If a rich man does it, it is called 'war'. If a poor man does it, it is called 'terrorism'.
No. Terrorism has a very specific definition:
The noun terrorism has 1 sense (no senses from tagged texts)
1. terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act -- (the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)
There is nothing "rich vs. poor" about it. Bin Laden is (or was) a multi-millionaire, for example.
Who has killed more innocent civilians in Iraq : AQ or the USA?
Don't change the subject, numbers don't matter for qualifying. Actual victims don't matter either. What matters are the intended victims. For example, if a single person starts shooting at random from the roof in the name of God (or some other ideology), he is a terrorist, even he never hits anyone. When, in order to get him, the entire building is blown up (with hundreds of innocent inside it), the people responsible are not terrorists. Morons — yes, quite possibly even criminal morons. But not terrorists...
...or live in a country where you can actually just drink the water from lakes and rivers.
There is no such country, and there never was. That the pastoral stories you read never mentioned water-born parasites and illnesses (except for the one Slavic fable, where a boy turns into a goat after drinking from a puddle agaisnt his older sister's cautioning), does not mean it never happened.
It is not so much due to the much maligned modern pollution, it is due to the many organisms, whose existence predates man's. Stomach worms are just one — and fairly benign — example.
And if must drink such unfiltered and unboiled water, don't drink from a lake or other standing water. Try to find the fastest running stream you can — you'll have a better chance...
Terrorism is about creating fear in a population by attacking targets that have no military significance.
Not quite. Military significance is not important, the attacker's goals are:
The noun terrorism has 1 sense (no senses from tagged texts)
1. terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act -- (the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)
9/11 attackers' goals certainly qualify — as bin Laden has been gleefully reminding us ever since. The WTC was full of civilians, and had no non-civilians inside either... It was a terrorist attack.
The world trade center, the center of their economy.
WTC was attacked because these were very large building, which would make the attack more spectacular — and Mohammed Atta is known to have hated toll buildings. WTC was not picked on for its economic importance, and it was well known to be staffed purely by civilian personnel. So, while Pentagon and White House may be debated, this was a purely terrorist target in 2001 and that one time before.
any time you hear the word "Terrorist" used to describe attacks on the US, you're listening to spin and lies, because it's never happened.
Nonsense. Want to maximize profit? Use the OS with the lowest licensing fee. i.e. not QNX.
You are changing the subject. I was looking for anyone, who is currently doing something with a properly free OS, and who will not be doing the same with QNX due to the latter's more restrictive licensing. If you don't have such an example, you should not have followed up.
You especially should not have followed up, because you posted nonsense — your statement would only be true, if the OSes being compared were otherwise equivalent. They aren't. Each has strengths and weaknesses, and for many paying QNX would be (far) less expensive, than keeping extra developers on stuff to deal with a free OS' idiosyncrasies.
I'm shocked to read the sympathetic account of this Bryan, who was spying on a co-worker and discovered him to be a paedophile...
Had it been an FBI agent spying on anyone without a warrant, Slashdot would've been all steaming and screaming, even if the subject of the snooping were also discovered to be a terrorist (or a paedophile, for that matter).
Is it possible to create specification which is so good, that you could feed it into a interpreter/compiler
It is not the specification, that is (or has to be) "so good", but the language used to express it...
Programmers and engineers are the people who take a flawed specification and create a workable product.
Yes, they take a (often flawed) specification expressed in one language (usually imprecise) and turn it into another (usually — less flawed) specification expressed in a more precise language, for which a translator exists.
What I'm driving at is, the gap between the languages ought to be closing down gradually, eliminating the distinction between the two steps.
Modify the source code for commercial gain without having to pay a licensing fee for each device
Uhm, yes, if you are after commercial gain, then QNX wants a slice. Nothing wrong with that.
But my question was, what are you (or someone you know) currently doing, that you would not be able to do with QNX?..
