I think this would especially benefit new parties as well as existing parties. Parties do not end up on the ballot choice. A voter can support all of the candidates of a political party but not the party itself. It's the individuals supported by the party that end up on the ballot. All Presidential campaigns currently receive the same amount of money when officially placed on the final ballots. Until the maximum allowed donations reaches the specified limits they are free to accept donations from individuals which are already limited and the loop holes used by special interest groups using 501 corporation rules would also be neutered by the imposed limit. If a new or existing party wishes to enter into the contest they are free to solicit money until they reach the proscribed limit. If some off the wall parties or candidates cannot collect the maximum allowed donations to begin with their viability will be in jeopardy. The program of the government could employ a matching funds approach. If some off the wall party gets donations of $20 dollars the government would only give them $20 dollars.
Candidates have a long history of modifying their principles based upon how much money they can collect. In down and dirty politics principles are for sale and the candidates collecting the money tend to rationalize this behavior by convincing themselves that after they are elected they will revert back to their original principles. However, the people donating money usually expect something in return and if they feel they are not getting something in return the money will go somewhere else in the next election cycle. And seeing that the US political incumbents spend 90% of their time running for election starting the day after they are elected they never get the opportunity to revert back to their original principles. Every decision that incumbents make are predicated on how a particular decision will effect them in the next election instead of on the merits of the issue being addressed. The best thing to fix this situation would be to set hard limits on the amount of money that a candidate can receive and remove all of the loop holes that corporations and other wealthy political lobbyist concerns use to funnel bypass the contribution limits. Every candidate should receive the exact same amount of money from the government and no additional money should be allowed. TV time, which is very expensive should be equal and paid for by the government. The government already provides candidates with campaign funds if they meet certain requirements. Every candidate and political group already has access to the Internet for campaigning and the cost is usually just the hosting fees, and technical support staff to administrate their Internet presence which is far cheaper than paid TV commercials.
"I guess to be more specific, America has all but closed up shop. We are basically being provided palliative care and waiting to die."
This pessimistic view is not really warranted if you look at the actual history of both the US and the world at large. Everything is cyclical and true change takes longer than the average election cycle. The problems today are nothing new. Income disparity was much larger in the 1800's and early 1900's than it is today. Today's drug war stupidity doesn't hold a candle to the prohibition nonsense enacted due to religious fundamentalism. Environmental issues were hardly considered at all during the growth of the industrial age but today environmental issues are widely acknowledged and included in planning actions that are likely to effect the environment. The US has been involved in some kind of war ever since the American Revolution. The Great Depression in the 20's and its +35% unemployment makes today's economy look good. It took almost 200 years for equal rights for all citizens to become a reality. The protests happening today are minuscule and tame compared to those in that took place in the 60's. There were various violent activist groups in the late 60's and early 70's. Groups that used guns, bombs, kidnappings, banks robberies for finance, and radical revolutionary rhetoric to support whatever cause they were involved with at the time in the 70's. The economy in the 70's and the havoc created by the OPEC boycott was much worse than today by a wide margin. The sole reason the US went to the moon was driven by the cold war. Besides the technology development to make the trip the other scientific reasons for going placed a distant 2nd. Tight now we have very little reason to return to the moon because at the moment the available technologies are insufficient to maintain any thing other than a brief visit. How many moon rocks do we really need? If there happened to be an important enough reason to go back I have no doubt we could refocus our efforts on deploying the technology required for such a trip. We don't lack the basic technical knowledge to do this but there has never been a big enough reason to divert resources to that particular goal. If we were to discover oil or viable hydrogen resources we would probably drop whatever we are doing and fast track our way to exploit the discoveries. I also suspect that if China actually goes to the moon as they have promised the US will also turn their attention back to that particular goal to make sure no one gains the ultimate "high ground". We do face a new problem today that if not addressed will insure more chaos in the future and that is simply over population. We have known where babies come from a long time and have the means to control but it seems no one is wiling to step up to the plate and address this issue. If this problem is dealt with now it will be dealt with by the next world war that is already simmering in the middle east and North Africa.
