, nasty, hypocritical woman in the world; she's certainly the most dangerous.
Your post consists entirely of unsupported assertions which fly in the face of literally years of contrary evidence. As with so many people who simply don't understand what is going on in America, you take the approach that opponents of the US's actions are supporters of terrorists. We are not (well, I'm not), to many people there simply is no difference between the terrorists and the US. Both are worthy of condemnation. Both kill indiscriminately in pursuit of political goals, and most importantly, both use terror to make people do what they want them to. The terrorists are not good people; Saddam was not a good person, he was a shit and should have been hung at the end of the war. But the people who put him there and supported him while he killed his people are no better. Worse in some ways because they had the power to stop him and choose not to do so because they were happy with Saddam's performance against Iran. They decided that thousands of innocent lives were worth a pathetic political gain in a part of the world they had no business being in in the first place.
TWW
Tony Blair!
TWW
To some degree but the limits on oil sales were limiting their usefulness. Much more importantly, with Saddam in charge there was no guarentee that he would not sell oil to China. It is of note that the majority of oil production in Iraq is now contractually bound to be sold to the US, even if another country were to offer a better price. Wolfowitz has worried for a long time about what happens when China starts to bid big bucks on the oil markets; the American economy might start seeing not just high prices but actual shortages. With world production having started to dip (guess which is the only big oil producer yet to peak? Starts with an I and ends with a war) he lobbied for a good ten years, quite overtly and publicly, that Iraq should have a new government who would secure supplies for the US.
9/11 gave him what he had been asking for. Into Afghanistan, build the oil pipeline there (and withdraw AS SOON as that was finished, leaving the UK to worry about rebuilding the country and handling the opium problem), then into Iraq, install US companies and US contracts there along with US copyright law (the very first laws put in place, really high priority for a humanitarian mission, eh?). Then into Iran to get a bit more oil, and finally Syria to get a route to the sea for easy transport of the oil with an extension of the Afghan pipeline.
The funny thing is how blatant they've been about all this. The evidence is in full view for anyone that looks. They've given speeches saying that this is what they're doing. But all the administration has to do is say "no, that's not true, blah blah blah democracy" and they can continue doing it while people support them.
it will be very hard to get oil out of Iraq in quantity for a very long time.
The important thing is that it'll be there when it's needed. The rest of the world may be facing shortages, but America won't. The plan might not work and might have flaws but it's pretty obvious that is the plan.
TWW
Are they building nukes? Have you any evidence? Has anyone anywhere shown any evidence of this? Iran is a signitory of the non-proliferation treaty and as a part of that they are not only allowed to have nuclear power but they are supposed to get help in building it. Now, because of Rice and Bush ranting on about how they should have to keep to the treaty and ALSO not be allowed to have nuclear power, the Iranians are rightly asking what the hell the point of that treaty is.
Once again, the problem American foreign policy is currently addressing in Iran is one created by American foreign policy.
Even after their religious figures there say that it is their God given right to have them and use them
And the difference with America is what exactly?
Yet again the question of Pakistan comes up: if it's okay for them to have nukes under a military dictatorship, why is a (dubious) democracy like Iran denied them? The simple answer is that the US wants to run the world and has simply decided that Iran is not to have either nucear power or nuclear weapons, which is in breach of their own treaty obligations. I know treaty obligations are meaningless to America and always have been, but I think it's still worth pointing out that the only illegal action occuring in the Iran-nuke context is by America.
TWW