For another, the US maintains its stockpiles of nuclear weapons solely to serve as a deterrent against other nations, while Iran's leadership has publicly and repeatedly declared that Israel should not exist as a state and has funded terrorist acts in order to remove it - it may very well use nuclear weapons in a first-strike effort against Israel, and even the threat of this occurring destabilizes the Middle East further than it already is.
I think that you are exaggerating the differences. Another view is that Isreal and Iran are locked in a regional power struggle. Isreal has a very capable nuclear capability (uses submarines) so a first strike against Isreal is impractical. Isreal would love to see Iran gone as would the US. Their constituency is a little more sophisticated and hence their rhetoric is more refined. But the underlying message is the same.
Also, for months there has been talk in the US of "bunker busting" nukes to be used against Iran's facilities, and knowing this the administration states that "All options" are on the table. So do not think that the stockpiles are simply a "benign" deterrent against attack on the US. This was clearly a provocation. Like the "we'll play poker with you if you show us your cards" deal Ms. Rice offered reciently. Personally, I think that this is meant to isolate Iran and solidify European/US resolve for war down the road.
Iran is a lothesome regime, but the US and Isreal are not the exactly benign innocent lamb-kittens.
But I do live in the US. From what I can gather, they want to create big nets or maps of people. Who contacts whom. They don't particularly care what people say initially. That comes later if something strikes their fancy. There was a story once where they ID'd some 911 people on a big chart using this info, but they did not keep the info; the military was not allowed. Now the legislation is catching up with the technology...Nevermind that the 911 person was only fingered along with a gazillion others....This story is the driving motivator, I'd bet.
Encryption will not help you here because an encrypted email still fingers your pals as pals of you. Probably not triangle boy either because they will have info on both ends, as long as the communication is domestic to the US.
You might be able to network directly with the peers on your subnet and "distribute" before your ISP gets the info? The ISP would have to sniff every subnet. Might as well make 'em work for their data eh!
The ISPs they're talking to are major companies. And as we know, the lobbyist's lawyers write the legislation. So it will actually happen if the ISPs can get someone else to pay for it. Watch the money. Mean time, support your local yokel ISP, the ones who cannot possibly have the resources to do this. Or start your own.
I agree on the "get a system up and running" part. 96 bits for two IPs and a date stamp? We can do better! Really, one needs to consider a distributed network where all the major protocols are mimicked. One "FTP" packet there. One "HTTP" packet there. One "telnet" packet there. Couple of fake "ssh" packets over there. This way we could make the amount of data to be retained extremely expensive, because you don't get a single couplet of points for a whole tcp stream. Also, with data jumbled, assembly will require actual CPU power, not just DMA transfers from NIC to hard drive. And if we could get that module into the kernel to do some opportunistic distributedness.. That would be ideal.
I dunno. It is unfortunate to watch what can happen in five short years. You should start putting your foot down Yanks. Don't count on me: if the #@*($& hits the fan, I'm outa here. = )
Economics will dominate future chip design and software design. Not on the surface, but the underpinnings.
Imagine a future with multiple entities all operating. Many Adders, Multipliers, etc. Kinda like the cell but legion. Then each starts acting like market participants. eh?
Same with software. Muliptle threads, but in the thousands or millions. That is where the models will become the ones to describe them.
You folks need more official political parties. Imgaine the scandal if there were only two ketchups? Americans would riot if there were only two ketchups.
Two parties limits the debate to adversarial themes. How do we screw our opponents? (better for country is *so* not a part of the debate.)
Good luck to the Dems. (I guess.) I know they will be just corrupt in 8 years. -b
The desire of the vast majority of Americans to root out terror in the US has given the government the mandate to use communication records.
I'm sorry but that simply is not the case. Most of the laws sent by congress are written by lobbyists now. What is *your* lobbyist doing about it? Don't have one? Thought not. That is why they spy on you.
Sophisticated terrorists already know they are being spied on and avoid electronic communication. For example, Bin laden uses human couriers for this very reason. My phone company simply betrayed me for money. The US government does it because in it's opinion, it is above the law, and it fears disruption of the current cozy system.
I think they are scared of political movements, rather than terrorists. For instance, people of Mexican origin and / or nationality are organizing now. Where will that lead? There is more income inequality now than decades past. Will that ignite some sort of movement to re-adjust the balance of power between companies and workers?