It doesn't look like US is closing the space program. Data collection with remote unmanned vehicles are still returning useful information. The US might have decommissioned the Space Shuttle but the X-37 program has already built, tested, and possibly even been used for classified missions. We are still committed to participating in the space station and are deploying the most powerful telescope built today in orbit. Until we develop the technology to make manned inter-system exploration viable we are pretty limited to orbital operations. Data collected by Cassini, Mars Orbital, and the exploration vehicle mentioned in this article is worthwhile so when we do decide to go somewhere else other than the Moon we will know what to expect.
"Then there is no such thing as "true innovation" because everything builds on what came before" This is only true if you believe there are no new ideas or innovations left to discover. An attitude such as this would be saying there are no unknowns remaining because we can't think of anymore at the moment. I personally doubt we are at the pinnacle of our scientific potential or prowess in any scientific field. Most of our existing computer and communication technologies depend on our current understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum. Advancements in material science and energy sources has allowed us to apply this understanding to create phones, computers, or satellites. We are still using rocket propulsion technology that was developed over 1000+ years ago (Chinese built little rockets back in the good ole days of the Dynasty). Sure we have added fancy GPS guidance systems, more efficient and safer fuel formulations, and numerous material science advancements in construction but the main idea behind the actual propulsion is the same. A true innovation would be building a propulsion system that doesn't use the same base pricinciple or model. Gravity field manipulation for example or something similar would be really innovative and very cool. On a more practical note I think alternative energy science is the most promising area of true innovation today because the payoffs for success include not only wealth but also a chance to radically alter the entire world. Just think of a clean, renewable, and affordable energy source capable of ending the dependence on oil, coal, or nuclear. The geopolitical benefits would be highly entertaining and as a side note I guess the ecological benefits would be OK to.
"True innovation" should be immune from patent pressures at it's initial debut unless multiple parties discover and create the exact same innovation at the exact same time using the exact same methodology. "True innovation" is about creating something totally new. The patents being fought over today are not targeting true innovation they are targeting incremental enhancements and modifications of pre-existing innovations. Existing computer systems all rely on electromagnetic spectrum manipulation, binary signal processing, and pattern recognition algorithms which in turn sits on top of the same baseline mathematical principles. True innovation can not be forecast and does not fit neatly into corporate quarterly financial time periods.
I believe they mentioned in the article that this guy was also building IED triggers to send to his buddies overseas so remote detonation seems well within this guys skillset. And besides you don't need a Physic's degree to build these type of devices.
Today's computing ecosystem is still to volatile to guarantee perfect security whether you build from the ground up or apply endless patches and updates. Look at the number of permutations of Operating Systems, OS Versions, OS Security Patch Levels, OS Bug Patch Levels,Hardware platforms, and custom Applications. It's amazing anything works or is even half way secure especially when you introduce user actions into the mix.
Those zones were created as a legitimate security measure. Whether you like the person or persons it was intended to protect does not matter. Allowing 1000's of people to crowd around public figures with little control in this day and age is a security nightmare. They were not detained because of their speech content or ideas they were detained for disobeying the civil authorities charged with keeping things civil. Large scale public protests in the US are usually required to adhere to the local statutes if the protest might inhibit public movements or create other problems for those not part of the protest. If you want to have a street parade to protest you need to obey the rules. Just because you want to yell about your latest "outrage" doesn't mean everyone else needs to be inconvenienced while you do it. There is a difference between a protest and a fucking mob action which is pretty much all we see in protests today. And George Bush was not singled out for this type of security. It would have been the same for Al Gore, Bill Clinton, or Jimmy Carter. It's the position not the person that determines Presidential security precautions but if it makes you happy to think Bush was to blame for these precautions then please go right ahead.
Do you think this is a scenario that MS and it's lawyers have not considered or do they troll this sight looking for legal advice before writing their contracts? I doubt a money back guarantee was included in the terms of the contract.
