The US government is under no allusions about Pakistan being an allie to the US in fighting terrorism or any other thing else for that matter. The bulk of their military and civilian aid has been on hold since shortly after the Bin Laden raid. The chance of the aid hold becoming permanent is very high right now. The majority of Americans from every political viewpoint wants an end to US handouts to anyone. Egypt, UN, Palestinian, and Pakistani aid is especially vulnerable. The Israeli aid is the only package that has delivered any benefits to the US. Access to their intelligence agencies plus 90% of their aid is for purchasing weapons from the US which benefits the US economy. The US State department is fighting tooth and nail to keep foreign aid flowing but cannot overrule Congressional directives. Hopefully the PLO will continue trying to join more UN programs that mandate the US cease funding automatically. And the Egyptians have giving the US the perfect political cover to stop paying them as well. Their aid is also already out a hold so we are half way there to eliminating all of it. Who cares about the Egyptians threat of not honoring the peace deal with Israel? Isreal is more than capable of handling Egypt by themselves should the need arise. Even though the amount of foreign aid is minuscule when compared against the entire US budget people have finally realized that the ROI is negligible and only produces complaints so why bother? If private US groups want to fund health or food related aid programs they are certainly entitled to do so but the government should not continue funding these types of programs. The US has it's own health care issues and poverty levels to deal with so that's where the government money should go.
Well if you really want to take it down to the basics all software can be broken down into mathematical operations. The end result of any software related algorithm is the manipulation of 1 and 0 and all the permutations needed to supply a processor with it's instruction set. Operating systems and languages just abstract this fact from those writing software. You could probably get a lot closer to the end result by developing in Assembler but that is hardly the way you would want business application developers to use. Like I mentioned before most software patents are total BS but the next generation of computers will probably incorporate practical quantum principles and advanced neural networks that will make today's generation of computer hardware and software obsolete. Changes in this area will certainly have a better chance of being patented because it would be such a radical change from anything in use today.
I made no claim that only the US was creating new ideas. But the software industry is dominated by US companies. IBM, Oracle, Apple, MS, Sun, Google,and HP just to name a few. I also said most SW patents are BS but every now and then someone does come up with a worthy idea. And writing software is not cheap by any means. Even rudimentary development can be expensive. Companies or individuals that concentrate their efforts in R&D spend a lot of money and they are not guaranteed success. Only if their research successfully creates something new do they see a return on their investments.
"Hmm, and how the fuck do you suppose software companies in countries that don't recognise software patents are still operating? "
They are out of US patent jurisdiction and international company's usually violate patents without the slightest hesitation. China is one of the biggest examples. It also saves a hell of a lot R&D expense when you can use patents that others developed. Most patents today are total BS but someone who develops a new idea should at least be allowed to recoup the expenses they incurred on creating the patented work. Remove this ability and you remove the incentive needed to develop new ideas.
Without patents the SW industry would collapse because their would be no incentive to spend time and money on developing new ideas. The biggest IT companies are not charities. Some big companies offer open source code however they have other primary sources of revenue. For example Google uses advanced systems but it is not an IT company it is a marketing and advertising company that generates enough money to improve their software. The patent system needs an over haul but eliminating all patents would be detrimental to those spending money improve or create new software. Spending millions of dollars to build the next generation of software can be costly and without patents the company can not recoup the expenses.
Security Researches get permission before penetration testing and there is a lot of money to be made in legitimate security work. Just breaching a company computer network is a crime. It does not matter if you steal any information or cause any harm. How about I come over and break into your house when you are not home and leave a note telling you how I did it? I'll try breaking in again a few days later to see if you took measures to keep me out. If I can still break in then I will be justified in taking or destroying anything I want because after all you were warned. The "Anonymous" childish attacks are effectively guaranteeing that draconian laws and sentences get handed down in any case involving breaching any computer system. They justify their attacks for some ephemeral causes but have yet to accomplish anything accept annoy people and provide the politicians with the headlines they need to pass even more restrictive laws on the use of the Internet.
