The U.S. is going to spend upwards of $75 Billion dollars on the war alone, with who knows how many more Billions rebuilding Iraq, and when all is said and done we probably won't even get a thank you card. Even if half of the aid was in loans it would still be a good deal. This is especially true considering that the loans are likely to be given at ridiculously low rates. Loans at below market rates is still basically free money. Study up on the time value of money if you don't belive me. Sure there will be strings attached to some of the money (for example, we will get to pick the cell phone system), but if you honestly think that the U.S. is doing this for the money then you are insane. Iraq doesn't have money, and they are going to need their oil to pay for food. You can't squeeze blood from a stone.
Of course the U.S. is going to try and make sure that as much of the money that we spend will end up back in the coffers of U.S. businesses, but that doesn't mean that the U.S. taxpayer still isn't footing a huge bill. When I buy a Big Mac my dollars stay in the United States as well, but that doesn't mean I get to spend them again. The U.S. is giving away free stuff, and we get criticized because we give away our own stuff instead of buying it from our neighbors.
It just goes to show that the U.S. can't do anything without being criticized.
OK, the Iraqi people can choose whatever phone system that they want. The one that we are going to actually pay for, however, is a CDMA system. If the Iraqis want to save their pennies until they can buy their own phone system, then they are free to do so. No one is going to force them at gunpoint to use the system that the U.S. is going to install.
Jeez Louise! Those dirty Americans are such bastards. They sure know how to rub it into a people by giving away phone systems. Something should be done.
If Europe wants to pay for the system so that they can use European technology, then I am sure that something can be arranged. You said it so yourself, "autonomy is the keystone of responsible self-government." If I am paying for the system with my money, then I want a say in how that money is spent. If the Iraquis have a problem with that, then they can build their own cell phone infrastructure.
Exactly, I am sick and tired of hearing how broadband is only $20. Cable broadband is $20 if you already get cable television, if you don't it is considerably more expensive.
I agree that the U.S.'s pragmatic mix of Jefferson's ideals and Hamilton's pragmatism has worked out fairly well.
As for the imminent collapse of the dollar, well I suppose that you can believe what you want. Personally I don't think that I would be comfortable betting against the U.S. economy. Europe, as a whole does not share quite enough of Hamilton's pragmatism to truly be competitive with the U.S. in this regard. and European Bankers aren't likely to be swayed by patriotism on this point. American markets, and American currency are very likely to dominate for some time to come.
As for the threat of terrorism, well we'll have to see how that works out. While U.S. actions have certainly riled up the Arab world, they have also sent a fairly clear message to the leaders of the Arab nations. Regimes that are linked with terrorist activity become enemies of the most fearsome war machine in the history of the world. The point is to make it clear that if the leaders in these countries don't police their people then the U.S. will.
Not only that, it's a message board in which each participant is required to respond to a random post from one of the other members of the rotissirie.
In short, it is not a place for having discussions, but rather a place for forcing people into disjointed discussions with whatever oddball gets stuck with your post.
On the other hand, it would appear that their is currently a fairly high signal to noise ratio. The threads are all disjointed, but the posts are quite intelligent all the same.
Well, Mr. Glassheart, you need to be a diplomat. You'd be good at it.
Once again I agree with nearly all of your points. In particular I think that you are correct that the U.S. should be more careful picking their allies. Now that the USSR isn't actively trying to push governments toward communism this is quite a bit easier than it used to be. It's much easier to be a benevolent super power when you aren't playing chess with the Russians for world domination. Sometimes this caused for some very strange bedfellows.
The real problem with splitting up Israel is that A) it's a small country and B) both sides want the same bits. Not to mention the fact that Israel doesn't want a Palestine that is capable of defending itself, and neither would you and I if we were in their shoes. The kind of hate that has built up in the Palestinian community is not going to disappear if the Palestinians get their country. The average Achmed on the street might be happy with half the country (and the poorer half at that), but the fundamentalists are going to want the whole thing. The real danger is that if the Israelis gave enough of the country to the Palestinians so that they would be able to defend themselves that they would still be faced with terrorist attacks, but would be unable to retalliate like they do now.
You used Germany as an example of how neighbors with long histories can learn to get along, but the reason that the Germans are so friendly now is because they got the @#$!! kicked out of them in two back to back wars. Great Britain and the rest of the world essentially kicked Germany in the head until they learned to stop looking over their neighbor's fence and start getting along.
On the other hand I agree completely with your assessment that the Israelis need to be more careful when capturing terrorists. Gunships are not the right tool for the job.
I personally think that the real solution in Israel is the sort of integration that happened in the United States after the Civil War. The Palestinians need to be shown the benefits of working with the Israelis for the better of both communities. In short both groups need to give up their racism and hatred and learn to act like civilized folks.
No, I don't hold out much hope that this is going to happen, but I think that it is at least as likely as Israel and Palestine agreeing on how to split up the country and then getting along peacefully. The fact of the matter is that Arafat blew his chances at the best deal that the Palestinians are likely to get.
