Bush & co, being rich first world citizens assumed that once the repressive Iraqi regime was gone that the population would work on protecting what needed to be protected. That's pretty much what happened in Cairo a year ago. When the police were broken the population moved into the streets & people organized themselves to protect their neighborhoods. In Iraq they looted everything they could.
It's just the Apple haters looking for another excuse to hate. As you noticed, all they need is the excuse, it doesn't even have to be logically coherent.
Translated into my neck of the woods that gets turned into "just turn off the LTE radio as there is no signal here anyway" which once again is the case for most of us.
LTE deployment being what it is, it may be nice in your neck of the woods but for the rest of the 90% of us it only means that the battery drains faster...
Those who say that there was no terrorism in the USSR are blind to the lengths that Stalin & co went to to suppress dissent. He killed millions to starve the Ukraine into submission. Be born a member of an ethnic group Uncle Joe doesn't trust? The German speaking population in Byelorussia was deported thousands of miles to the east & build rudimentary cabins before winter or die in the cold. Protest a little against the government and get sentenced to 15 years of hard labor in a Gulag. There was little dissent in the USSR because Stalin beat it out of them. With little dissent there was little terrorism.
It took the breakup of the USSR for dissent to arise again and surprise, surprise, Chechen & other terrorists came out of the woodworks until Putin once again beat them into submission.
I think you're confused as Stalin was the last Russian leader to use lead poisoning as a performance motivation tool & Russian rocketry wasn't of much note until Uncle Joe was dead & buried (Katushya's don't count).
It is not their past achievements that are laughable but the depths of stupidity they are digging into now. Much like their subs, long the pride of their fleet that ended up rusting on the Kola peninsula & then sinking themselves, the Russian space program now has idiots in charge that look for scapegoats instead of seeking to correct their problems.
Really? So these Scientists you speak of never make mistakes & have all agreed that your position is the one to bet on? It sure is reassuring to know that... Climatology is still far from an exact science and it is not known what the lead time on measures to prevent an ice age need be. The global disruptions for an Ice Age make Global Warming look like a picnic.
It's not hypocritical to criticize those those using global warming to push for extreme changes to actually have meaningful proof that their hypotheses are valid before breaking the economy. The current study, if it is valid, would just make it clear that the climatologists were not as right as they had been trumpeting and that distrust of their hasty conclusions was the correct course.
Another fallacy is considering that Nature is stable & that all man-linked influences are inherently bad for the kind of environment we want to live in. First Off, Nature is NOT stable. There would be climate change whether or not mankind was here or not. Secondly, I know that the popular environmentalist meme enshrined in so many books & movies (Jeff Glodblum in Jurassic Parc grunting "Mankind Bad, Mother Nature Good" among them) is that all man-linked influences are bad. I just don't believe the meme is universally true. It does appear to be true that mankind has a tendency to transform grassland into desert (see the climate of Northern Africa & the Middle east from a few thousand years ago until now), however, we may be modifying the environment in a more positive manner if it stops an Ice Age...
Says who? You? Why exactly is your opinion to be trusted?
Very little is known on how exactly an ice-age begins AFAIK. Is it rapid onset? Slow? It may begin with higher than normal snowfalls & a shorter growing season in the northern hemisphere inducing wide-spread crop failures in that part of the world which is currently feeding the other part thus rendering your reassurances hollow.
One info I have yet to see in any of the stories I have read on this.
The "main" engine doesn't start so they use thousands of firings of the maneuvering thrusters to circularize the orbit. Do the "main" & maneuvering thrusters use the same fuel source or has the mission longevity been compromised? Does anyone know?
That example just show that you have poor Google-foo. Googling for "keyword" + common words like "is", "the" & "best" will always have better results than "keyword" + a relatively rare word like "sucks". It'll be true for just about any "keyword".
Strike one: I don't get fox news where I livee & my main source of US info is that noted extreme right wing journal the New York Times. Strike two: I've already told you that I'm no republican but clearly you are not actually reading my posts. Strike three: The nuclear detonators fished out of the Tigris and other WMD elements were described in the Iraq WMD report. Stop trying to blow smoke up everyones ass and read the damned report.
It is clear that you conflate what you belive in with facts even though the Iraq report says otherwise. None are so blind as those who refuse to see clearly applies to you.
What you've been saying isn't revisionism IMO & you're making different points (to which I largely agree, figure that) than the OP.
I don't think that the Romans are an apt model. The Romans weren't Nation building, they were co-opting when possible, & conquering/exterminating when they had the military means to do so. Some rival tribes in Italy were wiped out to the last man, Carthage was sown with salt to stop it from arising again & the Gauls lost most of their population to Cesar. You read a lot about how brutal the Huns/Vandals & others who finished off the Romans were, yet most people are ignorant of just how bad the "good" guys were.
I do not agree that the necessary troop levels for the task at hand back then was quite as clear as you make it. Of course, some people were convinced that the force levels were too low & in hindsight they were. However, back then the picture was much murkier. Again, a chapter added to the book of History which will make similar problems easier if we can read the lessons learned correctly.