In other words, I don't believe, a single Slashdot user is currently selling a modified Linux/BSD code and would like to do the same with QNX, but is prevented from doing so by the latter's restrictive licensing... All of the bitching is by people, who aren't selling anything anyway (if they were, they would not have minded paying QNX their licensing fee).
One man's "terrorist" is another man's "Freedom fighter".
The oft-repeated phrase is rather stupid. "Terrorist" is about methods (means) — targeting civilians. "Freedom fighter" is about goals (aims) — achieving a "freedom" of some sort or another.
There is not contradiction — one can be both in the same person's opinion. See also False Dichotomy...
The source will be available, but not under a license compatible with the OSI's Open Source definition or the FSF's four freedoms.
I would like to know, what it is, that you (or someone you know) are currently doing with a "truly free" OS, that you will not be able to do with the QNX now.
Well, if you are really good at playing guitar, how come your singles aren't on display at music stores and $80K is your target of annual salary? Or, maybe, your snowboarding skills are impressive enough to get you gear-endorsement contracts? Winter is coming, set your sights waaay above $80K...
Yes, out of the things you love doing, one has to pick something reasonably useful. But if nothing comes to mind, then one really is stupid and/or waste of material, as I initially stated...
Thankfully you seem to have a job that you enjoy and that brings in a lot of money, congratulations.
Thanks. I wanted to program since I was 12 or thereabouts — because my dad managed to impress me with how cool it is — and I was quite determined ever since (a couple of decades, actually). Maybe, that's just my luck, that the profession feeds and clothes me well. Or, maybe, it is the many hours and years I spent at it — doing open-source things in the evenings and weekends. It is not "hard work" — I'm very lazy. It is because I genuinely love it, so doing it (within and without the paying hours) is coming (almost) entirely out of the entertainment budget (of time).
Of course, my own reasonable success tints my vision pink. But I'm yet to meet a person born-and-raised in this country (immigrants are often impeded by coming here late), who loves what they do and is not well-off...
A programmer is more someone who writes code to spec, with much less scope for innovation.
If the "spec" is written in a precise enough language, there is no need for this "programmer" — get (or develop) a compiler or interpreter for the language once, and be done with it.
And a waste of material to boot, if you pick a profession based on its earning potential. And I really have no patience for lectures on how arrogant my saying this is.
Do, what you love to do — and get to be really good at it, and you'll earn a lot.
The problem with Programming today is that much more programming suddenly became required over the last decade or two, than there were naturally born and/or nurtured programmers. You had people becoming "programmers" after a 2-6 months courses... Asking these people, what bit is, results in stares and head-scratching. Many of the better ones got promoted too high as well (a problem in many other professions in America due to its low unemployment today, BTW).
That much of the work of these programmer wanna-bees is outsourced is a good thing — maybe, the quality of burgers will improve, and/or hiring a (legal) baby-sitter will become possible again. The real professionals — and those, who really want to become professionals — don't have much to fear...
And if you read the Bill of Rights, it doesn't have any provisions limiting it to apply only to Americans. It is prohibitions on what the government may do, and they don't have national restrictions, they apply to the actions of the government.
The so called Bill of Rights is the batch of ammendments to the American Constitution — guaranteing rights of American citizens. But I do also prefer extending the rights to all people, so that's not why I'm posting a disagreement.
Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is there a prohibition to intercept communications. Extending the prohibition against "unreasonable searches" to "unreasonable eavesdropping", actually, requires the same or more stretching, than extending the notion of "stealing" to cover unauthorized copying does.
And then, even if we accept that eavesdropping really is "search" (and it is, in my opinion, just as music piracy is theft), one needs to demonstrate, that these particular eavesdropping is also "unreasonable". Only then will any talk of the government violating freedoms/rights/Constitution become warranted.
In order to retain those markets, farmers and grain companies must keep the two products separate, as there is no economically viable way to sort GM seeds from non-GM seeds.
I'm no expert on agriculture, but I doubt the hurdles are as you describe them... Farmers either buy the seeds, or keep some from previous year. Either way people, one can opt in and out of using Monsanto's quite easily.