Actually, TightVNC is the exact same idea with slightly different software. Instead of putting a PC on every desk. You put a thin client (perhaps running the TightVNC client) on everyone's desk. You then purchase servers to run everyone's applications on.
This has been a very interesting conversation. I appreciate your answers. You have certainly helped in the ongoing formation of my own opinion. In fact, I find myself swayed by your arguments. The key is to somehow get the Arab world to the point where the terrorists can't rely on the average Arab in the street to support their cause.
I just don't see how it is that we get from here to there.
We certainly can't do what we did in Somalia. My guess is that most of the nations of the Arab world would turn down our aid if it came with a contingent of marines:).
Terrorism is not really distinct from open warfare. I think that if a population is willing to harbor terrorists then they make themselves legitimate targets for war. Part of the problem with Palestine is that the Palestinians have been able to get away with terrorism largely without consquences. As you noted in your post the Japanese civilians definitely paid part of the price of their country's acts of aggression. I don't see how the Palestinian people are any different. Clearly the Palestinians show as much support for the terrorist organizations as the Japanese showed to their Emperor or the Germans showed to Hitler. I don't think that anyone really finds it surprising that Israel is starting to react more strongly to terrorist attacks from the Palestinians. They realize that they are essentially at war with Palestine. In fact, if it wasn't for the fact that Israel does not want to lose U.S. support I think that the Israelis would have already "solved" the Palestinian problem. The U.S. doesn't get any credit in the Arab world for this, but it is true all the same.
Both of us would agree that we aren't going to change the minds of the fundamentalists. Dealing with these people will require police action and war. I also agree with you that in the long term we need to work towards winning the average Arab on the street to our side. In this struggle Palestine will clearly be an important issue. For one reason or another the Arab world seems to take the existence of a Jewish nation in the Middle East as a serious affront. This is true even in Muslim countries that aren't a part of the middle east. Essentially it is racism. What's particularly interesting is that before the Jews came into the picture the other Arabs were happy to slaughter proto-Palestinians. In short, it's not so much that the Arab world is pro-Palestinian as they are anti-Israeli.
The real question, therefore, is what should the U.S. do about Israel once the war in Iraq is over? Honestly, I am pessimistic on this front. I feel that for better or worse the Palestinian people back Arafat as their leader, and Arafat is clearly not interested in peace. Not only would peace be a threat to his life, but it would also make him largely redundant as a player on the world stage.
The U.S. could threaten to withdraw our support of Israel, I suppose. But I am uncomfortable with the idea of throwing the Jews in Israel to the wolves, so to speak. Besides, last time the Arab nations attacked Israel, Israel fed them their lunches. Israel could very well see the end of U.S. support as a reason to push the Palestinians out of their country once and for all. If they lost U.S. support they would have very little to lose with such an action.
So what would you have the U.S. do to clear up this issue? What is the answer? The question is what should be done, and who should do it? The reason that you cast the blame originally on the U.S. and the U.N. is because it is clear that the U.K. and the League of Nations is not likely to undo what they did nearly 100 years ago. Quite frankly, I don't see the U.S. going to war against Israel either. Especially considering that the Israelis were already willing to give up territory for a Palestinian homeland. I for one would not be willing to go to war against a country that has been a staunch U.S. ally for so many years (even if they have bee a liability to our for
If we lowered oil consumption enough, then maybe we could do without OPEC oil. That would certainly help out with our problems in the Middle East. Personally, I think that there is enough market pressure pushing us in this direction that further legislation is not necessary. After all, the company that comes up with a cost-effective power source that doesn't involve the Middle East is going to make a fat pile of money.
The reason that the anti-environmentalists bring up global warming, is it is easily the environmentalists weakest argument for reduced oil consumption. Unfortunately, it is also the one that the environmentalists trumpet the loudest.
I am an environmentalist (as opposed to an Environmentalist), and every time I hear an Environmentalist say the words "Global Warming" I cringe, because I know it is hurting their cause. Blaming the anti-environmentalists for this is a cop-out. You and I both know that there is a large group of Environmentalists that feed off of the frenzy that "global warming" has created. Heck, the whole Kyoto treaty is based around the idea that global warming is a serious threat.
Good catch. I agree with you. We should certainly be careful about our carbon dioxide emissions, but it's a little premature to be prophesying the end of the world.
According to Accu-Weather, the world's leading commercial forecaster, "Global air temperatures as measured by land-based weather stations show an increase of about 0.45 degrees Celsius over the past century. This may be no more than normal climatic variation...[and] several biases in the data may be responsible for some of this increase."
Satellite data indicate a slight cooling in the climate in the last 18 years. These satellites use advanced technology and are not subject to the "heat island" effect around major cities that alters ground-based thermometers.
Projections of future climate changes are uncertain. Although some computer models predict warming in the next century, these models are very limited. The effects of cloud formations, precipitation, the role of the oceans, or the sun, are still not well known and often inadequately represented in the climate models --- although all play a major role in determining our climate. Scientists who work on these models are quick to point out that they are far from perfect representations of reality, and are probably not advanced enough for direct use in policy implementation. Interestingly, as the computer climate models have become more sophisticated in recent years, the predicted increase in temperature has been lowered.
