Last time I saw a public political protest in the US there were no club waving motorcyclists chasing down the protesters and cracking skulls of anyone to slow to get out of the way. This occurred in the 60's civil rights era but that type of government sanctioned violence is in the past. There were no reports of the government security services raiding the homes of anyone expected of leading the protests. In the US when someone decides to defy an order to cease blockading the target of their protest or creating a general nuisance to those around them who are not part of the protest they get picked up and herded into the police vans for a trip to the police station and released a couple minutes later with either a sternly worded warning or a misdemeanor with a nominal fine which if contested in court usually ends up reducing or eliminating the fine entirely. Try that in places like Iran or Syria and you can expect to get your head based in before being taken to jail for a more thorough beating and if you are really lucky you might see daylight after a few months, that is if you are still alive.
He does have a small point. Humanity as a species has always been ruthless as hell when it comes to tackling both naturally occurring obstacles as well as human obstacles and any humans creating obstacles.
I wasn't targeting your statement I was just making a general observation pointing out the quandary we find ourselves in today. Trying to balance this security versus privacy equation is where we seem to hit a brick wall. Our current government is totally incapable of compromising on any issue facing the US today and is causing serious harm to both the financial underpinnings of the country as well as any measures related to providing reasonable security policies. The people we are electing, from all political party or ideology have totally failed to carry out their responsibilities. They have contributed absolutely nothing to the country except turmoil. Before the next congressional elections I wish every American citizen , regardless of political party, would demand the resignation of every member of both the Senate and House. The executive branch and judicial branch can maintain government continuity for a short period of time until after the newly elected representatives take office.
It sure is complicated but just collecting our shit and coming home is what everyone is clamoring for so why not just do it? The US does not need boots on the ground to support and protect it's national interests. All that can be handled by the aircraft carriers, long range missiles, drones, and stealth assets. Leaving would probably take about 6 months but the logistics are available and all the "complications" can be left behind for others to deal with.
I do a lot of consulting with both large and medium size companies and they all seem to validate their passwords to ensure a minimum length while also requiring both alpha and numeric characters in the password. I have also seen places where both uppercase, lower case, and special character use is required.
Actually the US government is caught in a catch 22 situation when it comes to airport security and monitoring international calls when at least 1 party of the call is a foreign national. If they cease monitoring the international com traffic and remove the security checks at the airports the first time another terrorist incident occurs the government will be accused of willful negligence by the same people complaining about the security measures. I think getting rid of the com monitoring would not really be that harmful to security because the people planning and executing terrorists attacks have learned the hard way to avoid cell phone and telephone communications but reducing security at airports is another matter.
So you can't produce anything to refute my statements and want me to cite sources to support my statements? This is a tech forum not a history forum and I am not writing a dissertation on the subject but if I was I could most certainly provide the sources of my information. The fact you still have not refuted even one of my statements with facts is a clear sign that you rely solely on the "facts" you read on the Internet. Facts usually disseminated by partisans of the particular cause they are trying to justify. Fact omission's, outright fabrications, and conspiracy theories is how most of these people justify their beliefs. The document you mentioned to refute ny statements is beyond reproach because it was offered up by a honest to god government official? If that's the case I assume you believe anything a government official says or do you just cherry pick those that lend credence to your particular point of view? History is constantly being used to justify and excuse actions taking place today but the history being used is often compromised and slanted to support someones particular viewpoint. The Internet is the ultimate tool when it comes to spreading dis-information to large groups of people and too many people never question this. If you go to a website that does not offer support for your beliefs you can just go hunting for one that does where you will most likely end up in an echo chamber capable of providing the justification you seek . Here is one small example of how this methodology impacts us today. I am the not trying to justify or support Israeli actions with this example. I am only using it as an example of how distorted historical facts can be used to raise the animosity level between both sides of the conflict. A large number of people rail against Israel for stealing Palestinian land and if confronted with alternate opinions they often start marching back through time looking for anything, usually anecdotal evidence, that will strengthen their point of view. However, these folks never admit that there were both Arabs and Jews living in Israel at the start of the conflict. Even before Britain the UN got involved there was a growing number of armed confrontations between the 2 sides. Confrontations that are very similar to the Shia/Sunni and tribal conflicts taking place throughout the middle east and Africa today. Today's pro-Palestinian factions never acknowledge and often minimize any facts that might interfere with their righteous indignation and attempts to demonize Israel. Facts such as Israel accepting the proposed UN boundaries in 1948 while the Arabs did not. Instead 5 Arab countries chose war to push out the Jews. A large number of Palestinian "refugees" left their homes voluntarily on the urging of the attacking Arab forces who told them the war would be over in a few days and then they could go back home. Things did not go according to plan to say the least. If the Arabs had won the world would have most likely witnessed a continuation of the slaughter the Jews faced in Germany. There would have also never been a Palestinian state created. Egypt, Syria, and Jordan would have just formalized their rule over the portions of land they were already occupying. The Palestinians are just a tool used by the defeated Arabs to fight and demonize Israel in an effort to rid themselves of the humiliation they feel from being militarily defeated by the Jews on 3 occasions. It has been tool in their arsenal that can be used to fight Israel without getting the shit kicked out of them once again which would increase that level of the humiliation they already feel from earlier defeats. Another ignored fact is that there was no Arab recognition of "Palestinians" until the early 60's in preparation to justify the 1967 war Nasser was determined to wage. The pro-Palestinian factions also avoid or dismiss the 1973 surprise attack on Israel which ended up with Israel claiming additional territory. This land was not stolen, the Arab's forfeited it due to their offensive being defeated just like 1967. Very rarely do countries that lose an offensive war get a do over. Denying the territory lost in 1973 is a direct result of their aggression and asking for it back seems a bit silly if you ask me. Now here are more statements you can refute with facts if you chose.