[...] why is Monsanto so keen to include them? Simple, Monsanto needs a way to ensure that farmers don't use any of their IP without paying.
Yes, not entirely unlike the DRM. And as long as they have that gene inserted, they don't need to chase anyone with their lawsuits, do they? Problems solved.
Whoever wants to use their (superior) seeds, can do that — without worrying about subsequent "infringement". They will not be able to keep seeds for next year, but they (should) know about that upfront.
If your neighbor buys land next to yours and plants patented seeds on it under a contract with Monsanto, and some seeds blow over to your property and grow, you may be liable for patent infringement.
That would not have happened, if the neighbor's batch had the "terminator" gene in it, would it?.. That's what we are discussing in this (sub-)thread... Let's stay on-subject, Ok?
And what would be wrong with either of those two steps? Nobody is forced to use Monsanto's products, right?..
BTW, the "terminator" gene may, actually, be viewed as an assurance against the modified plants "escaping" into the wild — a concern commonly voiced by the opponents of the (modern) genetic modifications.
Just wait 'till someone like the evil Monsanto figures out a way to genetically modify this weed to either boost the oil contents even further, or make it capable of growing in Antarctica, or both... Then we will get the showdown...
This makes absolutely no sense. 100%-effectice law enforcement is a good goal, but not at the expense of personal liberty and rights.
Although was no mention of any injury to the personal liberties and rights, the OP was quite adamant deploring the device as oppressive and its users as "government lackeys". The discussed contraption is a law-enforcement tool. All of the recurring debates around progress in such tools should really be concentrating on the one issue: "do we want a complete law enforcement?". You say, it is a "good goal", but there is a reasonable argument, that some leeway should be left for us to be able to violate some future overly oppressive law (rather than defeat it through legal means).
That is what should be debated — once formulated this way, there will be no (or less) feces-throwing between the "anarchists" and the "law-and-order" types.
Your last sentence makes my brain hurt. Are you saying that because there was no record of the government abuse, the abuse didn't happen?
No, I was saying, that if the government has no record, it will not be able to prosecute its (unwarranted) target. Thus, the target would not need to defend themself.
What we really should be concerned about here, are the non-government abuses — access to the system by vendors and their sub-contractors, for example, who may be able to exploit its power for their own private gain (monetary or otherwise). Nothing "revolutionary" here either, of course. The hardware existed in phone-exchanges to eavesdrop on phone calls for decades, and some people could abuse it all along.
But if he [Michael Moore -mi] wasn't famous he would have been put in one of the "free speech zones" (i.e. fenced in pens blocks away from where anyone could hear or see) like everyone else.
Having worked just a few blocks away I walked around the convention building and witnessed a number of demonstrations. The free speech was anything but limited. That nothing like this happened, was a very commendable achievement of the city government.
and the government lackies can spy on the people with no need to get a warrant or create any other paper trail that could help a wrongfully-targeted citizen defend themself.
Generally, figure it out — among yourself — whether you think, a 100%-effective law-enforcement is a good goal at all... In this particular case, without a "paper trail", the wrongfully-targeted citizen would have no need to defend themself.
This is apparently common. In the United States, it is a felony to leave one's car keys in one's car. Hopefully, this has more to do with insurance fraud than it does with temptation.
Khm, I did not even know about this US law... In any case, yes, it, likely, does have to do with insurance fraud, just as the ruling in question has to do with illegal downloading.
Why, yes, right here somebody was correcting me on another subject, pointing out, that in Australia one can get be fined for leaving their car unsecured.
Similarly, people get all excited about gun-dealers not performing sufficient checks on their customers — never mind, that the dealer merely makes the "gun available", they are being sued over the crimes committed by people, who bought it.
I've also heard the argument from some of the bleedier-heart Californians, that leaving one's car unlocked is racist, because it "seduces" a poor black person to steal it...
he initially promised to destroy those (in)famous WMDs within 12 months, for example, but still had them in 1997 and some remnants were even found in 2003-4.