The vetoes wielded by the permanent members of the security council are to prevent a bloc of small despotic countries from consolidating their votes to protect and advance their authoritarian rulers and dictatorships. Just look at the members of the UN Human Rights Council. There is also enough disagreement amongst the permanent members to prevent one powerful country from always getting their way. The permanent members are far from perfect in their behavior but it is these countries who shoulder the largest expense and are ultimately the ones that will be called upon to enforce any UN decision requiring force. The UN is an artifact of a bye gone era just like the League of Nations before it. The basic idea is sound but the current implementation causes more problems than it solves. All this recent yammering about "International Law" is ludicrous and a waste of time without a means of providing consistent and effective enforcement and ultimately human rights consist of only those rights you are able to defend.
Total BS. When have people been rounded up and prosecuted for exercising their 1st amendment rights of free speech? Keeping in mind that the 1st Amendment is not absolute and never has been since it's inception. There are certainly limits and exceptions that can be argued in open court when conflicts arise. If you have never lived in a country like N. Korea, China, Iran, Syria, Russia (getting better than the old USSR KGB controlled system but journalists are still being killed when they publish or persue certain areas of information).
Why don't we just throw all the candidates names into a hat and randomly draw the winners? The results can't be any worse than the current system produces and it would be a hell of a lot cheaper and faster.
In the 1960's the US government did infiltrate or attempted to infiltrate the anti-war groups. They probably do it today but I doubt the wall street protest is worth the effort. Today they are much more likely to infiltrate various international and domestic Muslim groups and computer hacker groups,
An effective "resistance" first needs a coherent definition of what they are actually "resisting" and they need to offer up at least some plausible idea of what will happen after the "resistance" is victorious. All those fabulous protesters in the Arab world spent more time exhorting their glorious revolutions on Facebook and Twitter then they did on actually planning for the future after the revolution ended up succeeding. I am still a little hazy on what the Egyptians think they accomplished. They moved from an autocratic/military ruled government to just the military who is promising elections sometime in the future. One of their main goals was the elimination of the "special laws" that had been in effect for 30 years. These laws were deactivated for a few months but those laws are now being called back into service because of incidents of idiotic mob violence that had nothing to do with forming a new government or creating a better society. Attacking foreign Embassy's or vandalising foreign sponsored Universities was not the most productive or prudent courses of actions they could have embarked on at this point.
Spoken like someone who has never really been to or experienced living in a real police city-state. It seems the protests today are more about seeing how far you can push the authorities attempting to keep things civil before you get your head bashed in. The actually reason or target of the protest gets lost in the background noise.
Or the whole issue may be a negotiating tactic to get a better deal from China in the form of lower taxes and fees which translates to more profits for Apple.
I think Japan just got their timing screwed up. The Admiral in charge of Pearl Harbor attack was under the impression that a declaration of war would be delivered a few hours prior to the attack and when he found out later that was not the case was slightly pissed off. Of course he is also the same guy who warned Japans military leaders to not start a war with the US in the first place. Wonder what the world look like today if they had not attacked the US and practically forced the US into WW2?
Israel has been at war or preparing for war for the past 65 years. Underestimating their war fighting capabilities is the main reason the Arabs were defeated in 48,67, and 73. In 73 the Arab attack was well coordinated, well trained, and well armed with USSR modern weapon systems such as SAMS, Sanger wire guided anti-tank missiles, night vision targeting scopes in their tanks, and a whole bunch of Soviet "military advisors". It was also Israel's biggest intelligence failure and they were taken by total surprise. The Arabs outnumbered the Israelis 6 to 1 in tanks and 20 - 1 in troops and they still got their assess handed to them. Israel will not go gently or quietly and frankly I doubt too many people in the world really give a shit if a couple of million Arabs go out in a radioactive flash. And with all the recent bullshit at the UN, embassy attacks, or Turkey's veiled threats the Israeli government has been very quite. And that should worry people. If Israel truly believes it is useless to engage diplomatically because it won't make any difference that only leaves a few options remaining. Capitulation or full on military actions and the chance of capitulation is pretty close to 0.