The fact is the revolution happened. As I stated in my post you can't change the facts with political ideology but you can interpret the event by whatever ideology you support. And it is also a that the leaders of the revolution were University students. The were not 100% responsible for the revolution of course but they got the ball rolling and were the public face of the revolution. And you still have not presented any facts of your own disputing anything I said in this thread. Your "kindergarten kid" jibe and previous insults just show the high level of personal insecurity and historical blindness you are burdened with.
Now now, the people have already decided that it was the US, Israel, or both. The fact that there is no actual evidence just proves that it had to be the US or Israel because certainly no one else in the world has the ability to pull off something like this. Which is sort of surprising since the US is constantly criticized for a lack of cyber security abilities and overall intelligence. \sarcasm
I don't have time to go back through the entire thread right now but I believe I was refuting your suggestion that the US military was unparalleled at the time in question which is not true. Your response here seems to concentrate on US economic power which is another matter entirely. However, backing up your argument with a statement from one policy wonk in the State Department is pretty weak. It's true the US economy was the leader of the world at the time but US military power was checked by the USSR and to some extent China after the communists took power. Because of this the US military defense expenditures had en effect on that economic power just like it does today. The relationship strategy you referenced no doubt referred to all the money and military protection the US provided to Europe and Asia after the war which helped stabilize the world economy and eventually allowed the US to increase it's economic power even further because of this policy. And they were investments first which had the added benefit of providing humanitarian assistance but if there had been no obvious or substantial economic returns expected on those investments I seriously doubt the US would have contributed as much as they did. That same basic strategy is still practiced today. If the US had not helped Europe or Asia rebuild the US economic growth potential would have been basically confined to the US domestic markets so overall it was a good strategy. Especially compared against what those morons in Europe came up with in 1919 after WW1. And finally I tend to dismiss anyone who refers to liberals, progressives, conservatives, communists, socialists, or any other politically ideology when discussing historical events. You can debate and interpret the "meaning" of these events from any perspective you chose but the actual events themselves should stand on their own and distorting the facts of the actual events to support a political ideology does nothing but lead to historical revisionism and ultimately ends up creating animosity based on lies and deception. One example of this historical revisionism and it's effects would be that the citizens of most middle eastern countries, and even some uninformed US, citizens actually believe they defeated Israel in the 1973 war. I have seen Egyptian schoolbooks stating as fact that Egypt and it's allies decisively defeated Israel and took back the Sinai. The fact is Israel not only defeated a well coordinated and well equipped military attack on 2 fronts they eventually ended defeating the Syrians and ended up surrounding 1000's of Egyptian troops in the Sinai desert and cutting off their supply lines which helped push Sadat into negotiations with Israel. Israel even provided water and food to the Egyptian soldiers until the situation was resolved. I seriously doubt that if the situation had been reversed there would have been a single Israeli survivor walk out of that desert.
The problems involved with space exploration are not difficult? We can barely make it into orbit reliably (the Russians supply capsule just exploded today by the way) and it is certainly not cheap no matter who is providing the services. The Space Shuttle and space station are just mobile laboratories that enabled scientists to test theories and come up with better ideas to address all the problems associated with the space environment. The X-37 unmanned space craft was designed and built using data collected on shuttle performance and reliability data. So you can add this advance to the list with duct tape and Velcro.
"Please, don't insult my, or the Slashdot reader's intelligence."
You have not shown any intelligence to insult yet. Your answer to my question regarding the Iranian example is the standard response which is 100% unsupported bullshit fortified with a big dose of self-righteousness. Again, what specific actions did the US take to over throw the Iranian government? Actions that are supported by facts rather than your poor attempts of analysing historical events based on your jaundiced views you evidently have indoctrinated yourself with.