Are humans causing the climate to change?
98% of total global greenhouse gas emissions are natural (mostly water vapor); only 2% are from man-made sources.
By most accounts, man-made emissions have had no more than a minuscule impact on the climate. Although the climate has warmed slightly in the last 100 years, 70% percent of that warming occurred prior to 1940, before the upsurge in greenhouse gas emissions from industrial processes. (Dr. Robert C. Balling, Arizona State University)
In short, global warming could be happening, and it is possible that man even plays a part in global warming. However, there are certainly less controversial reasons to cut back on our oil consumption. Narrowing the argument to global warming simply hurts the cause of environmentalists.
OK, that's a great deal more reasonable. Sensationalism and science simply do not mix. Heck, there are plenty of scientists that say we are due for an ice age, that doesn't mean I should rush out and buy a space heater. Anyone interested in the subject will quickly find out that there is a great deal of difference of opinion, a fat pile of assumptions, and a lot of handwaving. I am not saying that there isn't a risk, just that this is definitely an area that needs to be studied more before we all fly off the handle.
I agree that we should work on cutting down on our consumption of oil. I just don't think that global warming should be the primary focus of the effort to do so. "Global warming" is far and away the most tenuous reason to stop burning fossil fuels, and yet it gets the most attention.
Exactly, pollution is a perfectly good reason to decrease our oil consumption, with absolutely no guesswork involved. We simply don't know enough about global weather patterns to say that global warming is a threat or not. There are too many variables, and too many assumptions need to be made.
However, only an idiot would argue that burning less oil wouldn't cut down on the smog.
For me as a scientist is doesn't matter on what grounds people start decreasing their oil consumption, as long as they do.
Did you read what you just wrote? You have a hypothesis, but the evidence is far from conclusive, and yet you want the entire world to change the way they live on faith in your word. All I can say to that is that isn't science, that's religion.
Joe Schmoe can understand smog (especially if he lives in the city). Joe Schmoe can understand acid rain, and Joe Schmoe can understand reducing our need for foreign oil. Joe Schmoe can certainly understand saving money. In fact, all of these concepts are easier to understand than "global warming."
Heck, if you are going to make up stories you might as well tell good ones. For example, why not simply come out and say that, "It is harder for an SUV owner to get into Heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle."
Science my ass. The second you start making up crap just because of your beliefs you aren't a scientist, you are a charlatan in a white lab coat. Science is about facts, not about fabricating stories so that people will do what you want them to do.
The temperature of the earth fluctuated long before there were SUVs. That's all we are trying to say.
There are plenty of good reasons to limit oil consumption. The only reason to throw in a fantastical "what-if" scenario that involves the destruction of the world is that sensationalism sells.
Well said. No one would argue that doing more with less is a bad thing. There are plenty of good reasons to limit oil consumption, primary of which is that we would save money:). The environmentalists concentrate on global warming for the same reason that the Weekly World News concentrates on the "Three Headed Child of Satan Born in Singapore." Sensationalism sells.
There are plenty of good reasons to cut down on oil consumption. Heck, cutting down on oil consumption would even *gasp* save money, which is always a good thing. Decreased oil consumption would certainly help out with our problems in the Middle East. Not to mention that limiting oil consumption would decrease other harmful side effects such as smog and acid rain. In short, using less oil is clearly in the U.S.'s best interests. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize that.
That being the case, why the environmentalists put so much emphasis on global warming is beyond me. The science behind global warming is iffy at best. Even the scientists with the most dire predictions (and the biggest axes to grind) are quick to point out that they are making a lot of assumptions. Instead of focusing on the many clearly measurable reasons to limit our use of oil the environmentalists have jumped straight for the doomsday scenario. In my opinion this loses their movement a great deal of credibility. Instead of focusing on the science, the have jumped headfirst into the sensational. In many ways they are just short of the homeless guy with the "The End is Near!" sign around his neck. Until they have better evidence they should stick to the arguments that clearly can't be refuted.
This article is a good example of how difficult it is to predict global weather trends. There are simply too many variables and not enough information. It's entirely possible that the earth is getting warmer because *boggle* the sun is burning hotter. Does this mean we shouldn't cut down on our use of oil? Of course not. We should just stop focusing on global warming as the primary reason to limiting oil production.
First of all, let me thank you for having a polite discussion. For the most part I agree with you, but there are a few comments that I would like to make.
The problem is that a lot of those billions are pocketed by local leaders who at least nominally support the US.
That is precisely the problem. When the U.S. gives aid they are pretty much forced to do so through the existing government. One of the primary reasons that third-world countries stay poor is due to government corruption. Funneling aid through these corrupt governments doesn't work very well at all. Even worse is when the U.S. tries to circumvent the government and give aid to opposition parties. Then we get accused, and rightly so, of meddling and fomenting rebellion. Unfortunately, the alternative is isolationism, and in many ways that is even worse. I agree that it is cynical, but if a country is going to have a corrupt government I would just as soon that the government was allied with the U.S. as with Russia or China.