That is what scares the government. It could bring an end to Facism. (No, I'm not saying they're Nazis. But they are authoritarian, rule with a bunch of companies, and suppress dissent.)
Yes it does beg the question. I use ssh port forwarded to squid at home. It must have to do with switching hosts at regular intervals to confuse the opposition. I wonder if their stuff is open sourced? That way we could all chip in.
The Rwandans had what tribe they belonged to on their ID card. Many people were stopped at roadside checkpoints and, well, you know the rest.
I think that it does makes government services more efficient. Independent of what those services are. But do this as an exercise: count the number of people killed by terrorists. Then count the number of people killed by governments. Now who's your daddy?
The second point to think about is what will your government want after that? Once we all have ID cards, shame not to use them, right? Wasteful not to have you not required to carry them. And the police will then have the right to demand them. That is the future simply for economic reasons: it costs a lot of money to track down criminals the old fashioned way. RFID sensors on every lamp post is a practical and efficient way limit crime, if everyone must carry ID cards.
I'm not one of those gun toting freedom fighters living in the Osarks. I do not own a gun and won't. I don't belive governments to be a necessary evil: governments ought to be there to provide services to people that people need. But they are not necessarily always that benevolent. It is an lession history teaches us over and over.
Just joking really! To your question, there is a difference: One is Communism, the other Facism.
I have had some economics training. One of my profs used to say that he'd get interviewed on the news and to provide a balanced approach, he'd be on a panel with an absolute wing nut.
I think that in general there are professional economists (typically with the brown cordorroy sports jacket and brown tie) and the "pundits" who dress very well. You might think that that is a shallow comment, but it speaks to the idea that some mean to describe and some mean to persuade.
The pundits are the ones who use neoclassical economics ideas and turn them into a justification for any old thing. Seen that alot in the current administration. And you know that they are not just wrong, but they are mis-applying the theories to support ideology.
Professional economists are more interested in ideas than ideology. I'd bet, for example, that most professional economists in the US would avocate socialized medicine because the costs to society as a whole are lower. A pundit would argue that consumer choice and the market place are the best way to allocate scarce resources. Nevermind that there are externalities galore, informational asymetry, and empirical evidence to support socialized medicine.
Professional economists attempt a difficult thing: modeling real life. Pundits are paid to advocate some position. Not the same.
If I recall, there are merely a couple thousand al Qaeda members about. Some even doubt they exist as an organization any more. There are many other organizations that now have an affiliation, but these are regional in nature.
I suspect it would take a lot of dicipline for the average nut from Afganistan to come all the way over here, enter western society, blow up something a few years later without giving it away. Most would be recognized as being a bit off. Y'know the glazed look.
Imagine one of Jerry Falwell's followers going bonkers and traveling to a Muslim state to blow up some symbolic building. Wouldn't the person be noticed? I think they would.
I think the fear mongering is a given. Besides. Count up the number of people killed by bad governments and count up the number of people killed by terrorists. You're statistically much safer with the terrorists, but what is a government going to say? Fear us for we may bomb you to bits? Don't think so.
I think that in order to have the environmental returns we want, we have to move automobiles to electricity. Electric motors are more efficient than any combustion engines afaik. The problem is that we need a dense, safe way of storing electric power in vehicles. Once that happens, we're golden. (A battacitor (sp) in RingWorld)
But that is the point of the Panopticon isn't it? You have or have not been visited by "the Man". Since you can't tell for sure, you want to lay low so they go away. You don't want them talking to your boss, wife, mother-in-law, etc.
The calculus that you use to decide how to act is now modified isn't it? Good boy.
They target Morrissey for speaking publicly, but honestly, what is he going to do? Do they not have access to google to know who he is? The point was to visit him to let people know that everyone is being monitored. It is not to prevent Morrissey from blowing up a building, because there is no chance of that. It is to squelch public free speech and to prevent the genesis of political movements that threaten them. It says you can keep your ideas, but keep them to yourself.
Look at what Morrissey says:
"I don't belong to any political groups, I don't really say anything unless I'm asked directly and I don't even demonstrate in public. I always assume that so-called authoritarian figures just assume that pop/rock music is slightly insane and an untouchable platform for the working classes to stand up and say something noticeable."
Sure he holds "subversive" opinions. But since he had "the visit" he is apologetic isn't he? He may be all for the workers to unite but he sure as hell won't be organizing the cause now will he? Good boy.