"US enjoyed unparalleled power after the WWII" Another fine example of your ignorance. After WW2 the US military was deployed in Germany and Japan overseeing the rebuilding of those countries while at the same time keeping the Soviet Union from grabbing more territory. China provided millions of armed peasants to fight for North Korea against UN forces with Russia supplying the arms and the first jet fighters to the North Koreans while the US was still using WW2 era propeller based aircraft. This situation required another large deployment of US military assets just to prevent a total rout. The US had an intact military after WW2 but it was already over committed to the point where the US seriously considered using nuclear weapons in Korea. The Russian military at the time was just as large and powerful as the US especially after demonstrating their own nuclear capabilities. That hardly sounds like the US was an unparalleled military power at the time.
And those good ole Iranians sure got the government the wanted after the 1979 revolution didn't they? Those weekly "Death to America" rallies were a treat for the whole family weren't they? I bet you are just angry because you didn't get a chance participate in those rallies yourself. The harsh dictator they removed was definitely harsh but nobody seems to remember who he was treating harshly. Surprise, surprise, it was the religious extremists preaching Islamic rule who were constantly being targeted by the Iranian government not the average citizen in the street. The 1979 revolution was fronted by liberal university students with support from other liberal minded political groups and Islamic religious parties. However the religious parties were in the clear minority when the revolution began. The liberals who fronted the revolution decided to concentrate all their efforts on sticking the US in the eye with the hostages instead of organizing a new government to replace the Shah. The Islamic party took full advantage of this distraction and organized themselves and take control of the government themselves. Over throwing a government is relatively easy if you don't mind a few deaths but the hard part is uniting all those who brought the old government down. The Iranian revolutionaries are a good example of what can happen when you let jingoism and revolutionary fervor to override common sense. Even the revolutions in the middle east and N Africa today are following that same pattern. The Egyptian government fell and now the military is in charge and there has been no real progress made in determining the fate of a future government. Promising elections is fine but Saddam Hussein had elections all the time and he won 99% of the vote every time. There has been little of no change in Tunisia and now that Gaddafi has been brought down that country is in for one hell of a cluster fuck when they attempt to put things back together.
The US only supplied Iraq with 2% of their overall military assets during their war with Iran. It was the Europeans, Russians, and Chinese who armed Saddam Hussein as well as Iran. If Iraq wanted to go war with Iran why would the US government give a damn? The Iranians had made their opinion of the US plain and clear so why would the US do anything to help them? I still don't understand the logic behind the US providing Iran with some advanced missiles towards the end of the conflict. The Iran-Iraq war was a monumental example of military incompetence on the part of Iraq and that is all that saved Iran. Although st
"you forgot to mention Saudi Arabia, Egypt under Mubarak, Libya under Qaddafi, Iraq under Saddam, Chile under Pinochet" I provided a few examples hoping someone with intelligence could identify the others.
"loyal puppets of your good ol' USA" This is the BS excuse everyone uses to avoid taking responsibility for their own incompetence and failures. One example. The US is constantly accused of bringing down the government in Iran back in 1953. However, it was the British who were fighting with the Iranian government at the time over the nationalization of the oil infrastructure that England had built over the years. They sent a Navvy task force to prevent Iran from exporting any oil to pressure the Iranian government to reverse course on nationalizing their assets. So what part did the US play to bring down the Iranian leader? I want details not speculative bullshit based on innuendo, theories, and possibilities. Did they kill anyone who disagreed? Did they mass troops at the Iranian border? Did they launch air strikes? In order for that government to fall it required a substantial number of Iranians working towards the same goal. If the Iranians themselves did not want this change they could have prevented it from happening. Instead I imagine the new government was offered favorable trade deals and other US assistance if the Shah was put in power and the British nationalization decision was re-considered . The US might have made the offer but the Iranians accepted the offer. This tactic has been SOP in international relationships since there were nations to have relationships with. What would have happened if the Shah had not been put in power against US wishes? Would the US have launched a war? And don't make the mistake of thinking the US military at the time was as dominate as it is today. Russia and China had large standing armies and posed the greatest threat to the US during that time period so launching a military action against Iran while still heavily engaged in Korea, Japan, and Germany was not an option.
Bradley Manning broke the law and is being held responsible for his actions. He has been provided with legal counsel and will face his charges in a military court of law. He is no longer in solitary confinement and just being detained in jail does not constitute torture. He is solely responsible for throwing away his own life by making a very stupid decision. While I don't believe he deserves to spend the rest of this life in prison he does deserve some punishment if convicted.
Why should I give 2 shits about what happens in Poland or anywhere else for that matter? The international community have made their animosity towards the US very clear. I see no reason the US should not return the favor. The discussion was about US citizens being subjected to tyrannical domestic rule.
"
I try my best to stay far away from either extreme and I probably should not have responded to the post but I can only take so much blatant idiocy and end up losing my temper sometimes.
"The USA also need to realize that they are now a tyranny, that they are comparable to Nazi Germany, and that this is necessarily going to piss people off and make them want to resist somehow. People have always resisted oppression, and this is no different."