Sometimes this sort of meddling even works out for the best. The U.S. owes its very existence to French meddling in our war for independence from Great Britain.
This ties in closely with my point about the negative anti-U.S. propaganda that is often spread in third-world countries the world over. My point was that there are people who will say bad things about the U.S. no matter what we do. Sure, there are plenty of things that the U.S. has done that in hindsight have turned out to be pretty bad, but even if we didn't do anything we would still have detractors. People are going to hate the U.S. no matter what we do. We are simply too big a target. Quite frankly these people are entitled to their opinion. Their opinions certainly more basis in fact than the opinions of the idiots in the KKK, and we certainly allow the KKK to speak their minds.
However, hating the United States and driving planes into our buildings are clearly two separate things. I expect countries, no matter what their personal beliefs, to help us stop terrorists. I can understand if a country disagrees with the U.S. politically. Harboring terrorists, on the other hand, is an act of war.
The one other minor point that I would like to make is that it wasn't the UN/US that started the Jewish migration to Palestine. It was Great Britain and the League of Nations in 1917. The US had very little to do with the problem until the only alternative to helping Israel was to let the Arabs "drive them into the sea." The British tried to do something about the problem, and found themselves faced with Israeli terrorism.
It's funny how things tend to go full circle.
Now, I suppose it is possible that the UN could force the Israelis to give the Palestinians what they want. Heck, we could probably even help the Palestinians destroy Israel entirely. Do you honestly think that this would cause the Muslim fundamentalists to start liking the US? Of course not, we would still be the "Yankee Devils." The only difference would be that we would have lost a valuable ally in the Middle East.
I am not saying that the US should act poorly because we have no chance of being understood. I am simply saying that appeasement is not a viable option. Countries around the world must realize that the United States will not allow them to harbor and support terrorists.
Thomas Jefferson's "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" was essentially a direct rip off of Locke's "Life, Liberty, and Property." That sounds suspiciously similar to the freedoms that I enjoy today. In many ways the United States of America is a better country than the one Jefferson, a rich white slaveowner, envisioned, and only a fool (or a racist) would propose otherwise. The fact of the matter is that America's representative democracy works quite well. I've lived all over the world, and I have yet to find a system that I feel is substantially better (and there are plenty that are much worse).
If you truly feel that politics are all about "moneyed interests" I would advise you to get involved in a few local political races. I think that it would open your eyes to how much influence you actually have. Many local races are one and lost over a handful of votes, and it really is quite easy to "make a difference." You would probably also be surprised at how much power and influence is wielded at the local level. Even on the national level you have as much say as anyone. Yes, money is an important ingredient in any election, but when push comes to shove they don't count the money raised, but the votes in the ballot box.
If you truly feel disenfranchised perhaps you should take a look at why this is so? Part of the fun of living in a representative democracy is that every idiot in the country has just as much of a say as you do. If you expouse beliefs that are extremely unpopular then your voice isn't likely to get heard. In essence, you have the right to say anything you want--as long as it doesn't effect anyone else's rights, of course--but you don't have the power to make us listen to you.
Is it just me or is it a little bit cheeky that David W has a say in this at all. It's not like A) he is hacking Xfree anymore, or even using UNIX for that matter. He's been using Windows since Myst came out, for crying out loud. I read the emails, and when you have folks like Keith, Alan, Owen, and Havoc complaining about how XFree is run then isn't it likely that something is actually wrong?
If my Commander in Chief was Saddam Hussein then I should turn my gun on him. The American Patriots turned their guns on the British Empire for freedom, is the idea of an Iraqi freedom-fighter such a far fetched idea?
I think that freedom is worth fighting for no matter what the circumstances, is that so hard to believe?
People around the globe will be mad at us no matter what we do. Why is that? It's simple, their local leaders use the good old U. S. of A. as a scapegoat for their every problem. Never mind that most of the problems are actually caused by the leaders themselves, it's the "Yankee Devils" that get the blame. We're rich because they are poor, we are happy because they are sad, etc. etc...
I have lived in enough third world nations to see it time and time again. As long as there are dictators that are screwing their people over there will be propaganda that blames the people's problems on the United States. We haven't done anything to the Saudis (or to Muslims in general) and yet they still hate us. Heck, we could probably help them wipe the country of Israel off the map, and they would still hate us.
The people running these terrorist organizations have obtained their power by painting us as devils, do you honestly think that they will leave us in peace no matter what we do? Do you honestly think that they would give up their power just because we were friendly? Of course not. No, they will make up new excuses to hate us just like Arafat turned down peace even when the Israelis gave him nearly everything he had supposedly been asking for.
Worrying about these people's feeling is nothing short of a colossal waste of time.
That being the case, the time to take out an enemy is before he/she can successfully retaliate. That's the problem we currently have with North Korea. NK can retaliate successfully against Seoul right this moment. Would you rather wait to remove Saddam until after he had weapons of mass destruction that he could sell to terrorists?