And what would you suggest we do about it? Should productive members of society be responsible for supporting those who contribute nothing? Nothing in life is fair but in some systems and countries you do have the ability to change your life through education, personal dedication, and hard work. This path requires accepting both hardships and sacrifice. I went to college using loans and a few scholarships that were awarded more by need than any excellence in scholarship. I worked part time jobs throughout my time in college to be able to afford the education without over burdening my parents with the cost. I also relied on student loans that have very reasonable interest rates and are flexible on the re-payment schedules. I know a lot of people that did the exact same thing to achieve there educational goals. I honestly don't know how the government can totally do away with poverty but if you were to take all the money from the top 1% and divided it equally amongst all citizens the only thing that will occur is that everybody will be equally poor.
My point is that "Slavery" is an inflammatory word that does not apply and creates higher levels of animosity for those trying to solve the problems. Accurate terminology is becoming a rarity on the web because people want headlines and one of the easiest ways to do this is by using outrageous words and descriptions for just about any issue we face today. One example of this would be the labels and accusations thrown at Isreal. People declare Isreal is perpetrating "genocide" but the facts do not even come close to satisfying the basic elements in the definition of "genocide". The people they are supposedly committing this heinous act upon has seen a 40% growth in their population and have an economy that is posting the highest growth rates in the region. I am not justifying all of Israel's policies but there will never be peaceful settlement until people on all sides start using the truthful statements and descriptions in their arguments. The use of this word also distorts the monstrous actions that took place in WW2. Over time people will not remember the horror of what "genocide" really such acts.
Using "I" and the other naming conventions enforced in C# is a good way to provide consistency on multi-developer projects. Variable and class names should be consistent so any follow-up developers can get up to speed faster. With more companies using short term contractors these days is a very useful. I don't advocate any particular naming convention but whatever you use should be consistent. Variable names, class names, method names, and name spaces are just a few ways you can organize the code base and make it easier on the developers.
The majority of civilians in the Muslim dominated countries actively collaborate with those seeking to suppress their freedoms using religion and explicit violence. The uprisings in the Arab world have accomplished nothing except provide a distraction so the Islamic dominated political groups can expand their influence under the cover of the "Democratic" uprising. This is what happened during the Iranian revolution in 1979. The visible leaders of the 1979 revolution were not Islamic fanatics. They were mostly college students that were advocating liberalism and progressive ideologies. The Islamist political groups were in a minority prior to the revolution. While those leading the revolution were busy holding hostages and taking advantage of a weak US President the Islamic groups were organizing and implement their political strategy to take control and it worked perfectly.
"Enslavement" is being forced to do something against your will with no recourse. If you don't like your employers contract you are free to leave or reject the job offer as you see fit. Nobody is forcing you to do any thing.
The vast majority of the weapons and funds supplied to the Afghanistan for fighting the USSR was from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and England. The US did not create the Taliban. The Taliban and associated like minded groups are Pakistani creations.
This weapon system would probably be deployed on a non-nuclear powered battle group destroyer to start with. The accompanying battle group is tasked with providing protection and support to the carriers. The carriers are also already pretty well defended today by their layered defense net.
I have a feeling that long range missiles will be rendered practically useless with the advancements in identifying incoming missiles and destroying them. The anti-missile technology has under gone substantial advancements since the Patriot system was rolled out in the first Iraq war. The detection systems and kill vehicles have steadily improved over the years. The latest anti-missile system on aircraft carriers are not only accurate but they also have Mach 5 speed. The biggest weakness is that the current anti-missile defense systems can be overwhelmed by a large number of incoming targets. The nice thing about the rail gun development is that the energy related systems needed to operate such a weapon can be utilized in a number of non-miltary related systems.
The rail gun would be a great anti-missile system if it can provide a high rate of fire. It all depends on how long it takes to build up the necessary energy to fire the gun. Some early prototypes required a substantial amount of time to re-charge before firing a second time. More efficient capacitor technology would be required to provide an acceptable rate of fire or depending on the size of the weapon system they could have more than one per ship to increase the rate of fire. They used radar guided anti-air guns at the end of WW2. Today they are certainly capable of detecting incoming projectiles and aiming the weapon accurately. They could destroy an incoming projectile with the rail gun and use the existing GPS enabled weapons to destroy the launch sites. According to the article this weapon system has also been relatively cheap to develop when compared against the cost of a F-22 or a M1 Abrams tank.