You are a fucking idiot. Your moral equivalency arguments denigrate and minimize the true horrors that existed during the Nazi era as well as the atrocities taking place across the world today. We have already reached the point where people honestly believe that Gaza and the West Bank mimic the conditions of Auschwitz death camps and ethnic cleansing is taking place. Ethnic cleansing is supposed to reduce the population of the target group but the Palestinians have increased their population 5 fold over the past 20 years. If ethnic cleansing is happening the perpetrators need a new washing machine. The US is called fascist and totalitarian which lets the truly totalitarian governments in the world off the hook for the atrocities they commit on a daily basis. Atrocities they do not even attempt to hide while telling anyone who complains to fuck off and mind their own business. The US has been and still is the country that the people living under true tyranny go to extremes to migrate to. Last time I checked there were no US military tanks rolling down main street threatening people with arrest and death because they want to openly state an opinion on the government. I have not seen any online bloggers or activists being arrested or prevented from publishing their opinions complain about the government.I have mot seen or heard of people being arrested in the middle of the night and made to disappear. Sadly you are not alone is creating this phenomenon of redefining history and using extreme moral equivalency, absurd conspiracy theories, and total ignorance of what the word tyranny actually means to support your short sighted and often ridicules opinions of society. The reason there is not an armed uprising in the US is because the media and people like yourself judge the entire country on the small minority of extremists on all sides of the political spectrum
Any success that ANON and similar groups have achieved is not because of any technical genius on their part it is because of sloppy system admin on the sites being attacked. ANON has only exploited known vulnerabilities that have been patched for over a year. If they were really smart they would realize that hunting them down is child's play for groups like the NSA no matter how many proxies or data encryption keys they hide behind. So far they have just not been worth the effort. If the US was a tyranny these guys would already be either in jail or dead. Investigate what happens to people caught creating online vandalism or complaining about their government in countries like Iran, Syria, and N. Korea.
" poor Americans are getting health care that's the equivalent to what you'd get in Ethiopia or Somalia."
Exaggerate much or are you just clueless? The US system isn't perfect but if you have a heart attack or are in a car accident or just get the flu hospitals are required to treat you regardless of your ability to pay. The people in Ethiopia or Somalia are currently starving to death and I doubt the best medical care in the world can keep someone alive when they have no food to eat. It's to bad a "Freedom Flotilla" hasn't set sail to Somalia to help people who actually need it. Maybe Israel or the US can throw up a blockade to get their attention.
Thinking people should be willing to take some responsibility for their own life is a retarded vision? Blaming governments and the wealthy for all your failures is nothing but a way to ignore the fact that your choices and actions are also a major contributing factor in hardships you face in life. I don't recall claiming that Europe is a socialist hellhole.
Excellent rebuttal. And Mindcontrolled might want to do some actual research and see the income disparity that existed in America in the early 1900's. If those constantly complaining about the inequities in life would do more than stage protests and rampaging riots and take some personal responsibility for themselves. Trying to impose wealth equality with government and political policies only end up making everyone equally poor.
The era of the PC is ending? I guess that is true depending on how you define the starting point and ending point of the "era" in question. Is the current era ending in 1 year or 100 years from now? The longer the era lasts the more likely your statement is true. I guess this could also be the same era that Linux finally takes over the desktop too?
"Technology and R&D investment" is a miniscule portion of the overall government budget. But if we want to balance things out and reduce the complaints about using tax payer money for projects that provide no short term returns we can eliminate all foreign aid funding, which by the way is also an insignificant amount of money when compared against the entire government expenditures but it is enough to provide the money to fund R&D projects. Even though foreign aid is a small amount it should be the first step in reducing the debt and would also be a very popular decision for average US citizens.
Current government debt is primarily generated by the medicare and social security entitlement programs. I find this totally unacceptable since I have been paying both medicare and social security taxes ever since I started working. The age demographics are responsible for most of the problems but there is also a lot of bureaucratic waste contributing to the problem. Military spending as a percentage of the GDP is less than a lot of countries in the world. It is the operational costs incurred by the military deployments over the past 12 years that is responsible for increased military spending. R&D and even foreign aid to other countries are a minuscule part of the budget. US corporations may have a lot of loop holes in the tax code but they also are subject to one of the highest tax rates in the world. When people talk about how bad the US debt is they never seem consider the actual income side of the equation. The US generates so much revenue that a few smart policy changes and tax adjustments could eliminate most of this debt in 4 or 5 years or at least lower it to a reasonable problem. The Clinton administration was able to virtually eliminate deficit spending and reduce the overall debt in only 8 years. Governmental debt is noting like personal debt. The number of factors capable of influencing the national debt do not translate to the personal debt calculations. If DARPA wants to contribute money to a project such as interstellar research I say that is a good thing even if they produce no tangible results in my lifetime. While research like this might ultimately lead no where there is still the chance that the research results can be applied in other areas.
I'd say there were more than just a few idiots. If they had an IQ above room temperature that would have at least taken out the CCTV cameras before they started their smash and grab.