Besides which, I think that the freedom of the Iraqi people has to count for something. Just because they aren't Americans doesn't mean they should be free. I am a big enough realist to know that we wouldn't be doing anything for their freedom if it wasn't for the fact that Saddam poses a serious threat to our safety, but it's a positive thing nonetheless.
If you have the money to spend, didn't need the superior performance of a CRT, and space, electricity use, and heat were an issue then I could understand why someone would purchase an LCD. However, most of the people that I know that have purchased LCDs did so because they thought the looked cool.
Slashdot Mirror
The U.S. is going to spend upwards of $75 Billion dollars on the war alone, with who knows how many more Billions rebuilding Iraq, and when all is said and done we probably won't even get a thank you card. Even if half of the aid was in loans it would still be a good deal. This is especially true considering that the loans are likely to be given at ridiculously low rates. Loans at below market rates is still basically free money. Study up on the time value of money if you don't belive me. Sure there will be strings attached to some of the money (for example, we will get to pick the cell phone system), but if you honestly think that the U.S. is doing this for the money then you are insane. Iraq doesn't have money, and they are going to need their oil to pay for food. You can't squeeze blood from a stone.
Of course the U.S. is going to try and make sure that as much of the money that we spend will end up back in the coffers of U.S. businesses, but that doesn't mean that the U.S. taxpayer still isn't footing a huge bill. When I buy a Big Mac my dollars stay in the United States as well, but that doesn't mean I get to spend them again. The U.S. is giving away free stuff, and we get criticized because we give away our own stuff instead of buying it from our neighbors.
It just goes to show that the U.S. can't do anything without being criticized.
OK, the Iraqi people can choose whatever phone system that they want. The one that we are going to actually pay for, however, is a CDMA system. If the Iraqis want to save their pennies until they can buy their own phone system, then they are free to do so. No one is going to force them at gunpoint to use the system that the U.S. is going to install.
Jeez Louise! Those dirty Americans are such bastards. They sure know how to rub it into a people by giving away phone systems. Something should be done.
If Europe wants to pay for the system so that they can use European technology, then I am sure that something can be arranged. You said it so yourself, "autonomy is the keystone of responsible self-government." If I am paying for the system with my money, then I want a say in how that money is spent. If the Iraquis have a problem with that, then they can build their own cell phone infrastructure.
Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth.
You are kidding, right? The FSF has more "brand recognition" than many companies 20 times their size. In the software world who hasn't heard of RMS?
Yes, they have some cheesy logos. On the other hand, Disney's mascot is a rat, your point?
Exactly, I am sick and tired of hearing how broadband is only $20. Cable broadband is $20 if you already get cable television, if you don't it is considerably more expensive.
I agree that the U.S.'s pragmatic mix of Jefferson's ideals and Hamilton's pragmatism has worked out fairly well.
As for the imminent collapse of the dollar, well I suppose that you can believe what you want. Personally I don't think that I would be comfortable betting against the U.S. economy. Europe, as a whole does not share quite enough of Hamilton's pragmatism to truly be competitive with the U.S. in this regard. and European Bankers aren't likely to be swayed by patriotism on this point. American markets, and American currency are very likely to dominate for some time to come.
As for the threat of terrorism, well we'll have to see how that works out. While U.S. actions have certainly riled up the Arab world, they have also sent a fairly clear message to the leaders of the Arab nations. Regimes that are linked with terrorist activity become enemies of the most fearsome war machine in the history of the world. The point is to make it clear that if the leaders in these countries don't police their people then the U.S. will.
Not only that, it's a message board in which each participant is required to respond to a random post from one of the other members of the rotissirie.
In short, it is not a place for having discussions, but rather a place for forcing people into disjointed discussions with whatever oddball gets stuck with your post.
On the other hand, it would appear that their is currently a fairly high signal to noise ratio. The threads are all disjointed, but the posts are quite intelligent all the same.
Well, Mr. Glassheart, you need to be a diplomat. You'd be good at it.
Once again I agree with nearly all of your points. In particular I think that you are correct that the U.S. should be more careful picking their allies. Now that the USSR isn't actively trying to push governments toward communism this is quite a bit easier than it used to be. It's much easier to be a benevolent super power when you aren't playing chess with the Russians for world domination. Sometimes this caused for some very strange bedfellows.
The real problem with splitting up Israel is that A) it's a small country and B) both sides want the same bits. Not to mention the fact that Israel doesn't want a Palestine that is capable of defending itself, and neither would you and I if we were in their shoes. The kind of hate that has built up in the Palestinian community is not going to disappear if the Palestinians get their country. The average Achmed on the street might be happy with half the country (and the poorer half at that), but the fundamentalists are going to want the whole thing. The real danger is that if the Israelis gave enough of the country to the Palestinians so that they would be able to defend themselves that they would still be faced with terrorist attacks, but would be unable to retalliate like they do now.