Great gains sometimes require great risks. You can attempt to reduce the risk but you can not totally eliminate it. If NASA attempted to ensure that there is no possibility of failure we would not have a space program. Even unmanned launches require the willingness to accept the risk factors. A rocket could explode on takeoff killing ground personnel, the rocket could fail to reach orbit and plunge back down on top of someones house. Those who have died in the various accidents were volunteers who knew about and were willing to take the necessary risks. Those lost deserve to be mourned and remembered for their contributions in advancing space capabilities.
"but they're really in it for their own personal gain and glory these days" and "standing up for your rights = terrorist" BS generalizations offered up by those without the slightest bit of common sense required to make intelligent comments.
These days the US is doing it's fair share of it's own fighting when necessary. I think the military and CIA have realized the idiocy of providing weapons to a third parties who can't remember which way to point the gun. It didn't happen in Libya and it won't happen in Syria either. The reduction of US participation in these conflicts is just the start. The only reason the US had to do anything in Libya was that none of the other NATO militaries were capable of taking out the air defense system in a matter of days. The drone program is more than enough to eliminate those attempting to cause problems that directly affect US interests. And I don't give a fuck about Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or any other country for that matter. International hand holding and endless negotiating over things that do not directly effect US interests are a waste of time and money. My only wish is for the US to pull out of the entire mid-east and let them kill one another in peace. And as a bonus when the US pulls out Israel can finally finish kicking the shit out of Hamas and all the other militant "palestinian" groups even if it means depopulating the West Bank and Gaza once and for all. It's not like any other country in the world would stop them unless they plan on smothering Israel with meaningless and unenforceable UN resolutions.
No they just bankroll every lunatic extremist Islamic group to do their fighting for them. And it's these extremist groups who create the reasons for interference from other countries. Their various actions are more like invitations for others to come over and join in the fighting while they hide behind their women and children and cry foul when people get killed. Iran was a prosperous and modern country until their glorious revolution created an Islamic government whose first act was to kill or imprison anyone who didn't get with their program. The moronic college students fronting the revolution thought it more important to hold US hostages while the Islamic parties actually organized a government. Before the revolution the Islamists were a minority group but all the liberal and progressive morons got so busy expressing their outrage at the US they ended up losing their country.
The Iranian F-14's have not been updated since 1979. If they attempted to engage the US Air Force or any other country with a modern and up to date Air Force would be committing suicide. Even the Mig's they have in their inventory are not the top of line models Russia produces and are nothing but target practice. And if the US decided to attack Iran it is most likely the Iranian Air Force and a good number of their command and control would be destroyed on the ground.
If any of them were judged really good people would know. As it is homemade amateur level movies wouldn't attract large audiences even if they put up an advertisement on every website on the net. One analogy would be seeing how many people would be willing to trash their 43' inch plasma flat screen for a television made in the 60's even if the 1960 model was free? People want quality entertainment and are willing to pay for it using several different options. Demanding free access to works produced by others is unrealistic and would reduce the amount and quality of any new entertainment. But the most important thing is that nobody is FORCED to pay for any entertainment. If you don't want to pay for something that's your choice.
The French had remote activated kill switches on the Exocet missiles Argentina used against Britain in the Falklands. Prime Minister Thatcher contacted the French government and demanded the codes necessary to shut down the Exocet and she got them. Prior to this Argentina had already destroyed and disabled several British ships using the missiles but they stopped using them after it became evident they had been compromised. They could have destroyed every British ship in the area if they had continued using their Exocet's because Britain had no effective defense against them other than hiding in isolated coves and using their jets to attempt destroying them. The US has got to have a similar kill switch on all the advanced jets and missile systems they sale internationally. They also make sure the buyer can only receive parts and upgrades from the US. As it stands now the jets India just bought are nothing but easy targets for the latest generation of F-15's and F-22's.