Slashdot Mirror
Last time I saw a public political protest in the US there were no club waving motorcyclists chasing down the protesters and cracking skulls of anyone to slow to get out of the way. This occurred in the 60's civil rights era but that type of government sanctioned violence is in the past. There were no reports of the government security services raiding the homes of anyone expected of leading the protests. In the US when someone decides to defy an order to cease blockading the target of their protest or creating a general nuisance to those around them who are not part of the protest they get picked up and herded into the police vans for a trip to the police station and released a couple minutes later with either a sternly worded warning or a misdemeanor with a nominal fine which if contested in court usually ends up reducing or eliminating the fine entirely. Try that in places like Iran or Syria and you can expect to get your head based in before being taken to jail for a more thorough beating and if you are really lucky you might see daylight after a few months, that is if you are still alive.
He does have a small point. Humanity as a species has always been ruthless as hell when it comes to tackling both naturally occurring obstacles as well as human obstacles and any humans creating obstacles.
I wasn't targeting your statement I was just making a general observation pointing out the quandary we find ourselves in today. Trying to balance this security versus privacy equation is where we seem to hit a brick wall. Our current government is totally incapable of compromising on any issue facing the US today and is causing serious harm to both the financial underpinnings of the country as well as any measures related to providing reasonable security policies. The people we are electing, from all political party or ideology have totally failed to carry out their responsibilities. They have contributed absolutely nothing to the country except turmoil. Before the next congressional elections I wish every American citizen , regardless of political party, would demand the resignation of every member of both the Senate and House. The executive branch and judicial branch can maintain government continuity for a short period of time until after the newly elected representatives take office.
It sure is complicated but just collecting our shit and coming home is what everyone is clamoring for so why not just do it? The US does not need boots on the ground to support and protect it's national interests. All that can be handled by the aircraft carriers, long range missiles, drones, and stealth assets. Leaving would probably take about 6 months but the logistics are available and all the "complications" can be left behind for others to deal with.
I do a lot of consulting with both large and medium size companies and they all seem to validate their passwords to ensure a minimum length while also requiring both alpha and numeric characters in the password. I have also seen places where both uppercase, lower case, and special character use is required.
Actually the US government is caught in a catch 22 situation when it comes to airport security and monitoring international calls when at least 1 party of the call is a foreign national. If they cease monitoring the international com traffic and remove the security checks at the airports the first time another terrorist incident occurs the government will be accused of willful negligence by the same people complaining about the security measures. I think getting rid of the com monitoring would not really be that harmful to security because the people planning and executing terrorists attacks have learned the hard way to avoid cell phone and telephone communications but reducing security at airports is another matter.
So you can't produce anything to refute my statements and want me to cite sources to support my statements? This is a tech forum not a history forum and I am not writing a dissertation on the subject but if I was I could most certainly provide the sources of my information. The fact you still have not refuted even one of my statements with facts is a clear sign that you rely solely on the "facts" you read on the Internet. Facts usually disseminated by partisans of the particular cause they are trying to justify. Fact omission's, outright fabrications, and conspiracy theories is how most of these people justify their beliefs. The document you mentioned to refute ny statements is beyond reproach because it was offered up by a honest to god government official? If that's the case I assume you believe anything a government official says or do you just cherry pick those that lend credence to your particular point of view? History is constantly being used to justify and excuse actions taking place today but the history being used is often compromised and slanted to support someones particular viewpoint. The Internet is the ultimate tool when it comes to spreading dis-information to large groups of people and too many people never question this. If you go to a website that does not offer support for your beliefs you can just go hunting for one that does where you will most likely end up in an echo chamber capable of providing the justification you seek . Here is one small example of how this methodology impacts us today. I am the not trying to justify or support Israeli actions with this example. I am only using it as an example of how distorted historical facts can be used to raise the animosity level between both sides of the conflict. A large number of people rail against Israel for stealing Palestinian land and if confronted with alternate opinions they often start marching back through time looking for anything, usually anecdotal evidence, that will strengthen their point of view. However, these folks never admit that there were both Arabs and Jews living in Israel at the start of the conflict. Even before Britain the UN got involved there was a growing number of armed confrontations between the 2 sides. Confrontations that are very similar to the Shia/Sunni and tribal conflicts taking place throughout the middle east and Africa today. Today's pro-Palestinian factions never acknowledge and often minimize any facts that might interfere with their righteous indignation and attempts to demonize Israel. Facts such as Israel accepting the proposed UN boundaries in 1948 while the Arabs did not. Instead 5 Arab countries chose war to push out the Jews. A large number of Palestinian "refugees" left their homes voluntarily on the urging of the attacking Arab forces who told them the war would be over in a few days and then they could go back home. Things did not go according to plan to say the least. If the Arabs had won the world would have most likely witnessed a continuation of the slaughter the Jews faced in Germany. There would have also never been a Palestinian state created. Egypt, Syria, and Jordan would have just formalized their rule over the portions of land they were already occupying. The Palestinians are just a tool used by the defeated Arabs to fight and demonize Israel in an effort to rid themselves of the humiliation they feel from being militarily defeated by the Jews on 3 occasions. It has been tool in their arsenal that can be used to fight Israel without getting the shit kicked out of them once again which would increase that level of the humiliation they already feel from earlier defeats. Another ignored fact is that there was no Arab recognition of "Palestinians" until the early 60's in preparation to justify the 1967 war Nasser was determined to wage. The pro-Palestinian factions also avoid or dismiss the 1973 surprise attack on Israel which ended up with Israel claiming additional territory. This land was not stolen, the Arab's forfeited it due to their offensive being defeated just like 1967. Very rarely do countries that lose an offensive war get a do over. Denying the territory lost in 1973 is a direct result of their aggression and asking for it back seems a bit silly if you ask me. Now here are more statements you can refute with facts if you chose.