Dude, Just look through yesterdays headlines or past 20 years of headlines and you will see that Hamas, who is theoretically in charge of at least half of the Palestinian territories, doesn't want UN recognition of Palestine statehood at the UN because that would mean acknowledging the fact that Israel actually exists. Their only goal has always been the elimination of Israel and all of it's non-Arab population. They have even put it in writing in their organization charter. They have been quite clear that this is and will remain their goal. Would any country in the world put up with a neighbor that is continually and loudly calling for their destruction on a daily basis and have proven more than willing to use indiscriminate violence to accomplish their stated goals? When the US vetoes or convinces enough UNSC members to vote against the Palestinian UN statehood recognition the wide scale violence will start again but this time around I seriously doubt that Israel will give a damn about any international sensibilities or how many people they kill as long as it removes the threat once and for all. The UN or NATO will do nothing to prevent this. The only country with the assets and capabilities on the scene is the US and they will not engage or obstruct Israel military operations. There is 0 percent chance of this happening. If Turkey or any other country in the area such as Iran was to try and hit Israel while they are busy with the Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syrian border fights the US would and could stop them. The US government and military understands that an Israeli defeat would end with half of the middle east ending up under a radioactive cloud.
"They have not been 'trying to remove the Jews' Hamas pronounces this as their official goal on a daily basis. The Palestinian lands were purposely abandoned by those Arab countries that held sovereignty over those lands at the time. The Arabs did not accept the partitioning plan so there never was a Palestinian state. After getting their asses kicked on numerous occasions they now want to accept the partioned boundaries as if nothing ever happened. Creating a Palestinian state will just provide better artillery positions so they can continue their attacks on Israel.
So what you are saying is that Lebanon and the other countries have pretty much the same damn problems as Israel does when it comes to dealing with the Palestinians so they can't really be expected to contribute aid (other than weapons) to the Palestinians but Israel should just bow down to the demands of the knuckleheads currently running half the government and the terrorists running the other half of the Palestinian "government". This is a textbook example hypocrisy. Those countries use the ongoing conflict to hide their own failures and it has been a winning strategy for the past 60 years.
Egypt, Jordon, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and any other country in the vicinity do not want this current conflict to end. A conflict born on their aggression and abandonment of their own citizens who were living in the areas under dispute. Israel did not claim that land the Arabs withdrew from leaving a stateless population behind to harass Israel with. Any way if the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is solved who would be left to blame all their problems on? Their are a lot of Arabs making serious money because of this ongoing conflict. From weapon sales to stealing international aid and reselling it to those who actually need it while making a hefty profit. Arafat died a billionaire with bank accounts scattered all over the world. They certainly don't want the situation resolved either.
Their are no higher standards when it comes to killing people. It would be nice if any of the middle eastern countries were held to ANY standard, let alone a high standard, but the world at large gives these countries a free pass on murder, mayhem, radicalism, and animosity. If they take an ant-israeli or anti-us stance then they can certainly count on support or at least silence from the "progressives" who fan the flames of anarchy every time they get a chance. So while everyone is concentrating on attacking Israel thousands of people are dying from starvation in Africa and being killed by Muslim fanatics who routinely use torture and murder as their form of governing and the sad thing is they don't even try to deny their atrocities but the world still would rather concentrate their efforts against the only middle eastern state that actually has a stable society and laws that don't demand stonings and hangings as righteous sentences.