Back up your statement by refuting anything I mentioned in my post with facts. If you really believe your own version of history why don't you post under your own name instead of AC.
The Constellation project is already working on using swarms of integrated drones working together to cover the entire battle space. The F-22 already has this capabilities. But there won't be swarms of F-22's because of the cost but integrating data with 5 to 10 jets is already a reality. Creating a swarm of drones adds redundancy and they are way cheaper than F-22's. The computing and parallel processing systems are what makes the the F-22 so lethal and while the F-35 does share a lot of technology with the F-22 it is mostly limited to the geometry and stealth capabilities. You can see the stealth features by analyzing pictures. The internal command and control systems can not be deduced from looking at a picture. The US does not sale F-22's to other countries for a reason.
Laws are passed and implemented by the Legislature and Executive branches of government. However, if some one is arrested or has suffered mal-treatment by law enforcement agencies the Judicial branch takes over and can over rule the laws passed by the other branches of the government. The adversarial judicial process is how rulings of laws are appealed all the way up to the supreme court where it will determine if the law violates the constitution. The supreme court judges are selected and approved by the Executive and Legislative branches but the appointments are for life and the justices can make their rulings without the fear of being re-elected. Look at the recent states that passed harsh penalties on illegal immigration and the court suspended or nullified some of the provisions in those state laws. The system is certainly not perfect but it is one of the better legal systems in the world.
You can certainly have your own opinions on various laws but unless you can provide some concrete examples of people actually losing their constitutional rights your opinion is meaningless. The original post on this thread implied that US citizens were losing their "freedoms" and I wanted a real life example to support that claim.
"We trained the Taliban and gave them weapons" Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and England provided the majority of weapons, money, and training. The CIA probably contributed something to the cause but most of the money and support supplied by the US was for the refugee camps in Pakistan, And it was Britain who divided up India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan during their colonial days which sits at the root of all the problems in that region. I just wish the US would pull out of Afghanistan and let the locals kill one another in peace as long as they keep it local and don't come looking for trouble in the US. There has been an on-going narrative that states the US is responsible for just about every bad thing that happens in the world. However, when you ask for details about how the US was responsible for this or that the arguments tend to become a little fuzzy. One example would be the 1953 incident in Iran. The US is blamed for removing one leader and installing the Shah but no one can provide any details about how this was done. In 1953 the US along with the rest of the world were still recovering from WW2 and actively fighting in Korea. The British were the ones who were fighting Iran over the nationalization of their oil companies. Britain went as far as attempting a naval blockade to prevent Iran from exporting any oil to build up a political crisis to remove the incumbent President who was supporting the nationalization of their assets. While this was going on the Iranians were not just standing around waiting on England or the US tell them what to do. Like any other country on the planet there were different political factions amongst the Iranian population and any action taken to remove a leader and install another one would have had to be agreed to and implemented by a sizable number of Iranians. Did the US tell Iran if you don't do this we will invade? Or did the US offer favorable trade deals to those who supported the Shah? Did the US assassinate the old leadership to put someone new in power? You hear people describing the Shah as brutal and he may have been but no one ever asks who that brutality was targeted against. Iran was becoming a modern western orientated country and the Islamic extremists were the ones fighting this trend. Imagine that, Islamic extremists being upset and needing a good kick in the head to keep them from killing anyone who doesn't agree with them. Every US foreign relationship requires cooperation by the foreign country representatives the US is engaging with. During the cold war the US supported some questionable foreign leaders but those little 3rd world countries had a potent negotiating tool that went something like "Support us and give me what I want or we will ask the USSR". I am sure the Soviets had to contend with the same type of demands in reverse. So I will gladly acknowledge US interference that can be factually supported. Every time someone says the US did this or did that in dealing with foreign governments they should provide at least some details and acknowledge that there it always takes a minimum of 2 parties to forge an agreement. If the US bribed a foreign country official to get certain demands met you also have to acknowledge that it was up to the foreign officials to accept the bribe.