The fact is the revolution happened. As I stated in my post you can't change the facts with political ideology but you can interpret the event by whatever ideology you support. And it is also a that the leaders of the revolution were University students. The were not 100% responsible for the revolution of course but they got the ball rolling and were the public face of the revolution. And you still have not presented any facts of your own disputing anything I said in this thread. Your "kindergarten kid" jibe and previous insults just show the high level of personal insecurity and historical blindness you are burdened with.
Now now, the people have already decided that it was the US, Israel, or both. The fact that there is no actual evidence just proves that it had to be the US or Israel because certainly no one else in the world has the ability to pull off something like this. Which is sort of surprising since the US is constantly criticized for a lack of cyber security abilities and overall intelligence. \sarcasm
I don't have time to go back through the entire thread right now but I believe I was refuting your suggestion that the US military was unparalleled at the time in question which is not true. Your response here seems to concentrate on US economic power which is another matter entirely. However, backing up your argument with a statement from one policy wonk in the State Department is pretty weak. It's true the US economy was the leader of the world at the time but US military power was checked by the USSR and to some extent China after the communists took power. Because of this the US military defense expenditures had en effect on that economic power just like it does today. The relationship strategy you referenced no doubt referred to all the money and military protection the US provided to Europe and Asia after the war which helped stabilize the world economy and eventually allowed the US to increase it's economic power even further because of this policy. And they were investments first which had the added benefit of providing humanitarian assistance but if there had been no obvious or substantial economic returns expected on those investments I seriously doubt the US would have contributed as much as they did. That same basic strategy is still practiced today. If the US had not helped Europe or Asia rebuild the US economic growth potential would have been basically confined to the US domestic markets so overall it was a good strategy. Especially compared against what those morons in Europe came up with in 1919 after WW1. And finally I tend to dismiss anyone who refers to liberals, progressives, conservatives, communists, socialists, or any other politically ideology when discussing historical events. You can debate and interpret the "meaning" of these events from any perspective you chose but the actual events themselves should stand on their own and distorting the facts of the actual events to support a political ideology does nothing but lead to historical revisionism and ultimately ends up creating animosity based on lies and deception. One example of this historical revisionism and it's effects would be that the citizens of most middle eastern countries, and even some uninformed US, citizens actually believe they defeated Israel in the 1973 war. I have seen Egyptian schoolbooks stating as fact that Egypt and it's allies decisively defeated Israel and took back the Sinai. The fact is Israel not only defeated a well coordinated and well equipped military attack on 2 fronts they eventually ended defeating the Syrians and ended up surrounding 1000's of Egyptian troops in the Sinai desert and cutting off their supply lines which helped push Sadat into negotiations with Israel. Israel even provided water and food to the Egyptian soldiers until the situation was resolved. I seriously doubt that if the situation had been reversed there would have been a single Israeli survivor walk out of that desert.
X-37B - unmanned at present. Capable of reuse, reaching orbit. orbital manuevering, and controlled re-entry and landing..
Please point out one incorrect or unsupportable statement I made in the previous post.
The problems involved with space exploration are not difficult? We can barely make it into orbit reliably (the Russians supply capsule just exploded today by the way) and it is certainly not cheap no matter who is providing the services. The Space Shuttle and space station are just mobile laboratories that enabled scientists to test theories and come up with better ideas to address all the problems associated with the space environment. The X-37 unmanned space craft was designed and built using data collected on shuttle performance and reliability data. So you can add this advance to the list with duct tape and Velcro.