You used Germany as an example of how neighbors with long histories can learn to get along, but the reason that the Germans are so friendly now is because they got the @#$!! kicked out of them in two back to back wars. Great Britain and the rest of the world essentially kicked Germany in the head until they learned to stop looking over their neighbor's fence and start getting along.
On the other hand I agree completely with your assessment that the Israelis need to be more careful when capturing terrorists. Gunships are not the right tool for the job.
I personally think that the real solution in Israel is the sort of integration that happened in the United States after the Civil War. The Palestinians need to be shown the benefits of working with the Israelis for the better of both communities. In short both groups need to give up their racism and hatred and learn to act like civilized folks.
No, I don't hold out much hope that this is going to happen, but I think that it is at least as likely as Israel and Palestine agreeing on how to split up the country and then getting along peacefully. The fact of the matter is that Arafat blew his chances at the best deal that the Palestinians are likely to get.
Actually, TightVNC is the exact same idea with slightly different software. Instead of putting a PC on every desk. You put a thin client (perhaps running the TightVNC client) on everyone's desk. You then purchase servers to run everyone's applications on.
This has been a very interesting conversation. I appreciate your answers. You have certainly helped in the ongoing formation of my own opinion. In fact, I find myself swayed by your arguments. The key is to somehow get the Arab world to the point where the terrorists can't rely on the average Arab in the street to support their cause.
I just don't see how it is that we get from here to there.
We certainly can't do what we did in Somalia. My guess is that most of the nations of the Arab world would turn down our aid if it came with a contingent of marines :).
Terrorism is not really distinct from open warfare. I think that if a population is willing to harbor terrorists then they make themselves legitimate targets for war. Part of the problem with Palestine is that the Palestinians have been able to get away with terrorism largely without consquences. As you noted in your post the Japanese civilians definitely paid part of the price of their country's acts of aggression. I don't see how the Palestinian people are any different. Clearly the Palestinians show as much support for the terrorist organizations as the Japanese showed to their Emperor or the Germans showed to Hitler. I don't think that anyone really finds it surprising that Israel is starting to react more strongly to terrorist attacks from the Palestinians. They realize that they are essentially at war with Palestine. In fact, if it wasn't for the fact that Israel does not want to lose U.S. support I think that the Israelis would have already "solved" the Palestinian problem. The U.S. doesn't get any credit in the Arab world for this, but it is true all the same.
Both of us would agree that we aren't going to change the minds of the fundamentalists. Dealing with these people will require police action and war. I also agree with you that in the long term we need to work towards winning the average Arab on the street to our side. In this struggle Palestine will clearly be an important issue. For one reason or another the Arab world seems to take the existence of a Jewish nation in the Middle East as a serious affront. This is true even in Muslim countries that aren't a part of the middle east. Essentially it is racism. What's particularly interesting is that before the Jews came into the picture the other Arabs were happy to slaughter proto-Palestinians. In short, it's not so much that the Arab world is pro-Palestinian as they are anti-Israeli.
The real question, therefore, is what should the U.S. do about Israel once the war in Iraq is over? Honestly, I am pessimistic on this front. I feel that for better or worse the Palestinian people back Arafat as their leader, and Arafat is clearly not interested in peace. Not only would peace be a threat to his life, but it would also make him largely redundant as a player on the world stage.
The U.S. could threaten to withdraw our support of Israel, I suppose. But I am uncomfortable with the idea of throwing the Jews in Israel to the wolves, so to speak. Besides, last time the Arab nations attacked Israel, Israel fed them their lunches. Israel could very well see the end of U.S. support as a reason to push the Palestinians out of their country once and for all. If they lost U.S. support they would have very little to lose with such an action.
So what would you have the U.S. do to clear up this issue? What is the answer? The question is what should be done, and who should do it? The reason that you cast the blame originally on the U.S. and the U.N. is because it is clear that the U.K. and the League of Nations is not likely to undo what they did nearly 100 years ago. Quite frankly, I don't see the U.S. going to war against Israel either. Especially considering that the Israelis were already willing to give up territory for a Palestinian homeland. I for one would not be willing to go to war against a country that has been a staunch U.S. ally for so many years (even if they have bee a liability to our for
If we lowered oil consumption enough, then maybe we could do without OPEC oil. That would certainly help out with our problems in the Middle East. Personally, I think that there is enough market pressure pushing us in this direction that further legislation is not necessary. After all, the company that comes up with a cost-effective power source that doesn't involve the Middle East is going to make a fat pile of money.
The reason that the anti-environmentalists bring up global warming, is it is easily the environmentalists weakest argument for reduced oil consumption. Unfortunately, it is also the one that the environmentalists trumpet the loudest.
I am an environmentalist (as opposed to an Environmentalist), and every time I hear an Environmentalist say the words "Global Warming" I cringe, because I know it is hurting their cause. Blaming the anti-environmentalists for this is a cop-out. You and I both know that there is a large group of Environmentalists that feed off of the frenzy that "global warming" has created. Heck, the whole Kyoto treaty is based around the idea that global warming is a serious threat.