Slashdot Mirror
The US government is under no allusions about Pakistan being an allie to the US in fighting terrorism or any other thing else for that matter. The bulk of their military and civilian aid has been on hold since shortly after the Bin Laden raid. The chance of the aid hold becoming permanent is very high right now. The majority of Americans from every political viewpoint wants an end to US handouts to anyone. Egypt, UN, Palestinian, and Pakistani aid is especially vulnerable. The Israeli aid is the only package that has delivered any benefits to the US. Access to their intelligence agencies plus 90% of their aid is for purchasing weapons from the US which benefits the US economy. The US State department is fighting tooth and nail to keep foreign aid flowing but cannot overrule Congressional directives. Hopefully the PLO will continue trying to join more UN programs that mandate the US cease funding automatically. And the Egyptians have giving the US the perfect political cover to stop paying them as well. Their aid is also already out a hold so we are half way there to eliminating all of it. Who cares about the Egyptians threat of not honoring the peace deal with Israel? Isreal is more than capable of handling Egypt by themselves should the need arise. Even though the amount of foreign aid is minuscule when compared against the entire US budget people have finally realized that the ROI is negligible and only produces complaints so why bother? If private US groups want to fund health or food related aid programs they are certainly entitled to do so but the government should not continue funding these types of programs. The US has it's own health care issues and poverty levels to deal with so that's where the government money should go.
Well if you really want to take it down to the basics all software can be broken down into mathematical operations. The end result of any software related algorithm is the manipulation of 1 and 0 and all the permutations needed to supply a processor with it's instruction set. Operating systems and languages just abstract this fact from those writing software. You could probably get a lot closer to the end result by developing in Assembler but that is hardly the way you would want business application developers to use. Like I mentioned before most software patents are total BS but the next generation of computers will probably incorporate practical quantum principles and advanced neural networks that will make today's generation of computer hardware and software obsolete. Changes in this area will certainly have a better chance of being patented because it would be such a radical change from anything in use today.
I made no claim that only the US was creating new ideas. But the software industry is dominated by US companies. IBM, Oracle, Apple, MS, Sun, Google,and HP just to name a few. I also said most SW patents are BS but every now and then someone does come up with a worthy idea. And writing software is not cheap by any means. Even rudimentary development can be expensive. Companies or individuals that concentrate their efforts in R&D spend a lot of money and they are not guaranteed success. Only if their research successfully creates something new do they see a return on their investments.
"Hmm, and how the fuck do you suppose software companies in countries that don't recognise software patents are still operating? "
They are out of US patent jurisdiction and international company's usually violate patents without the slightest hesitation. China is one of the biggest examples. It also saves a hell of a lot R&D expense when you can use patents that others developed. Most patents today are total BS but someone who develops a new idea should at least be allowed to recoup the expenses they incurred on creating the patented work. Remove this ability and you remove the incentive needed to develop new ideas.
Without patents the SW industry would collapse because their would be no incentive to spend time and money on developing new ideas. The biggest IT companies are not charities. Some big companies offer open source code however they have other primary sources of revenue. For example Google uses advanced systems but it is not an IT company it is a marketing and advertising company that generates enough money to improve their software. The patent system needs an over haul but eliminating all patents would be detrimental to those spending money improve or create new software. Spending millions of dollars to build the next generation of software can be costly and without patents the company can not recoup the expenses.
Security Researches get permission before penetration testing and there is a lot of money to be made in legitimate security work. Just breaching a company computer network is a crime. It does not matter if you steal any information or cause any harm.
How about I come over and break into your house when you are not home and leave a note telling you how I did it? I'll try breaking in again a few days later to see if you took measures to keep me out. If I can still break in then I will be justified in taking or destroying anything I want because after all you were warned.
The "Anonymous" childish attacks are effectively guaranteeing that draconian laws and sentences get handed down in any case involving breaching any computer system. They justify their attacks for some ephemeral causes but have yet to accomplish anything accept annoy people and provide the politicians with the headlines they need to pass even more restrictive laws on the use of the Internet.