My Republican friends may say: "you have free speech, but there are consequences". In this environment, one of the consequences may just be that they rifle through your stuff. But do not become a "Meek Morrissey": Email all your Muslim friends to say "hi". Make one sentence somewhat obscure. Actual encryption with big keys makes them paranoid too, so notch it up a bit! Get some encrypted P2P file sharing action going. Post some boring but large image files that could hold stenographic messages, and link to them. Use OpenBSD. Pursue your activism with zest! My challenge for you is to have an in-person "visit" some time this year!
Cheers, -b
PS: of course if you're successful, you'll be the "Man" and we'll all be fearing you. ; )
You are correct in saying that if they were completely indifferent, they would have demolished the city. The fact that they didn't is not proof, as there would be other costs. Political and strategic. The whole of Iraq would have been beyond control.
I am in pretty close agreement with you on your points.
I don't begrudge North K from using any tools they have to get food or economic aid. From what I have heard, poverty is very prevalent and people eat bark and things like that. The current state is not a basis for negotiation, nor even rational behaviour. I know their leader is a nut but he's probably a figure head by now, and they military hopefully only allows him to organize may-day parades. While it is a direct result of their economic policy and military sucking resources, it is not the people's fault, and they may be too weak to do anything. In the choice between two stalemates, I prefer that the North Koreans get fed. Despite the fact that others like Saddam used food aid to consolidate his power
"Limiting" is not the same as eliminating. If war comes to a civilian area, civilians are very likely going to die. Especially when one army puts its guns in the midst of those civilians and starts to fire on the other. I've also read reports on cluster bombs used by the US Army in Iraqi urban areas. And, indeed, such munitions have been used. But reports also outline a decision process is not indifferent. Cluster munitions are used because they are effective. But there is a reluctance to use them because the unexploded bomblets present a problem not only to civilians, but to US forces.
The happenstance theory does not square with the record. US forces encircled a Falluja, for instance, kept all males of certain ages inside the city, blocked food, water, electricity, and medical supplies, and shelled it with lithium bombs. 36,000 homes were destroyed. These actions are beyond legal and ethical boundaries--even during war.
There are two questions that come to mind. Do decision makers ever cut corners and habitually use these munitions when it wasn't, at the least, appearing to be necessary? And are critics of these decisions using cluster munitions as a cover for a greater grievance against the war itself?
The answer to the first question is again clearly yes. In their benefit/cost calculus on such weapons, it is clear indifference to civilian life that warrants such behaviour. For the second question, for those that think war is bad, most think that the tools of war is an instance of that greater badness. For me, war is bad. Cluster bombs are bad, but that is one reason why war is bad. This war was illegal. Worse, the means by which it was waged was illegal, unethical and beyond norms or standards of modern warfare. Individual's illegal acts are part and parcel to warfare such as an individual shooting a prisoner on the battlefield. But when they are organized in a way such as Falluja, that shows an organizational intent. If the US was signatory to the International Crimminal Court, there would be generals in jail.
Where's this writing on the wall? Saddam's fall was set in motion over 10 years ago. If Iraq hadn't invaded Kuwait, the Saddam regime would probably still be in power. Iran only becomes a target if it contributes to instability in the region. And making a grab for nuclear weapons would certainly do it.
Unless they make nukes, invasion is a done deal. The Middle East holds the last of the cheap oil. If all the cheap oil magically moved to Wisconsin overnight there would be no war, but as it stands, the US (and the West) require a reliable source of oil that is not threatened by regional wanna-bes like Saddam Hussein, ideologies like Muslum fundamentalism, or sabre rattlers like Iranian what's his face. The price of oil is very elastic. Risky oil is expensive oil. Expensive oil means trade deficits and lessening the economic wellbeing the US and the West. That is what drives policy.
And I know its tempting to trot out N. Korea as a counter-example. But N. Korea's nuclear standing is in question. What keeps N. Korea from invasion (at least in a military context) is powerful allies and the fact that they are snug against our own ally - S. Korea. It won't take nuclear weapons to turn S. Korea in to a bloodbath.