"Please, don't insult my, or the Slashdot reader's intelligence." You have not shown any intelligence to insult yet. Your answer to my question regarding the Iranian example is the standard response which is 100% unsupported bullshit fortified with a big dose of self-righteousness. Again, what specific actions did the US take to over throw the Iranian government? Actions that are supported by facts rather than your poor attempts of analysing historical events based on your jaundiced views you evidently have indoctrinated yourself with. "US enjoyed unparalleled power after the WWII" Another fine example of your ignorance. After WW2 the US military was deployed in Germany and Japan overseeing the rebuilding of those countries while at the same time keeping the Soviet Union from grabbing more territory. China provided millions of armed peasants to fight for North Korea against UN forces with Russia supplying the arms and the first jet fighters to the North Koreans while the US was still using WW2 era propeller based aircraft. This situation required another large deployment of US military assets just to prevent a total rout. The US had an intact military after WW2 but it was already over committed to the point where the US seriously considered using nuclear weapons in Korea. The Russian military at the time was just as large and powerful as the US especially after demonstrating their own nuclear capabilities. That hardly sounds like the US was an unparalleled military power at the time. And those good ole Iranians sure got the government the wanted after the 1979 revolution didn't they? Those weekly "Death to America" rallies were a treat for the whole family weren't they? I bet you are just angry because you didn't get a chance participate in those rallies yourself. The harsh dictator they removed was definitely harsh but nobody seems to remember who he was treating harshly. Surprise, surprise, it was the religious extremists preaching Islamic rule who were constantly being targeted by the Iranian government not the average citizen in the street. The 1979 revolution was fronted by liberal university students with support from other liberal minded political groups and Islamic religious parties. However the religious parties were in the clear minority when the revolution began. The liberals who fronted the revolution decided to concentrate all their efforts on sticking the US in the eye with the hostages instead of organizing a new government to replace the Shah. The Islamic party took full advantage of this distraction and organized themselves and take control of the government themselves. Over throwing a government is relatively easy if you don't mind a few deaths but the hard part is uniting all those who brought the old government down. The Iranian revolutionaries are a good example of what can happen when you let jingoism and revolutionary fervor to override common sense. Even the revolutions in the middle east and N Africa today are following that same pattern. The Egyptian government fell and now the military is in charge and there has been no real progress made in determining the fate of a future government. Promising elections is fine but Saddam Hussein had elections all the time and he won 99% of the vote every time. There has been little of no change in Tunisia and now that Gaddafi has been brought down that country is in for one hell of a cluster fuck when they attempt to put things back together. The US only supplied Iraq with 2% of their overall military assets during their war with Iran. It was the Europeans, Russians, and Chinese who armed Saddam Hussein as well as Iran. If Iraq wanted to go war with Iran why would the US government give a damn? The Iranians had made their opinion of the US plain and clear so why would the US do anything to help them? I still don't understand the logic behind the US providing Iran with some advanced missiles towards the end of the conflict. The Iran-Iraq war was a monumental example of military incompetence on the part of Iraq and that is all that saved Iran. Although st
"you forgot to mention Saudi Arabia, Egypt under Mubarak, Libya under Qaddafi, Iraq under Saddam, Chile under Pinochet" I provided a few examples hoping someone with intelligence could identify the others. "loyal puppets of your good ol' USA" This is the BS excuse everyone uses to avoid taking responsibility for their own incompetence and failures. One example. The US is constantly accused of bringing down the government in Iran back in 1953. However, it was the British who were fighting with the Iranian government at the time over the nationalization of the oil infrastructure that England had built over the years. They sent a Navvy task force to prevent Iran from exporting any oil to pressure the Iranian government to reverse course on nationalizing their assets. So what part did the US play to bring down the Iranian leader? I want details not speculative bullshit based on innuendo, theories, and possibilities. Did they kill anyone who disagreed? Did they mass troops at the Iranian border? Did they launch air strikes? In order for that government to fall it required a substantial number of Iranians working towards the same goal. If the Iranians themselves did not want this change they could have prevented it from happening. Instead I imagine the new government was offered favorable trade deals and other US assistance if the Shah was put in power and the British nationalization decision was re-considered . The US might have made the offer but the Iranians accepted the offer. This tactic has been SOP in international relationships since there were nations to have relationships with. What would have happened if the Shah had not been put in power against US wishes? Would the US have launched a war? And don't make the mistake of thinking the US military at the time was as dominate as it is today. Russia and China had large standing armies and posed the greatest threat to the US during that time period so launching a military action against Iran while still heavily engaged in Korea, Japan, and Germany was not an option. Bradley Manning broke the law and is being held responsible for his actions. He has been provided with legal counsel and will face his charges in a military court of law. He is no longer in solitary confinement and just being detained in jail does not constitute torture. He is solely responsible for throwing away his own life by making a very stupid decision. While I don't believe he deserves to spend the rest of this life in prison he does deserve some punishment if convicted.
Why should I give 2 shits about what happens in Poland or anywhere else for that matter? The international community have made their animosity towards the US very clear. I see no reason the US should not return the favor. The discussion was about US citizens being subjected to tyrannical domestic rule. "
I try my best to stay far away from either extreme and I probably should not have responded to the post but I can only take so much blatant idiocy and end up losing my temper sometimes.