And what would you suggest we do about it? Should productive members of society be responsible for supporting those who contribute nothing? Nothing in life is fair but in some systems and countries you do have the ability to change your life through education, personal dedication, and hard work. This path requires accepting both hardships and sacrifice. I went to college using loans and a few scholarships that were awarded more by need than any excellence in scholarship. I worked part time jobs throughout my time in college to be able to afford the education without over burdening my parents with the cost. I also relied on student loans that have very reasonable interest rates and are flexible on the re-payment schedules. I know a lot of people that did the exact same thing to achieve there educational goals.
I honestly don't know how the government can totally do away with poverty but if you were to take all the money from the top 1% and divided it equally amongst all citizens the only thing that will occur is that everybody will be equally poor.
My point is that "Slavery" is an inflammatory word that does not apply and creates higher levels of animosity for those trying to solve the problems. Accurate terminology is becoming a rarity on the web because people want headlines and one of the easiest ways to do this is by using outrageous words and descriptions for just about any issue we face today. One example of this would be the labels and accusations thrown at Isreal. People declare Isreal is perpetrating "genocide" but the facts do not even come close to satisfying the basic elements in the definition of "genocide". The people they are supposedly committing this heinous act upon has seen a 40% growth in their population and have an economy that is posting the highest growth rates in the region. I am not justifying all of Israel's policies but there will never be peaceful settlement until people on all sides start using the truthful statements and descriptions in their arguments. The use of this word also distorts the monstrous actions that took place in WW2. Over time people will not remember the horror of what "genocide" really such acts.
Using "I" and the other naming conventions enforced in C# is a good way to provide consistency on multi-developer projects. Variable and class names should be consistent so any follow-up developers can get up to speed faster. With more companies using short term contractors these days is a very useful. I don't advocate any particular naming convention but whatever you use should be consistent. Variable names, class names, method names, and name spaces are just a few ways you can organize the code base and make it easier on the developers.
The majority of civilians in the Muslim dominated countries actively collaborate with those seeking to suppress their freedoms using religion and explicit violence. The uprisings in the Arab world have accomplished nothing except provide a distraction so the Islamic dominated political groups can expand their influence under the cover of the "Democratic" uprising. This is what happened during the Iranian revolution in 1979. The visible leaders of the 1979 revolution were not Islamic fanatics. They were mostly college students that were advocating liberalism and progressive ideologies. The Islamist political groups were in a minority prior to the revolution. While those leading the revolution were busy holding hostages and taking advantage of a weak US President the Islamic groups were organizing and implement their political strategy to take control and it worked perfectly.
"Enslavement" is being forced to do something against your will with no recourse. If you don't like your employers contract you are free to leave or reject the job offer as you see fit. Nobody is forcing you to do any thing.
The vast majority of the weapons and funds supplied to the Afghanistan for fighting the USSR was from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and England. The US did not create the Taliban. The Taliban and associated like minded groups are Pakistani creations.
This weapon system would probably be deployed on a non-nuclear powered battle group destroyer to start with. The accompanying battle group is tasked with providing protection and support to the carriers. The carriers are also already pretty well defended today by their layered defense net.
I have a feeling that long range missiles will be rendered practically useless with the advancements in identifying incoming missiles and destroying them. The anti-missile technology has under gone substantial advancements since the Patriot system was rolled out in the first Iraq war. The detection systems and kill vehicles have steadily improved over the years. The latest anti-missile system on aircraft carriers are not only accurate but they also have Mach 5 speed. The biggest weakness is that the current anti-missile defense systems can be overwhelmed by a large number of incoming targets.
The nice thing about the rail gun development is that the energy related systems needed to operate such a weapon can be utilized in a number of non-miltary related systems.
The rail gun would be a great anti-missile system if it can provide a high rate of fire. It all depends on how long it takes to build up the necessary energy to fire the gun. Some early prototypes required a substantial amount of time to re-charge before firing a second time. More efficient capacitor technology would be required to provide an acceptable rate of fire or depending on the size of the weapon system they could have more than one per ship to increase the rate of fire. They used radar guided anti-air guns at the end of WW2. Today they are certainly capable of detecting incoming projectiles and aiming the weapon accurately. They could destroy an incoming projectile with the rail gun and use the existing GPS enabled weapons to destroy the launch sites. According to the article this weapon system has also been relatively cheap to develop when compared against the cost of a F-22 or a M1 Abrams tank.