It is true that the North Korean situation was unique in that their artillery would have levelled Seoul should they be invaded. When the US accused N. Korea of possessing a nuclear weapon, they simply admitted it. I don't think there is doubt there. But they also truly think that the US could invade them in the near future. And that their extremely strong conventional deterrant was the only thing holding that invasion back. Nuclear weapons, again, become increasingly important to a country like N. Korea because it is analagous to their convensional experienc
Same goes for attempting to limit collateral damage: Remember "shock and awe"? That was not limiting the collateral damage was it? One hears of the use of smart bombs in the context of limiting unnecessary killing. Accurate, yes, but when they take out a city block, that does undermine the claim. Same with Lithium bombs. They deny they use them, (in urban areas, no less) until the evidence is overwelming. Same with napalm style weapons. Same with cluster bombs. They don't deny the use of depleted uranium weapons, just the effects. The use of these weapons in urban environments indicates--at best-- an calice indifference to the suffering of civilians in this conflict. Of course you will not hear that spin from the official sources, as they are too busy denying what happens on the ground. Note that Rumsfield doesn't wish for a 24 hour propaganda channel in the US...
Yes, Iran wants nukes. After the invasion of Iraq, they definitely want them now! Not to say that they are a pleasant regime in any way. But they have been forced into a corner: whether they intend to build them or not, they will be invaded in the next few years. They see the writing in the wall and rationally, nuclear weapons are the only guarantee that the won't become a larger Iraq. In fact, the risk of invasion to all nations that don't get along with the US is much higher today than at any time. Hence the incentive to build nukes for these countries is much higher too.
Isreal would dearly love to wipe Iran off the map and they have the ability. It is not in their benefit to do so right now, but that may change. They are natural rivals and locked in a power struggle for middle eastern dominance. The Isreali government is too sophisticated to spout off in public, but that does not change their opinion.. They simply do not benefit from such public statements.
Now we have talk of the invevitability of war with Iran. That war is not necessarily a winnable war using conventional weapons because the Iranians have assets where the invasion would launch from (Iraq). This could much worse before it gets better.
Slashdot Mirror
.. why not challenge it in court?
-b
Kudos to you guys!
Cheers,
-b
So why exactly is it up to the schmo to do this? Why not the company?
Cheers,
-b
For another, the US maintains its stockpiles of nuclear weapons solely to serve as a deterrent against other nations, while Iran's leadership has publicly and repeatedly declared that Israel should not exist as a state and has funded terrorist acts in order to remove it - it may very well use nuclear weapons in a first-strike effort against Israel, and even the threat of this occurring destabilizes the Middle East further than it already is.
I think that you are exaggerating the differences. Another view is that Isreal and Iran are locked in a regional power struggle. Isreal has a very capable nuclear capability (uses submarines) so a first strike against Isreal is impractical. Isreal would love to see Iran gone as would the US. Their constituency is a little more sophisticated and hence their rhetoric is more refined. But the underlying message is the same.
Also, for months there has been talk in the US of "bunker busting" nukes to be used against Iran's facilities, and knowing this the administration states that "All options" are on the table. So do not think that the stockpiles are simply a "benign" deterrent against attack on the US. This was clearly a provocation. Like the "we'll play poker with you if you show us your cards" deal Ms. Rice offered reciently. Personally, I think that this is meant to isolate Iran and solidify European/US resolve for war down the road.
Iran is a lothesome regime, but the US and Isreal are not the exactly benign innocent lamb-kittens.
Cheers,
-b
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:GOBPKZ4kT-4J:ww w.faulkner.com/freereport/contentdeliverynets.htm+ akamai+caching+server&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=7
Happily, I'm not American. = )
But I do live in the US. From what I can gather, they want to create big nets or maps of people. Who contacts whom. They don't particularly care what people say initially. That comes later if something strikes their fancy. There was a story once where they ID'd some 911 people on a big chart using this info, but they did not keep the info; the military was not allowed. Now the legislation is catching up with the technology...Nevermind that the 911 person was only fingered along with a gazillion others....This story is the driving motivator, I'd bet.
Encryption will not help you here because an encrypted email still fingers your pals as pals of you. Probably not triangle boy either because they will have info on both ends, as long as the communication is domestic to the US.
You might be able to network directly with the peers on your subnet and "distribute" before your ISP gets the info? The ISP would have to sniff every subnet. Might as well make 'em work for their data eh!
The ISPs they're talking to are major companies. And as we know, the lobbyist's lawyers write the legislation. So it will actually happen if the ISPs can get someone else to pay for it. Watch the money. Mean time, support your local yokel ISP, the ones who cannot possibly have the resources to do this. Or start your own.