Never suggested it was. Just pointing out the lopsided efforts supporting a vendetta against Israel is providing cover for despots and state sanctioned violence against civilians. People are dieing in Africa from violence and hunger and could really use a flotilla to supply aid to those that really need help. Israel interdicts ships to search for weapons and then allows them to off load thier cargo for transport. Every country in the middle east blames every single problem they face on Israel (or the US) while never accepting any responsibility for their own incompetence.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this would especially benefit new parties as well as existing parties. Parties do not end up on the ballot choice. A voter can support all of the candidates of a political party but not the party itself. It's the individuals supported by the party that end up on the ballot. All Presidential campaigns currently receive the same amount of money when officially placed on the final ballots. Until the maximum allowed donations reaches the specified limits they are free to accept donations from individuals which are already limited and the loop holes used by special interest groups using 501 corporation rules would also be neutered by the imposed limit. If a new or existing party wishes to enter into the contest they are free to solicit money until they reach the proscribed limit. If some off the wall parties or candidates cannot collect the maximum allowed donations to begin with their viability will be in jeopardy. The program of the government could employ a matching funds approach. If some off the wall party gets donations of $20 dollars the government would only give them $20 dollars.
Candidates have a long history of modifying their principles based upon how much money they can collect. In down and dirty politics principles are for sale and the candidates collecting the money tend to rationalize this behavior by convincing themselves that after they are elected they will revert back to their original principles. However, the people donating money usually expect something in return and if they feel they are not getting something in return the money will go somewhere else in the next election cycle. And seeing that the US political incumbents spend 90% of their time running for election starting the day after they are elected they never get the opportunity to revert back to their original principles. Every decision that incumbents make are predicated on how a particular decision will effect them in the next election instead of on the merits of the issue being addressed. The best thing to fix this situation would be to set hard limits on the amount of money that a candidate can receive and remove all of the loop holes that corporations and other wealthy political lobbyist concerns use to funnel bypass the contribution limits. Every candidate should receive the exact same amount of money from the government and no additional money should be allowed. TV time, which is very expensive should be equal and paid for by the government. The government already provides candidates with campaign funds if they meet certain requirements. Every candidate and political group already has access to the Internet for campaigning and the cost is usually just the hosting fees, and technical support staff to administrate their Internet presence which is far cheaper than paid TV commercials.
"I guess to be more specific, America has all but closed up shop. We are basically being provided palliative care and waiting to die." This pessimistic view is not really warranted if you look at the actual history of both the US and the world at large. Everything is cyclical and true change takes longer than the average election cycle. The problems today are nothing new. Income disparity was much larger in the 1800's and early 1900's than it is today. Today's drug war stupidity doesn't hold a candle to the prohibition nonsense enacted due to religious fundamentalism. Environmental issues were hardly considered at all during the growth of the industrial age but today environmental issues are widely acknowledged and included in planning actions that are likely to effect the environment. The US has been involved in some kind of war ever since the American Revolution. The Great Depression in the 20's and its +35% unemployment makes today's economy look good. It took almost 200 years for equal rights for all citizens to become a reality. The protests happening today are minuscule and tame compared to those in that took place in the 60's. There were various violent activist groups in the late 60's and early 70's. Groups that used guns, bombs, kidnappings, banks robberies for finance, and radical revolutionary rhetoric to support whatever cause they were involved with at the time in the 70's. The economy in the 70's and the havoc created by the OPEC boycott was much worse than today by a wide margin. The sole reason the US went to the moon was driven by the cold war. Besides the technology development to make the trip the other scientific reasons for going placed a distant 2nd. Tight now we have very little reason to return to the moon because at the moment the available technologies are insufficient to maintain any thing other than a brief visit. How many moon rocks do we really need? If there happened to be an important enough reason to go back I have no doubt we could refocus our efforts on deploying the technology required for such a trip. We don't lack the basic technical knowledge to do this but there has never been a big enough reason to divert resources to that particular goal. If we were to discover oil or viable hydrogen resources we would probably drop whatever we are doing and fast track our way to exploit the discoveries. I also suspect that if China actually goes to the moon as they have promised the US will also turn their attention back to that particular goal to make sure no one gains the ultimate "high ground". We do face a new problem today that if not addressed will insure more chaos in the future and that is simply over population. We have known where babies come from a long time and have the means to control but it seems no one is wiling to step up to the plate and address this issue. If this problem is dealt with now it will be dealt with by the next world war that is already simmering in the middle east and North Africa.