Nothing was found. There were no weapons.
I wonder, if you worked for the Iraqi government... Let me roast your lying stomach on the burning rays of facts:
1997
The UN disarmament commission concludes that Iraq has continued to conceal information on biological and chemical weapons and missiles (Oct 23).
Iraq expels American members of the UN inspection team (Nov. 13).
And then:
Jan. 16, 2003
UN inspectors discover 11 undeclared empty chemical warheads in Iraq.
Since 2003 Coalitions forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.
Didn't you just post: "Nothing was found"? Oops...
We now proceed to the cold void darkness of your knowledge of Economics:
What triggered the invasion was the decision Saddam made in 2000 to stop using the US dollar as a reserve currency. The whole US economy is based on the US dollar being the world reserve currency and that status was threatened by Saddam.
Khmm, it does not even puzzle you, what we were objecting to before 2000, huh? I don't just mean the battles of 1991, but also those later Clinton-style operations... But, whatever, the truth remains is that as long as that euro (or yen) currency remains freely convertible into dollars, we don't really care. As long as those Kuwaitis and Saudis continue to spend their earnings (in whatever currency) investing in our companies, on our planes and automobiles, we don't care. And even if they chose to Japanese electronics or a Mercedes — that's fine too. As long as nothing threatens the free markets, America will prosper along with the better part of humanity.
It is now threatened by Iran and Venezuela... Expect "regime change" of some sort in both countries fairly soon. Coup, revolution, civil war or perhaps even invasion.
Both are rather overdue for regime change. If you dislike Bush, you should abhor Chavez. But to "earn" an invasion, they have to be messing (or threatening to mess) with the neighbors militarily. Iran does, and may, indeed, get it... Chavez tried to (help FARC), but stopped years ago and now confines himself to domestic matters — such as removing term-limits on (his) Presidency...
You reaffirm your allies bloodthirsty, medieval, religious, monarchistic, murderous regime?
I do? Where? Whatever Kuwait's faults, Iraq was, actually, worse. But that's internal to each country — as long as they keep it internal. We might criticize them, but we would not invade on the grounds of "poor government". Even in the face of genocide (as in Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Darfur), we'd be dragging our feet agonizing over the non-interference principles.
i comforted my self with the thought that oil might be the real reason for the Iraq invasion...
No, it is unbelievably stupid to allege, that "stealing oil" was our reason. Only the least-educated of the "Arab street" think so... If this really were our motivation, we would've taken over Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (both governed by rather unpleasant regimes, BTW). And, of course, something as desperate as Congo would've been an even lower-hanging fruit (would've been good for them, actually).
But no, that was not our reason — these days natural resources are much easier bought that stolen.
"Saddam tried to kill my dad"
He did? Khmm... I don't know anything about your family, unfortunately. Nor do I know another American, whose dad was explicitly and deliberately targeted by Saddam Hussein. No, our reasons were simpler — Saddam attacked our ally (in 1991), we drove him out and ceased fire — pretty much on the board. We would not even help the hapless Shia, who rose up expecting our help (that foot-dragging was America's shame too).
But Saddam has violated many items of the peace agreement — he initially promised to destroy those (in)famous WMDs within 12 months, for example, but still had them in 1997 and some remnants were even found in 2003-4. He also continued to sponsor terrorism against our other ally — Israel — to the tune of $10K for each suicide bombing (the last payouts were given out a month before our invasion). His ground forces continued to attack our patrolling planes. List of smaller violations (such accounting for all Kuwaiti prisoners) is longer...
Slashdot Mirror
No. Terrorism has a very specific definition:
There is nothing "rich vs. poor" about it. Bin Laden is (or was) a multi-millionaire, for example.