I agree on the "get a system up and running" part. 96 bits for two IPs and a date stamp? We can do better! Really, one needs to consider a distributed network where all the major protocols are mimicked. One "FTP" packet there. One "HTTP" packet there. One "telnet" packet there. Couple of fake "ssh" packets over there. This way we could make the amount of data to be retained extremely expensive, because you don't get a single couplet of points for a whole tcp stream. Also, with data jumbled, assembly will require actual CPU power, not just DMA transfers from NIC to hard drive. And if we could get that module into the kernel to do some opportunistic distributedness.. That would be ideal.
I dunno. It is unfortunate to watch what can happen in five short years. You should start putting your foot down Yanks. Don't count on me: if the #@*($& hits the fan, I'm outa here.
= )
Cheers,
-b
Economics will dominate future chip design and software design. Not on the surface, but the underpinnings.
Imagine a future with multiple entities all operating. Many Adders, Multipliers, etc. Kinda like the cell but legion. Then each starts acting like market participants. eh?
Same with software. Muliptle threads, but in the thousands or millions. That is where the models will become the ones to describe them.
After that, philosophy will become very useful.
Cheers,
-b
You folks need more official political parties.
Imgaine the scandal if there were only two ketchups? Americans would riot if there were only two ketchups.
Two parties limits the debate to adversarial themes. How do we screw our opponents? (better for country is *so* not a part of the debate.)
Good luck to the Dems. (I guess.) I know they will be just corrupt in 8 years.
-b
The desire of the vast majority of Americans to root out terror in the US has given the government the mandate to use communication records.
I'm sorry but that simply is not the case. Most of the laws sent by congress are written by lobbyists now. What is *your* lobbyist doing about it? Don't have one? Thought not. That is why they spy on you.
Sophisticated terrorists already know they are being spied on and avoid electronic communication. For example, Bin laden uses human couriers for this very reason. My phone company simply betrayed me for money. The US government does it because in it's opinion, it is above the law, and it fears disruption of the current cozy system.
I think they are scared of political movements, rather than terrorists. For instance, people of Mexican origin and / or nationality are organizing now. Where will that lead? There is more income inequality now than decades past. Will that ignite some sort of movement to re-adjust the balance of power between companies and workers?
That is what scares the government. It could bring an end to Facism. (No, I'm not saying they're Nazis. But they are authoritarian, rule with a bunch of companies, and suppress dissent.)
Cheers,
-b
Haven't seen any yet...
Cheers,
-b
Yes it does beg the question.
I use ssh port forwarded to squid at home.
It must have to do with switching hosts at regular intervals to confuse the opposition.
I wonder if their stuff is open sourced? That way we could all chip in.
Cheers,
-D
The Rwandans had what tribe they belonged to on their ID card. Many people were stopped at roadside checkpoints and, well, you know the rest.
I think that it does makes government services more efficient. Independent of what those services are. But do this as an exercise: count the number of people killed by terrorists. Then count the number of people killed by governments. Now who's your daddy?
The second point to think about is what will your government want after that? Once we all have ID cards, shame not to use them, right? Wasteful not to have you not required to carry them. And the police will then have the right to demand them. That is the future simply for economic reasons: it costs a lot of money to track down criminals the old fashioned way. RFID sensors on every lamp post is a practical and efficient way limit crime, if everyone must carry ID cards.
I'm not one of those gun toting freedom fighters living in the Osarks. I do not own a gun and won't. I don't belive governments to be a necessary evil: governments ought to be there to provide services to people that people need. But they are not necessarily always that benevolent. It is an lession history teaches us over and over.
I'd pass on the cards.
Cheers,
-b
Just joking really!
To your question, there is a difference: One is Communism, the other Facism.
I have had some economics training. One of my profs used to say that he'd get interviewed on the news and to provide a balanced approach, he'd be on a panel with an absolute wing nut.
I think that in general there are professional economists (typically with the brown cordorroy sports jacket and brown tie) and the "pundits" who dress very well. You might think that that is a shallow comment, but it speaks to the idea that some mean to describe and some mean to persuade.
The pundits are the ones who use neoclassical economics ideas and turn them into a justification for any old thing. Seen that alot in the current administration. And you know that they are not just wrong, but they are mis-applying the theories to support ideology.
Professional economists are more interested in ideas than ideology. I'd bet, for example, that most professional economists in the US would avocate socialized medicine because the costs to society as a whole are lower. A pundit would argue that consumer choice and the market place are the best way to allocate scarce resources. Nevermind that there are externalities galore, informational asymetry, and empirical evidence to support socialized medicine.