It doesn't look like US is closing the space program. Data collection with remote unmanned vehicles are still returning useful information. The US might have decommissioned the Space Shuttle but the X-37 program has already built, tested, and possibly even been used for classified missions. We are still committed to participating in the space station and are deploying the most powerful telescope built today in orbit. Until we develop the technology to make manned inter-system exploration viable we are pretty limited to orbital operations. Data collected by Cassini, Mars Orbital, and the exploration vehicle mentioned in this article is worthwhile so when we do decide to go somewhere else other than the Moon we will know what to expect.
"Then there is no such thing as "true innovation" because everything builds on what came before" This is only true if you believe there are no new ideas or innovations left to discover. An attitude such as this would be saying there are no unknowns remaining because we can't think of anymore at the moment. I personally doubt we are at the pinnacle of our scientific potential or prowess in any scientific field. Most of our existing computer and communication technologies depend on our current understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum. Advancements in material science and energy sources has allowed us to apply this understanding to create phones, computers, or satellites. We are still using rocket propulsion technology that was developed over 1000+ years ago (Chinese built little rockets back in the good ole days of the Dynasty). Sure we have added fancy GPS guidance systems, more efficient and safer fuel formulations, and numerous material science advancements in construction but the main idea behind the actual propulsion is the same. A true innovation would be building a propulsion system that doesn't use the same base pricinciple or model. Gravity field manipulation for example or something similar would be really innovative and very cool. On a more practical note I think alternative energy science is the most promising area of true innovation today because the payoffs for success include not only wealth but also a chance to radically alter the entire world. Just think of a clean, renewable, and affordable energy source capable of ending the dependence on oil, coal, or nuclear. The geopolitical benefits would be highly entertaining and as a side note I guess the ecological benefits would be OK to.
"True innovation" should be immune from patent pressures at it's initial debut unless multiple parties discover and create the exact same innovation at the exact same time using the exact same methodology. "True innovation" is about creating something totally new. The patents being fought over today are not targeting true innovation they are targeting incremental enhancements and modifications of pre-existing innovations. Existing computer systems all rely on electromagnetic spectrum manipulation, binary signal processing, and pattern recognition algorithms which in turn sits on top of the same baseline mathematical principles. True innovation can not be forecast and does not fit neatly into corporate quarterly financial time periods.
I believe they mentioned in the article that this guy was also building IED triggers to send to his buddies overseas so remote detonation seems well within this guys skillset. And besides you don't need a Physic's degree to build these type of devices.
Today's computing ecosystem is still to volatile to guarantee perfect security whether you build from the ground up or apply endless patches and updates. Look at the number of permutations of Operating Systems, OS Versions, OS Security Patch Levels, OS Bug Patch Levels,Hardware platforms, and custom Applications. It's amazing anything works or is even half way secure especially when you introduce user actions into the mix.
Those zones were created as a legitimate security measure. Whether you like the person or persons it was intended to protect does not matter. Allowing 1000's of people to crowd around public figures with little control in this day and age is a security nightmare. They were not detained because of their speech content or ideas they were detained for disobeying the civil authorities charged with keeping things civil. Large scale public protests in the US are usually required to adhere to the local statutes if the protest might inhibit public movements or create other problems for those not part of the protest. If you want to have a street parade to protest you need to obey the rules. Just because you want to yell about your latest "outrage" doesn't mean everyone else needs to be inconvenienced while you do it. There is a difference between a protest and a fucking mob action which is pretty much all we see in protests today. And George Bush was not singled out for this type of security. It would have been the same for Al Gore, Bill Clinton, or Jimmy Carter. It's the position not the person that determines Presidential security precautions but if it makes you happy to think Bush was to blame for these precautions then please go right ahead.
Do you think this is a scenario that MS and it's lawyers have not considered or do they troll this sight looking for legal advice before writing their contracts? I doubt a money back guarantee was included in the terms of the contract.