Don't change the subject, numbers don't matter for qualifying. Actual victims don't matter either. What matters are the intended victims. For example, if a single person starts shooting at random from the roof in the name of God (or some other ideology), he is a terrorist, even he never hits anyone. When, in order to get him, the entire building is blown up (with hundreds of innocent inside it), the people responsible are not terrorists. Morons — yes, quite possibly even criminal morons. But not terrorists...
Yes.
There is no such country, and there never was. That the pastoral stories you read never mentioned water-born parasites and illnesses (except for the one Slavic fable, where a boy turns into a goat after drinking from a puddle agaisnt his older sister's cautioning), does not mean it never happened.
It is not so much due to the much maligned modern pollution, it is due to the many organisms, whose existence predates man's. Stomach worms are just one — and fairly benign — example.
And if must drink such unfiltered and unboiled water, don't drink from a lake or other standing water. Try to find the fastest running stream you can — you'll have a better chance...
Not quite. Military significance is not important, the attacker's goals are:
9/11 attackers' goals certainly qualify — as bin Laden has been gleefully reminding us ever since. The WTC was full of civilians, and had no non-civilians inside either... It was a terrorist attack.
WTC was attacked because these were very large building, which would make the attack more spectacular — and Mohammed Atta is known to have hated toll buildings. WTC was not picked on for its economic importance, and it was well known to be staffed purely by civilian personnel. So, while Pentagon and White House may be debated, this was a purely terrorist target in 2001 and that one time before.
Oops...
You are changing the subject. I was looking for anyone, who is currently doing something with a properly free OS, and who will not be doing the same with QNX due to the latter's more restrictive licensing. If you don't have such an example, you should not have followed up.
You especially should not have followed up, because you posted nonsense — your statement would only be true, if the OSes being compared were otherwise equivalent. They aren't. Each has strengths and weaknesses, and for many paying QNX would be (far) less expensive, than keeping extra developers on stuff to deal with a free OS' idiosyncrasies.
Do try harder the next time around...
I'm shocked to read the sympathetic account of this Bryan, who was spying on a co-worker and discovered him to be a paedophile...
Had it been an FBI agent spying on anyone without a warrant, Slashdot would've been all steaming and screaming, even if the subject of the snooping were also discovered to be a terrorist (or a paedophile, for that matter).
It is not the specification, that is (or has to be) "so good", but the language used to express it...
Yes, they take a (often flawed) specification expressed in one language (usually imprecise) and turn it into another (usually — less flawed) specification expressed in a more precise language, for which a translator exists.
What I'm driving at is, the gap between the languages ought to be closing down gradually, eliminating the distinction between the two steps.
Uhm, yes, if you are after commercial gain, then QNX wants a slice. Nothing wrong with that.
But my question was, what are you (or someone you know) currently doing, that you would not be able to do with QNX?..
In other words, I don't believe, a single Slashdot user is currently selling a modified Linux/BSD code and would like to do the same with QNX, but is prevented from doing so by the latter's restrictive licensing... All of the bitching is by people, who aren't selling anything anyway (if they were, they would not have minded paying QNX their licensing fee).
The oft-repeated phrase is rather stupid. "Terrorist" is about methods (means) — targeting civilians. "Freedom fighter" is about goals (aims) — achieving a "freedom" of some sort or another.
There is not contradiction — one can be both in the same person's opinion. See also False Dichotomy...
I would like to know, what it is, that you (or someone you know) are currently doing with a "truly free" OS, that you will not be able to do with the QNX now.
Please, advise.
Well, if you are really good at playing guitar, how come your singles aren't on display at music stores and $80K is your target of annual salary? Or, maybe, your snowboarding skills are impressive enough to get you gear-endorsement contracts? Winter is coming, set your sights waaay above $80K...
Yes, out of the things you love doing, one has to pick something reasonably useful. But if nothing comes to mind, then one really is stupid and/or waste of material, as I initially stated...