Good catch. I agree with you. We should certainly be careful about our carbon dioxide emissions, but it's a little premature to be prophesying the end of the world.
Source
In short, global warming could be happening, and it is possible that man even plays a part in global warming. However, there are certainly less controversial reasons to cut back on our oil consumption. Narrowing the argument to global warming simply hurts the cause of environmentalists.
OK, that's a great deal more reasonable. Sensationalism and science simply do not mix. Heck, there are plenty of scientists that say we are due for an ice age, that doesn't mean I should rush out and buy a space heater. Anyone interested in the subject will quickly find out that there is a great deal of difference of opinion, a fat pile of assumptions, and a lot of handwaving. I am not saying that there isn't a risk, just that this is definitely an area that needs to be studied more before we all fly off the handle.
I agree that we should work on cutting down on our consumption of oil. I just don't think that global warming should be the primary focus of the effort to do so. "Global warming" is far and away the most tenuous reason to stop burning fossil fuels, and yet it gets the most attention.
Exactly, pollution is a perfectly good reason to decrease our oil consumption, with absolutely no guesswork involved. We simply don't know enough about global weather patterns to say that global warming is a threat or not. There are too many variables, and too many assumptions need to be made.
However, only an idiot would argue that burning less oil wouldn't cut down on the smog.
Did you read what you just wrote? You have a hypothesis, but the evidence is far from conclusive, and yet you want the entire world to change the way they live on faith in your word. All I can say to that is that isn't science, that's religion.
Joe Schmoe can understand smog (especially if he lives in the city). Joe Schmoe can understand acid rain, and Joe Schmoe can understand reducing our need for foreign oil. Joe Schmoe can certainly understand saving money. In fact, all of these concepts are easier to understand than "global warming."
Heck, if you are going to make up stories you might as well tell good ones. For example, why not simply come out and say that, "It is harder for an SUV owner to get into Heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle."
Science my ass. The second you start making up crap just because of your beliefs you aren't a scientist, you are a charlatan in a white lab coat. Science is about facts, not about fabricating stories so that people will do what you want them to do.
The temperature of the earth fluctuated long before there were SUVs. That's all we are trying to say.
There are plenty of good reasons to limit oil consumption. The only reason to throw in a fantastical "what-if" scenario that involves the destruction of the world is that sensationalism sells.
Well said. No one would argue that doing more with less is a bad thing. There are plenty of good reasons to limit oil consumption, primary of which is that we would save money :). The environmentalists concentrate on global warming for the same reason that the Weekly World News concentrates on the "Three Headed Child of Satan Born in Singapore." Sensationalism sells.
There are plenty of good reasons to cut down on oil consumption. Heck, cutting down on oil consumption would even *gasp* save money, which is always a good thing. Decreased oil consumption would certainly help out with our problems in the Middle East. Not to mention that limiting oil consumption would decrease other harmful side effects such as smog and acid rain. In short, using less oil is clearly in the U.S.'s best interests. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize that.
That being the case, why the environmentalists put so much emphasis on global warming is beyond me. The science behind global warming is iffy at best. Even the scientists with the most dire predictions (and the biggest axes to grind) are quick to point out that they are making a lot of assumptions. Instead of focusing on the many clearly measurable reasons to limit our use of oil the environmentalists have jumped straight for the doomsday scenario. In my opinion this loses their movement a great deal of credibility. Instead of focusing on the science, the have jumped headfirst into the sensational. In many ways they are just short of the homeless guy with the "The End is Near!" sign around his neck. Until they have better evidence they should stick to the arguments that clearly can't be refuted.
This article is a good example of how difficult it is to predict global weather trends. There are simply too many variables and not enough information. It's entirely possible that the earth is getting warmer because *boggle* the sun is burning hotter. Does this mean we shouldn't cut down on our use of oil? Of course not. We should just stop focusing on global warming as the primary reason to limiting oil production.
First of all, let me thank you for having a polite discussion. For the most part I agree with you, but there are a few comments that I would like to make.
That is precisely the problem. When the U.S. gives aid they are pretty much forced to do so through the existing government. One of the primary reasons that third-world countries stay poor is due to government corruption. Funneling aid through these corrupt governments doesn't work very well at all. Even worse is when the U.S. tries to circumvent the government and give aid to opposition parties. Then we get accused, and rightly so, of meddling and fomenting rebellion. Unfortunately, the alternative is isolationism, and in many ways that is even worse. I agree that it is cynical, but if a country is going to have a corrupt government I would just as soon that the government was allied with the U.S. as with Russia or China.
Sometimes this sort of meddling even works out for the best. The U.S. owes its very existence to French meddling in our war for independence from Great Britain.
This ties in closely with my point about the negative anti-U.S. propaganda that is often spread in third-world countries the world over. My point was that there are people who will say bad things about the U.S. no matter what we do. Sure, there are plenty of things that the U.S. has done that in hindsight have turned out to be pretty bad, but even if we didn't do anything we would still have detractors. People are going to hate the U.S. no matter what we do. We are simply too big a target. Quite frankly these people are entitled to their opinion. Their opinions certainly more basis in fact than the opinions of the idiots in the KKK, and we certainly allow the KKK to speak their minds.