Part of the reason GWB went in was that support for the sanctions were eroding & controls on Saddam & family would have given him the freedom to start massacring & invading by now unless he was taken out quickly. Iraq certainly has it's problems today (in part because Obama pulled out before they had really learned to work with each other?) but at least it's a mostly internal matter & you don't have the problems spilling into Koweit & SA. I really do think that Saddam & progeny would have bathed the Middle East in blood.
My thoughts are very close to yours. By pinching pennies on the follow up they guaranteed that the end cost would be much higher. Japan & specially Germany were also punished much harder through the massive bombardment & urban fighting which devastated much of their populations than what happened in Iraq which made the post WWII inclination to "never again" much higher. Another factor is that they had homogeneous populations & neither were undergoing internal conflict à la Shia/Sunni/Kurd.
I'm pretty picky about hindsight & revisionism by people pontificating as you might have noticed. I agree that military history has shown over & over that better than 3-1 forces are generally needed to avoid massive casualties on both sides. The book on nation building is much thinner & they made the mistake of thinking that the forces engaged were sufficient. The book on Nation building is thicker now after GW2 but then we have the benefit of hindsight to know what didn't work...
Your logic is what mystifies me: Choosing one of his speeches in which he does not mention point X does not mean that point X was not addressed in another speech. that is unless you can find a speech in which Colin Powell says that X is untrue/false. Yes, Colin Powell has stated that he felt betrayed by being the one who presented information that has been shown to be unreliable. The speeches I remember where he talked about the GW1 cease fire terms were from before his speech to the UN as SecState & I've never seen any video of him recanting them.
No, that was unknown at the time. It was known that he had been working on them previously & was required by the terms of the cease fire agreement to render/destroy them & let the inspectors document it.
Much like antifoidulus mistakenly states that there were no traces of WMD's in Iraq, huh? I remember a few speeches by Colin Powell to the contrary but don't let my memories interfere with your revisionism, "Dude". However, were you to actually, you know, read>/b> the cease fire agreement to GW1 you might see a few photons of light. Nahhh, go back to what you're comfortable with...
Slashdot Mirror
Bush & co, being rich first world citizens assumed that once the repressive Iraqi regime was gone that the population would work on protecting what needed to be protected. That's pretty much what happened in Cairo a year ago. When the police were broken the population moved into the streets & people organized themselves to protect their neighborhoods. In Iraq they looted everything they could.
It's just the Apple haters looking for another excuse to hate. As you noticed, all they need is the excuse, it doesn't even have to be logically coherent.
Translated into my neck of the woods that gets turned into "just turn off the LTE radio as there is no signal here anyway" which once again is the case for most of us.
LTE deployment being what it is, it may be nice in your neck of the woods but for the rest of the 90% of us it only means that the battery drains faster...
No. HELL NO!
Those who say that there was no terrorism in the USSR are blind to the lengths that Stalin & co went to to suppress dissent. He killed millions to starve the Ukraine into submission. Be born a member of an ethnic group Uncle Joe doesn't trust? The German speaking population in Byelorussia was deported thousands of miles to the east & build rudimentary cabins before winter or die in the cold. Protest a little against the government and get sentenced to 15 years of hard labor in a Gulag. There was little dissent in the USSR because Stalin beat it out of them. With little dissent there was little terrorism.
It took the breakup of the USSR for dissent to arise again and surprise, surprise, Chechen & other terrorists came out of the woodworks until Putin once again beat them into submission.
I think you're confused as Stalin was the last Russian leader to use lead poisoning as a performance motivation tool & Russian rocketry wasn't of much note until Uncle Joe was dead & buried (Katushya's don't count).
It is not their past achievements that are laughable but the depths of stupidity they are digging into now. Much like their subs, long the pride of their fleet that ended up rusting on the Kola peninsula & then sinking themselves, the Russian space program now has idiots in charge that look for scapegoats instead of seeking to correct their problems.
Really? So these Scientists you speak of never make mistakes & have all agreed that your position is the one to bet on? It sure is reassuring to know that... Climatology is still far from an exact science and it is not known what the lead time on measures to prevent an ice age need be. The global disruptions for an Ice Age make Global Warming look like a picnic.
It's not hypocritical to criticize those those using global warming to push for extreme changes to actually have meaningful proof that their hypotheses are valid before breaking the economy. The current study, if it is valid, would just make it clear that the climatologists were not as right as they had been trumpeting and that distrust of their hasty conclusions was the correct course.
Another fallacy is considering that Nature is stable & that all man-linked influences are inherently bad for the kind of environment we want to live in. First Off, Nature is NOT stable. There would be climate change whether or not mankind was here or not. Secondly, I know that the popular environmentalist meme enshrined in so many books & movies (Jeff Glodblum in Jurassic Parc grunting "Mankind Bad, Mother Nature Good" among them) is that all man-linked influences are bad. I just don't believe the meme is universally true. It does appear to be true that mankind has a tendency to transform grassland into desert (see the climate of Northern Africa & the Middle east from a few thousand years ago until now), however, we may be modifying the environment in a more positive manner if it stops an Ice Age...