Thanks. I wanted to program since I was 12 or thereabouts — because my dad managed to impress me with how cool it is — and I was quite determined ever since (a couple of decades, actually). Maybe, that's just my luck, that the profession feeds and clothes me well. Or, maybe, it is the many hours and years I spent at it — doing open-source things in the evenings and weekends. It is not "hard work" — I'm very lazy. It is because I genuinely love it, so doing it (within and without the paying hours) is coming (almost) entirely out of the entertainment budget (of time).
Of course, my own reasonable success tints my vision pink. But I'm yet to meet a person born-and-raised in this country (immigrants are often impeded by coming here late), who loves what they do and is not well-off...
If the "spec" is written in a precise enough language, there is no need for this "programmer" — get (or develop) a compiler or interpreter for the language once, and be done with it.
That's the theory. In practice, you, most likely, just aren't using a high-level enough language...
And a waste of material to boot, if you pick a profession based on its earning potential. And I really have no patience for lectures on how arrogant my saying this is.
Do, what you love to do — and get to be really good at it, and you'll earn a lot.
The problem with Programming today is that much more programming suddenly became required over the last decade or two, than there were naturally born and/or nurtured programmers. You had people becoming "programmers" after a 2-6 months courses... Asking these people, what bit is, results in stares and head-scratching. Many of the better ones got promoted too high as well (a problem in many other professions in America due to its low unemployment today, BTW).
That much of the work of these programmer wanna-bees is outsourced is a good thing — maybe, the quality of burgers will improve, and/or hiring a (legal) baby-sitter will become possible again. The real professionals — and those, who really want to become professionals — don't have much to fear...
The so called Bill of Rights is the batch of ammendments to the American Constitution — guaranteing rights of American citizens. But I do also prefer extending the rights to all people, so that's not why I'm posting a disagreement.
Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is there a prohibition to intercept communications. Extending the prohibition against "unreasonable searches" to "unreasonable eavesdropping", actually, requires the same or more stretching, than extending the notion of "stealing" to cover unauthorized copying does.
And then, even if we accept that eavesdropping really is "search" (and it is, in my opinion, just as music piracy is theft), one needs to demonstrate, that these particular eavesdropping is also "unreasonable". Only then will any talk of the government violating freedoms/rights/Constitution become warranted.
I'm no expert on agriculture, but I doubt the hurdles are as you describe them... Farmers either buy the seeds, or keep some from previous year. Either way people, one can opt in and out of using Monsanto's quite easily.
Yes, not entirely unlike the DRM. And as long as they have that gene inserted, they don't need to chase anyone with their lawsuits, do they? Problems solved.
Whoever wants to use their (superior) seeds, can do that — without worrying about subsequent "infringement". They will not be able to keep seeds for next year, but they (should) know about that upfront.
That would not have happened, if the neighbor's batch had the "terminator" gene in it, would it?.. That's what we are discussing in this (sub-)thread... Let's stay on-subject, Ok?
And what would be wrong with either of those two steps? Nobody is forced to use Monsanto's products, right?..
BTW, the "terminator" gene may, actually, be viewed as an assurance against the modified plants "escaping" into the wild — a concern commonly voiced by the opponents of the (modern) genetic modifications.
Just wait 'till someone like the evil Monsanto figures out a way to genetically modify this weed to either boost the oil contents even further, or make it capable of growing in Antarctica, or both... Then we will get the showdown...
Although was no mention of any injury to the personal liberties and rights, the OP was quite adamant deploring the device as oppressive and its users as "government lackeys". The discussed contraption is a law-enforcement tool. All of the recurring debates around progress in such tools should really be concentrating on the one issue: "do we want a complete law enforcement?". You say, it is a "good goal", but there is a reasonable argument, that some leeway should be left for us to be able to violate some future overly oppressive law (rather than defeat it through legal means).
That is what should be debated — once formulated this way, there will be no (or less) feces-throwing between the "anarchists" and the "law-and-order" types.
No, I was saying, that if the government has no record, it will not be able to prosecute its (unwarranted) target. Thus, the target would not need to defend themself.