The vetoes wielded by the permanent members of the security council are to prevent a bloc of small despotic countries from consolidating their votes to protect and advance their authoritarian rulers and dictatorships. Just look at the members of the UN Human Rights Council. There is also enough disagreement amongst the permanent members to prevent one powerful country from always getting their way. The permanent members are far from perfect in their behavior but it is these countries who shoulder the largest expense and are ultimately the ones that will be called upon to enforce any UN decision requiring force. The UN is an artifact of a bye gone era just like the League of Nations before it. The basic idea is sound but the current implementation causes more problems than it solves. All this recent yammering about "International Law" is ludicrous and a waste of time without a means of providing consistent and effective enforcement and ultimately human rights consist of only those rights you are able to defend.
Total BS. When have people been rounded up and prosecuted for exercising their 1st amendment rights of free speech? Keeping in mind that the 1st Amendment is not absolute and never has been since it's inception. There are certainly limits and exceptions that can be argued in open court when conflicts arise. If you have never lived in a country like N. Korea, China, Iran, Syria, Russia (getting better than the old USSR KGB controlled system but journalists are still being killed when they publish or persue certain areas of information).
Why don't we just throw all the candidates names into a hat and randomly draw the winners? The results can't be any worse than the current system produces and it would be a hell of a lot cheaper and faster.
In the 1960's the US government did infiltrate or attempted to infiltrate the anti-war groups. They probably do it today but I doubt the wall street protest is worth the effort. Today they are much more likely to infiltrate various international and domestic Muslim groups and computer hacker groups,
The Syrians are making a good run at the title right now.
An effective "resistance" first needs a coherent definition of what they are actually "resisting" and they need to offer up at least some plausible idea of what will happen after the "resistance" is victorious. All those fabulous protesters in the Arab world spent more time exhorting their glorious revolutions on Facebook and Twitter then they did on actually planning for the future after the revolution ended up succeeding. I am still a little hazy on what the Egyptians think they accomplished. They moved from an autocratic/military ruled government to just the military who is promising elections sometime in the future. One of their main goals was the elimination of the "special laws" that had been in effect for 30 years. These laws were deactivated for a few months but those laws are now being called back into service because of incidents of idiotic mob violence that had nothing to do with forming a new government or creating a better society. Attacking foreign Embassy's or vandalising foreign sponsored Universities was not the most productive or prudent courses of actions they could have embarked on at this point.
Spoken like someone who has never really been to or experienced living in a real police city-state. It seems the protests today are more about seeing how far you can push the authorities attempting to keep things civil before you get your head bashed in. The actually reason or target of the protest gets lost in the background noise.
Or the whole issue may be a negotiating tactic to get a better deal from China in the form of lower taxes and fees which translates to more profits for Apple.
I think Japan just got their timing screwed up. The Admiral in charge of Pearl Harbor attack was under the impression that a declaration of war would be delivered a few hours prior to the attack and when he found out later that was not the case was slightly pissed off. Of course he is also the same guy who warned Japans military leaders to not start a war with the US in the first place. Wonder what the world look like today if they had not attacked the US and practically forced the US into WW2?
Israel has been at war or preparing for war for the past 65 years. Underestimating their war fighting capabilities is the main reason the Arabs were defeated in 48,67, and 73. In 73 the Arab attack was well coordinated, well trained, and well armed with USSR modern weapon systems such as SAMS, Sanger wire guided anti-tank missiles, night vision targeting scopes in their tanks, and a whole bunch of Soviet "military advisors". It was also Israel's biggest intelligence failure and they were taken by total surprise. The Arabs outnumbered the Israelis 6 to 1 in tanks and 20 - 1 in troops and they still got their assess handed to them. Israel will not go gently or quietly and frankly I doubt too many people in the world really give a shit if a couple of million Arabs go out in a radioactive flash. And with all the recent bullshit at the UN, embassy attacks, or Turkey's veiled threats the Israeli government has been very quite. And that should worry people. If Israel truly believes it is useless to engage diplomatically because it won't make any difference that only leaves a few options remaining. Capitulation or full on military actions and the chance of capitulation is pretty close to 0.