However, hating the United States and driving planes into our buildings are clearly two separate things. I expect countries, no matter what their personal beliefs, to help us stop terrorists. I can understand if a country disagrees with the U.S. politically. Harboring terrorists, on the other hand, is an act of war.
The one other minor point that I would like to make is that it wasn't the UN/US that started the Jewish migration to Palestine. It was Great Britain and the League of Nations in 1917. The US had very little to do with the problem until the only alternative to helping Israel was to let the Arabs "drive them into the sea." The British tried to do something about the problem, and found themselves faced with Israeli terrorism.
It's funny how things tend to go full circle.
Now, I suppose it is possible that the UN could force the Israelis to give the Palestinians what they want. Heck, we could probably even help the Palestinians destroy Israel entirely. Do you honestly think that this would cause the Muslim fundamentalists to start liking the US? Of course not, we would still be the "Yankee Devils." The only difference would be that we would have lost a valuable ally in the Middle East.
I am not saying that the US should act poorly because we have no chance of being understood. I am simply saying that appeasement is not a viable option. Countries around the world must realize that the United States will not allow them to harbor and support terrorists.
Thomas Jefferson's "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" was essentially a direct rip off of Locke's "Life, Liberty, and Property." That sounds suspiciously similar to the freedoms that I enjoy today. In many ways the United States of America is a better country than the one Jefferson, a rich white slaveowner, envisioned, and only a fool (or a racist) would propose otherwise. The fact of the matter is that America's representative democracy works quite well. I've lived all over the world, and I have yet to find a system that I feel is substantially better (and there are plenty that are much worse).
If you truly feel that politics are all about "moneyed interests" I would advise you to get involved in a few local political races. I think that it would open your eyes to how much influence you actually have. Many local races are one and lost over a handful of votes, and it really is quite easy to "make a difference." You would probably also be surprised at how much power and influence is wielded at the local level. Even on the national level you have as much say as anyone. Yes, money is an important ingredient in any election, but when push comes to shove they don't count the money raised, but the votes in the ballot box.
If you truly feel disenfranchised perhaps you should take a look at why this is so? Part of the fun of living in a representative democracy is that every idiot in the country has just as much of a say as you do. If you expouse beliefs that are extremely unpopular then your voice isn't likely to get heard. In essence, you have the right to say anything you want--as long as it doesn't effect anyone else's rights, of course--but you don't have the power to make us listen to you.
Is it just me or is it a little bit cheeky that David W has a say in this at all. It's not like A) he is hacking Xfree anymore, or even using UNIX for that matter. He's been using Windows since Myst came out, for crying out loud. I read the emails, and when you have folks like Keith, Alan, Owen, and Havoc complaining about how XFree is run then isn't it likely that something is actually wrong?
If my Commander in Chief was Saddam Hussein then I should turn my gun on him. The American Patriots turned their guns on the British Empire for freedom, is the idea of an Iraqi freedom-fighter such a far fetched idea?
I think that freedom is worth fighting for no matter what the circumstances, is that so hard to believe?
People around the globe will be mad at us no matter what we do. Why is that? It's simple, their local leaders use the good old U. S. of A. as a scapegoat for their every problem. Never mind that most of the problems are actually caused by the leaders themselves, it's the "Yankee Devils" that get the blame. We're rich because they are poor, we are happy because they are sad, etc. etc...
I have lived in enough third world nations to see it time and time again. As long as there are dictators that are screwing their people over there will be propaganda that blames the people's problems on the United States. We haven't done anything to the Saudis (or to Muslims in general) and yet they still hate us. Heck, we could probably help them wipe the country of Israel off the map, and they would still hate us.
The people running these terrorist organizations have obtained their power by painting us as devils, do you honestly think that they will leave us in peace no matter what we do? Do you honestly think that they would give up their power just because we were friendly? Of course not. No, they will make up new excuses to hate us just like Arafat turned down peace even when the Israelis gave him nearly everything he had supposedly been asking for.
Worrying about these people's feeling is nothing short of a colossal waste of time.
That being the case, the time to take out an enemy is before he/she can successfully retaliate. That's the problem we currently have with North Korea. NK can retaliate successfully against Seoul right this moment. Would you rather wait to remove Saddam until after he had weapons of mass destruction that he could sell to terrorists?
Besides which, I think that the freedom of the Iraqi people has to count for something. Just because they aren't Americans doesn't mean they should be free. I am a big enough realist to know that we wouldn't be doing anything for their freedom if it wasn't for the fact that Saddam poses a serious threat to our safety, but it's a positive thing nonetheless.
If you have the money to spend, didn't need the superior performance of a CRT, and space, electricity use, and heat were an issue then I could understand why someone would purchase an LCD. However, most of the people that I know that have purchased LCDs did so because they thought the looked cool.
Whatever floats your boat.