What we really should be concerned about here, are the non-government abuses — access to the system by vendors and their sub-contractors, for example, who may be able to exploit its power for their own private gain (monetary or otherwise). Nothing "revolutionary" here either, of course. The hardware existed in phone-exchanges to eavesdrop on phone calls for decades, and some people could abuse it all along.
Having worked just a few blocks away I walked around the convention building and witnessed a number of demonstrations. The free speech was anything but limited. That nothing like this happened, was a very commendable achievement of the city government.
Really? Is that why Michael Moore was attending the Republican National Convention in 2004? Was he "squelched" by holding a "rolling press-conference" there?
Generally, figure it out — among yourself — whether you think, a 100%-effective law-enforcement is a good goal at all... In this particular case, without a "paper trail", the wrongfully-targeted citizen would have no need to defend themself.
Khm, I did not even know about this US law... In any case, yes, it, likely, does have to do with insurance fraud, just as the ruling in question has to do with illegal downloading.
Why, yes, right here somebody was correcting me on another subject, pointing out, that in Australia one can get be fined for leaving their car unsecured.
Similarly, people get all excited about gun-dealers not performing sufficient checks on their customers — never mind, that the dealer merely makes the "gun available", they are being sued over the crimes committed by people, who bought it.
I've also heard the argument from some of the bleedier-heart Californians, that leaving one's car unlocked is racist, because it "seduces" a poor black person to steal it...
Can we, please, have some coherency here?
I wonder, if you worked for the Iraqi government... Let me roast your lying stomach on the burning rays of facts:
And then:
And then, post-invastion:
Didn't you just post: "Nothing was found"? Oops...
We now proceed to the cold void darkness of your knowledge of Economics:
Khmm, it does not even puzzle you, what we were objecting to before 2000, huh? I don't just mean the battles of 1991, but also those later Clinton-style operations... But, whatever, the truth remains is that as long as that euro (or yen) currency remains freely convertible into dollars, we don't really care. As long as those Kuwaitis and Saudis continue to spend their earnings (in whatever currency) investing in our companies, on our planes and automobiles, we don't care. And even if they chose to Japanese electronics or a Mercedes — that's fine too. As long as nothing threatens the free markets, America will prosper along with the better part of humanity.
Both are rather overdue for regime change. If you dislike Bush, you should abhor Chavez. But to "earn" an invasion, they have to be messing (or threatening to mess) with the neighbors militarily. Iran does, and may, indeed, get it... Chavez tried to (help FARC), but stopped years ago and now confines himself to domestic matters — such as removing term-limits on (his) Presidency...
I do? Where? Whatever Kuwait's faults, Iraq was, actually, worse. But that's internal to each country — as long as they keep it internal. We might criticize them, but we would not invade on the grounds of "poor government". Even in the face of genocide (as in Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Darfur), we'd be dragging our feet agonizing over the non-interference principles.
No, it is unbelievably stupid to allege, that "stealing oil" was our reason. Only the least-educated of the "Arab street" think so... If this really were our motivation, we would've taken over Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (both governed by rather unpleasant regimes, BTW). And, of course, something as desperate as Congo would've been an even lower-hanging fruit (would've been good for them, actually).
But no, that was not our reason — these days natural resources are much easier bought that stolen.
He did? Khmm... I don't know anything about your family, unfortunately. Nor do I know another American, whose dad was explicitly and deliberately targeted by Saddam Hussein. No, our reasons were simpler — Saddam attacked our ally (in 1991), we drove him out and ceased fire — pretty much on the board. We would not even help the hapless Shia, who rose up expecting our help (that foot-dragging was America's shame too).
But Saddam has violated many items of the peace agreement — he initially promised to destroy those (in)famous WMDs within 12 months, for example, but still had them in 1997 and some remnants were even found in 2003-4. He also continued to sponsor terrorism against our other ally — Israel — to the tune of $10K for each suicide bombing (the last payouts were given out a month before our invasion). His ground forces continued to attack our patrolling planes. List of smaller violations (such accounting for all Kuwaiti prisoners) is longer...