Great gains sometimes require great risks. You can attempt to reduce the risk but you can not totally eliminate it. If NASA attempted to ensure that there is no possibility of failure we would not have a space program. Even unmanned launches require the willingness to accept the risk factors. A rocket could explode on takeoff killing ground personnel, the rocket could fail to reach orbit and plunge back down on top of someones house. Those who have died in the various accidents were volunteers who knew about and were willing to take the necessary risks. Those lost deserve to be mourned and remembered for their contributions in advancing space capabilities.
"but they're really in it for their own personal gain and glory these days" and "standing up for your rights = terrorist"
BS generalizations offered up by those without the slightest bit of common sense required to make intelligent comments.
These days the US is doing it's fair share of it's own fighting when necessary. I think the military and CIA have realized the idiocy of providing weapons to a third parties who can't remember which way to point the gun. It didn't happen in Libya and it won't happen in Syria either. The reduction of US participation in these conflicts is just the start. The only reason the US had to do anything in Libya was that none of the other NATO militaries were capable of taking out the air defense system in a matter of days. The drone program is more than enough to eliminate those attempting to cause problems that directly affect US interests. And I don't give a fuck about Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or any other country for that matter. International hand holding and endless negotiating over things that do not directly effect US interests are a waste of time and money. My only wish is for the US to pull out of the entire mid-east and let them kill one another in peace. And as a bonus when the US pulls out Israel can finally finish kicking the shit out of Hamas and all the other militant "palestinian" groups even if it means depopulating the West Bank and Gaza once and for all. It's not like any other country in the world would stop them unless they plan on smothering Israel with meaningless and unenforceable UN resolutions.
No they just bankroll every lunatic extremist Islamic group to do their fighting for them. And it's these extremist groups who create the reasons for interference from other countries. Their various actions are more like invitations for others to come over and join in the fighting while they hide behind their women and children and cry foul when people get killed. Iran was a prosperous and modern country until their glorious revolution created an Islamic government whose first act was to kill or imprison anyone who didn't get with their program. The moronic college students fronting the revolution thought it more important to hold US hostages while the Islamic parties actually organized a government. Before the revolution the Islamists were a minority group but all the liberal and progressive morons got so busy expressing their outrage at the US they ended up losing their country.
The Iranian F-14's have not been updated since 1979. If they attempted to engage the US Air Force or any other country with a modern and up to date Air Force would be committing suicide. Even the Mig's they have in their inventory are not the top of line models Russia produces and are nothing but target practice. And if the US decided to attack Iran it is most likely the Iranian Air Force and a good number of their command and control would be destroyed on the ground.
If any of them were judged really good people would know. As it is homemade amateur level movies wouldn't attract large audiences even if they put up an advertisement on every website on the net. One analogy would be seeing how many people would be willing to trash their 43' inch plasma flat screen for a television made in the 60's even if the 1960 model was free? People want quality entertainment and are willing to pay for it using several different options. Demanding free access to works produced by others is unrealistic and would reduce the amount and quality of any new entertainment. But the most important thing is that nobody is FORCED to pay for any entertainment. If you don't want to pay for something that's your choice.
The French had remote activated kill switches on the Exocet missiles Argentina used against Britain in the Falklands. Prime Minister Thatcher contacted the French government and demanded the codes necessary to shut down the Exocet and she got them. Prior to this Argentina had already destroyed and disabled several British ships using the missiles but they stopped using them after it became evident they had been compromised. They could have destroyed every British ship in the area if they had continued using their Exocet's because Britain had no effective defense against them other than hiding in isolated coves and using their jets to attempt destroying them. The US has got to have a similar kill switch on all the advanced jets and missile systems they sale internationally. They also make sure the buyer can only receive parts and upgrades from the US. As it stands now the jets India just bought are nothing but easy targets for the latest generation of F-15's and F-22's.