"The USA also need to realize that they are now a tyranny, that they are comparable to Nazi Germany, and that this is necessarily going to piss people off and make them want to resist somehow. People have always resisted oppression, and this is no different." You are a fucking idiot. Your moral equivalency arguments denigrate and minimize the true horrors that existed during the Nazi era as well as the atrocities taking place across the world today. We have already reached the point where people honestly believe that Gaza and the West Bank mimic the conditions of Auschwitz death camps and ethnic cleansing is taking place. Ethnic cleansing is supposed to reduce the population of the target group but the Palestinians have increased their population 5 fold over the past 20 years. If ethnic cleansing is happening the perpetrators need a new washing machine. The US is called fascist and totalitarian which lets the truly totalitarian governments in the world off the hook for the atrocities they commit on a daily basis. Atrocities they do not even attempt to hide while telling anyone who complains to fuck off and mind their own business. The US has been and still is the country that the people living under true tyranny go to extremes to migrate to. Last time I checked there were no US military tanks rolling down main street threatening people with arrest and death because they want to openly state an opinion on the government. I have not seen any online bloggers or activists being arrested or prevented from publishing their opinions complain about the government.I have mot seen or heard of people being arrested in the middle of the night and made to disappear. Sadly you are not alone is creating this phenomenon of redefining history and using extreme moral equivalency, absurd conspiracy theories, and total ignorance of what the word tyranny actually means to support your short sighted and often ridicules opinions of society. The reason there is not an armed uprising in the US is because the media and people like yourself judge the entire country on the small minority of extremists on all sides of the political spectrum Any success that ANON and similar groups have achieved is not because of any technical genius on their part it is because of sloppy system admin on the sites being attacked. ANON has only exploited known vulnerabilities that have been patched for over a year. If they were really smart they would realize that hunting them down is child's play for groups like the NSA no matter how many proxies or data encryption keys they hide behind. So far they have just not been worth the effort. If the US was a tyranny these guys would already be either in jail or dead. Investigate what happens to people caught creating online vandalism or complaining about their government in countries like Iran, Syria, and N. Korea.
" poor Americans are getting health care that's the equivalent to what you'd get in Ethiopia or Somalia." Exaggerate much or are you just clueless? The US system isn't perfect but if you have a heart attack or are in a car accident or just get the flu hospitals are required to treat you regardless of your ability to pay. The people in Ethiopia or Somalia are currently starving to death and I doubt the best medical care in the world can keep someone alive when they have no food to eat. It's to bad a "Freedom Flotilla" hasn't set sail to Somalia to help people who actually need it. Maybe Israel or the US can throw up a blockade to get their attention.
Thinking people should be willing to take some responsibility for their own life is a retarded vision? Blaming governments and the wealthy for all your failures is nothing but a way to ignore the fact that your choices and actions are also a major contributing factor in hardships you face in life. I don't recall claiming that Europe is a socialist hellhole.
Excellent rebuttal. And Mindcontrolled might want to do some actual research and see the income disparity that existed in America in the early 1900's. If those constantly complaining about the inequities in life would do more than stage protests and rampaging riots and take some personal responsibility for themselves. Trying to impose wealth equality with government and political policies only end up making everyone equally poor.
The era of the PC is ending? I guess that is true depending on how you define the starting point and ending point of the "era" in question. Is the current era ending in 1 year or 100 years from now? The longer the era lasts the more likely your statement is true. I guess this could also be the same era that Linux finally takes over the desktop too?
"Technology and R&D investment" is a miniscule portion of the overall government budget. But if we want to balance things out and reduce the complaints about using tax payer money for projects that provide no short term returns we can eliminate all foreign aid funding, which by the way is also an insignificant amount of money when compared against the entire government expenditures but it is enough to provide the money to fund R&D projects. Even though foreign aid is a small amount it should be the first step in reducing the debt and would also be a very popular decision for average US citizens.
Current government debt is primarily generated by the medicare and social security entitlement programs. I find this totally unacceptable since I have been paying both medicare and social security taxes ever since I started working. The age demographics are responsible for most of the problems but there is also a lot of bureaucratic waste contributing to the problem. Military spending as a percentage of the GDP is less than a lot of countries in the world. It is the operational costs incurred by the military deployments over the past 12 years that is responsible for increased military spending. R&D and even foreign aid to other countries are a minuscule part of the budget. US corporations may have a lot of loop holes in the tax code but they also are subject to one of the highest tax rates in the world. When people talk about how bad the US debt is they never seem consider the actual income side of the equation. The US generates so much revenue that a few smart policy changes and tax adjustments could eliminate most of this debt in 4 or 5 years or at least lower it to a reasonable problem. The Clinton administration was able to virtually eliminate deficit spending and reduce the overall debt in only 8 years. Governmental debt is noting like personal debt. The number of factors capable of influencing the national debt do not translate to the personal debt calculations. If DARPA wants to contribute money to a project such as interstellar research I say that is a good thing even if they produce no tangible results in my lifetime. While research like this might ultimately lead no where there is still the chance that the research results can be applied in other areas.
I'd say there were more than just a few idiots. If they had an IQ above room temperature that would have at least taken out the CCTV cameras before they started their smash and grab.