Dude, Just look through yesterdays headlines or past 20 years of headlines and you will see that Hamas, who is theoretically in charge of at least half of the Palestinian territories, doesn't want UN recognition of Palestine statehood at the UN because that would mean acknowledging the fact that Israel actually exists. Their only goal has always been the elimination of Israel and all of it's non-Arab population. They have even put it in writing in their organization charter. They have been quite clear that this is and will remain their goal. Would any country in the world put up with a neighbor that is continually and loudly calling for their destruction on a daily basis and have proven more than willing to use indiscriminate violence to accomplish their stated goals? When the US vetoes or convinces enough UNSC members to vote against the Palestinian UN statehood recognition the wide scale violence will start again but this time around I seriously doubt that Israel will give a damn about any international sensibilities or how many people they kill as long as it removes the threat once and for all. The UN or NATO will do nothing to prevent this. The only country with the assets and capabilities on the scene is the US and they will not engage or obstruct Israel military operations. There is 0 percent chance of this happening. If Turkey or any other country in the area such as Iran was to try and hit Israel while they are busy with the Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syrian border fights the US would and could stop them. The US government and military understands that an Israeli defeat would end with half of the middle east ending up under a radioactive cloud.
"They have not been 'trying to remove the Jews' Hamas pronounces this as their official goal on a daily basis. The Palestinian lands were purposely abandoned by those Arab countries that held sovereignty over those lands at the time. The Arabs did not accept the partitioning plan so there never was a Palestinian state. After getting their asses kicked on numerous occasions they now want to accept the partioned boundaries as if nothing ever happened. Creating a Palestinian state will just provide better artillery positions so they can continue their attacks on Israel.
So what you are saying is that Lebanon and the other countries have pretty much the same damn problems as Israel does when it comes to dealing with the Palestinians so they can't really be expected to contribute aid (other than weapons) to the Palestinians but Israel should just bow down to the demands of the knuckleheads currently running half the government and the terrorists running the other half of the Palestinian "government". This is a textbook example hypocrisy. Those countries use the ongoing conflict to hide their own failures and it has been a winning strategy for the past 60 years. Egypt, Jordon, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and any other country in the vicinity do not want this current conflict to end. A conflict born on their aggression and abandonment of their own citizens who were living in the areas under dispute. Israel did not claim that land the Arabs withdrew from leaving a stateless population behind to harass Israel with. Any way if the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is solved who would be left to blame all their problems on? Their are a lot of Arabs making serious money because of this ongoing conflict. From weapon sales to stealing international aid and reselling it to those who actually need it while making a hefty profit. Arafat died a billionaire with bank accounts scattered all over the world. They certainly don't want the situation resolved either.
Their are no higher standards when it comes to killing people. It would be nice if any of the middle eastern countries were held to ANY standard, let alone a high standard, but the world at large gives these countries a free pass on murder, mayhem, radicalism, and animosity. If they take an ant-israeli or anti-us stance then they can certainly count on support or at least silence from the "progressives" who fan the flames of anarchy every time they get a chance. So while everyone is concentrating on attacking Israel thousands of people are dying from starvation in Africa and being killed by Muslim fanatics who routinely use torture and murder as their form of governing and the sad thing is they don't even try to deny their atrocities but the world still would rather concentrate their efforts against the only middle eastern state that actually has a stable society and laws that don't demand stonings and hangings as righteous sentences.
Never suggested it was. Just pointing out the lopsided efforts supporting a vendetta against Israel is providing cover for despots and state sanctioned violence against civilians. People are dieing in Africa from violence and hunger and could really use a flotilla to supply aid to those that really need help. Israel interdicts ships to search for weapons and then allows them to off load thier cargo for transport. Every country in the middle east blames every single problem they face on Israel (or the US) while never accepting any responsibility for their own incompetence.