Back up your statement by refuting anything I mentioned in my post with facts. If you really believe your own version of history why don't you post under your own name instead of AC.
The Constellation project is already working on using swarms of integrated drones working together to cover the entire battle space. The F-22 already has this capabilities. But there won't be swarms of F-22's because of the cost but integrating data with 5 to 10 jets is already a reality. Creating a swarm of drones adds redundancy and they are way cheaper than F-22's. The computing and parallel processing systems are what makes the the F-22 so lethal and while the F-35 does share a lot of technology with the F-22 it is mostly limited to the geometry and stealth capabilities. You can see the stealth features by analyzing pictures. The internal command and control systems can not be deduced from looking at a picture. The US does not sale F-22's to other countries for a reason.
Laws are passed and implemented by the Legislature and Executive branches of government. However, if some one is arrested or has suffered mal-treatment by law enforcement agencies the Judicial branch takes over and can over rule the laws passed by the other branches of the government. The adversarial judicial process is how rulings of laws are appealed all the way up to the supreme court where it will determine if the law violates the constitution. The supreme court judges are selected and approved by the Executive and Legislative branches but the appointments are for life and the justices can make their rulings without the fear of being re-elected. Look at the recent states that passed harsh penalties on illegal immigration and the court suspended or nullified some of the provisions in those state laws. The system is certainly not perfect but it is one of the better legal systems in the world.
You can certainly have your own opinions on various laws but unless you can provide some concrete examples of people actually losing their constitutional rights your opinion is meaningless. The original post on this thread implied that US citizens were losing their "freedoms" and I wanted a real life example to support that claim.
"We trained the Taliban and gave them weapons"
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and England provided the majority of weapons, money, and training. The CIA probably contributed something to the cause but most of the money and support supplied by the US was for the refugee camps in Pakistan, And it was Britain who divided up India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan during their colonial days which sits at the root of all the problems in that region. I just wish the US would pull out of Afghanistan and let the locals kill one another in peace as long as they keep it local and don't come looking for trouble in the US.
There has been an on-going narrative that states the US is responsible for just about every bad thing that happens in the world. However, when you ask for details about how the US was responsible for this or that the arguments tend to become a little fuzzy. One example would be the 1953 incident in Iran. The US is blamed for removing one leader and installing the Shah but no one can provide any details about how this was done. In 1953 the US along with the rest of the world were still recovering from WW2 and actively fighting in Korea. The British were the ones who were fighting Iran over the nationalization of their oil companies. Britain went as far as attempting a naval blockade to prevent Iran from exporting any oil to build up a political crisis to remove the incumbent President who was supporting the nationalization of their assets. While this was going on the Iranians were not just standing around waiting on England or the US tell them what to do. Like any other country on the planet there were different political factions amongst the Iranian population and any action taken to remove a leader and install another one would have had to be agreed to and implemented by a sizable number of Iranians. Did the US tell Iran if you don't do this we will invade? Or did the US offer favorable trade deals to those who supported the Shah? Did the US assassinate the old leadership to put someone new in power? You hear people describing the Shah as brutal and he may have been but no one ever asks who that brutality was targeted against. Iran was becoming a modern western orientated country and the Islamic extremists were the ones fighting this trend. Imagine that, Islamic extremists being upset and needing a good kick in the head to keep them from killing anyone who doesn't agree with them. Every US foreign relationship requires cooperation by the foreign country representatives the US is engaging with. During the cold war the US supported some questionable foreign leaders but those little 3rd world countries had a potent negotiating tool that went something like "Support us and give me what I want or we will ask the USSR". I am sure the Soviets had to contend with the same type of demands in reverse. So I will gladly acknowledge US interference that can be factually supported. Every time someone says the US did this or did that in dealing with foreign governments they should provide at least some details and acknowledge that there it always takes a minimum of 2 parties to forge an agreement. If the US bribed a foreign country official to get certain demands met you also have to acknowledge that it was up to the foreign officials to accept the bribe.