Says who? You? Why exactly is your opinion to be trusted?
Very little is known on how exactly an ice-age begins AFAIK. Is it rapid onset? Slow? It may begin with higher than normal snowfalls & a shorter growing season in the northern hemisphere inducing wide-spread crop failures in that part of the world which is currently feeding the other part thus rendering your reassurances hollow.
Thanks
One info I have yet to see in any of the stories I have read on this.
The "main" engine doesn't start so they use thousands of firings of the maneuvering thrusters to circularize the orbit. Do the "main" & maneuvering thrusters use the same fuel source or has the mission longevity been compromised? Does anyone know?
Heh, I bastardized fu to foo on purpose, but then I've been programming for over 25 years & foo & bar come up regularly in my conversations...
That example just show that you have poor Google-foo. Googling for "keyword" + common words like "is", "the" & "best" will always have better results than "keyword" + a relatively rare word like "sucks". It'll be true for just about any "keyword".
Get off your lazy ass and read the report: https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html
Until you have done so & discovered that your third hand arguments are wrong shut the fuck up.
Strike one: I don't get fox news where I livee & my main source of US info is that noted extreme right wing journal the New York Times.
Strike two: I've already told you that I'm no republican but clearly you are not actually reading my posts.
Strike three: The nuclear detonators fished out of the Tigris and other WMD elements were described in the Iraq WMD report. Stop trying to blow smoke up everyones ass and read the damned report.
It is clear that you conflate what you belive in with facts even though the Iraq report says otherwise. None are so blind as those who refuse to see clearly applies to you.
What you've been saying isn't revisionism IMO & you're making different points (to which I largely agree, figure that) than the OP.
I don't think that the Romans are an apt model. The Romans weren't Nation building, they were co-opting when possible, & conquering/exterminating when they had the military means to do so. Some rival tribes in Italy were wiped out to the last man, Carthage was sown with salt to stop it from arising again & the Gauls lost most of their population to Cesar. You read a lot about how brutal the Huns/Vandals & others who finished off the Romans were, yet most people are ignorant of just how bad the "good" guys were.
I do not agree that the necessary troop levels for the task at hand back then was quite as clear as you make it. Of course, some people were convinced that the force levels were too low & in hindsight they were. However, back then the picture was much murkier. Again, a chapter added to the book of History which will make similar problems easier if we can read the lessons learned correctly.
Part of the reason GWB went in was that support for the sanctions were eroding & controls on Saddam & family would have given him the freedom to start massacring & invading by now unless he was taken out quickly. Iraq certainly has it's problems today (in part because Obama pulled out before they had really learned to work with each other?) but at least it's a mostly internal matter & you don't have the problems spilling into Koweit & SA. I really do think that Saddam & progeny would have bathed the Middle East in blood.
Sure, I can see that as becoming popular, just with another of your girlfriends personal hygiene tools...
My thoughts are very close to yours. By pinching pennies on the follow up they guaranteed that the end cost would be much higher. Japan & specially Germany were also punished much harder through the massive bombardment & urban fighting which devastated much of their populations than what happened in Iraq which made the post WWII inclination to "never again" much higher. Another factor is that they had homogeneous populations & neither were undergoing internal conflict à la Shia/Sunni/Kurd.
I'm pretty picky about hindsight & revisionism by people pontificating as you might have noticed. I agree that military history has shown over & over that better than 3-1 forces are generally needed to avoid massive casualties on both sides. The book on nation building is much thinner & they made the mistake of thinking that the forces engaged were sufficient. The book on Nation building is thicker now after GW2 but then we have the benefit of hindsight to know what didn't work...
I just put the common elements to Irak, Iran & NK first, & then the Irak unique ones second. Sorry if that made it unclear.
Your logic is what mystifies me: Choosing one of his speeches in which he does not mention point X does not mean that point X was not addressed in another speech. that is unless you can find a speech in which Colin Powell says that X is untrue/false. Yes, Colin Powell has stated that he felt betrayed by being the one who presented information that has been shown to be unreliable. The speeches I remember where he talked about the GW1 cease fire terms were from before his speech to the UN as SecState & I've never seen any video of him recanting them.
to any government that cares to do so...
No, that was unknown at the time. It was known that he had been working on them previously & was required by the terms of the cease fire agreement to render/destroy them & let the inspectors document it.
Much like antifoidulus mistakenly states that there were no traces of WMD's in Iraq, huh? I remember a few speeches by Colin Powell to the contrary but don't let my memories interfere with your revisionism, "Dude". However, were you to actually, you know, read>/b> the cease fire agreement to GW1 you might see a few photons of light. Nahhh, go back to what you're comfortable with...