Professional economists attempt a difficult thing: modeling real life. Pundits are paid to advocate some position. Not the same.
Cheers,
-b
What about about Marxist Economists then?
-b
And 80% or so of Americans also have doubts about evolution.
Something like 80% of American Military personel in Iraq believes (after all this time) that Hussein has some responsibility for 9/11.
Does that seem like a population that is aware of their country's actions? It is a population ripe for leadership of any sort.
Fault them for choosing "fast food" for news. Do not blame them for what Bush and his pals do. That is like blaming the sheep for the herder.
If I recall, there are merely a couple thousand al Qaeda members about. Some even doubt they exist as an organization any more. There are many other organizations that now have an affiliation, but these are regional in nature.
I suspect it would take a lot of dicipline for the average nut from Afganistan to come all the way over here, enter western society, blow up something a few years later without giving it away. Most would be recognized as being a bit off. Y'know the glazed look.
Imagine one of Jerry Falwell's followers going bonkers and traveling to a Muslim state to blow up some symbolic building. Wouldn't the person be noticed? I think they would.
I think the fear mongering is a given. Besides. Count up the number of people killed by bad governments and count up the number of people killed by terrorists. You're statistically much safer with the terrorists, but what is a government going to say? Fear us for we may bomb you to bits? Don't think so.
Cheers,
-b
I think that in order to have the environmental returns we want, we have to move automobiles to electricity. Electric motors are more efficient than any combustion engines afaik.
The problem is that we need a dense, safe way of storing electric power in vehicles. Once that happens, we're golden. (A battacitor (sp) in RingWorld)
Cheers,
-b
yes. Good point.
The calculus that you use to decide how to act is now modified isn't it? Good boy.
They target Morrissey for speaking publicly, but honestly, what is he going to do? Do they not have access to google to know who he is? The point was to visit him to let people know that everyone is being monitored. It is not to prevent Morrissey from blowing up a building, because there is no chance of that. It is to squelch public free speech and to prevent the genesis of political movements that threaten them. It says you can keep your ideas, but keep them to yourself.
Look at what Morrissey says:
Sure he holds "subversive" opinions. But since he had "the visit" he is apologetic isn't he? He may be all for the workers to unite but he sure as hell won't be organizing the cause now will he? Good boy.
My Republican friends may say: "you have free speech, but there are consequences". In this environment, one of the consequences may just be that they rifle through your stuff. But do not become a "Meek Morrissey": Email all your Muslim friends to say "hi". Make one sentence somewhat obscure. Actual encryption with big keys makes them paranoid too, so notch it up a bit! Get some encrypted P2P file sharing action going. Post some boring but large image files that could hold stenographic messages, and link to them. Use OpenBSD. Pursue your activism with zest! My challenge for you is to have an in-person "visit" some time this year!
Cheers,
-b
PS: of course if you're successful, you'll be the "Man" and we'll all be fearing you. ; )
100 Million per year are caught.
http://www.bigmarinefish.com/sharks.html
Da da. Da da. Da da.....
(Sorry sharkies.)
Hey Sprocket!
l ujah
You are correct in saying that if they were completely indifferent, they would have demolished the city. The fact that they didn't is not proof, as there would be other costs. Political and strategic. The whole of Iraq would have been beyond control.
Many relevant links start here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_occupation_of_Fal
I am in pretty close agreement with you on your points.
I don't begrudge North K from using any tools they have to get food or economic aid. From what I have heard, poverty is very prevalent and people eat bark and things like that. The current state is not a basis for negotiation, nor even rational behaviour. I know their leader is a nut but he's probably a figure head by now, and they military hopefully only allows him to organize may-day parades. While it is a direct result of their economic policy and military sucking resources, it is not the people's fault, and they may be too weak to do anything. In the choice between two stalemates, I prefer that the North Koreans get fed. Despite the fact that others like Saddam used food aid to consolidate his power
It has been a pleasure.
Cheers,
-b
The happenstance theory does not square with the record. US forces encircled a Falluja, for instance, kept all males of certain ages inside the city, blocked food, water, electricity, and medical supplies, and shelled it with lithium bombs. 36,000 homes were destroyed. These actions are beyond legal and ethical boundaries--even during war.
The answer to the first question is again clearly yes. In their benefit/cost calculus on such weapons, it is clear indifference to civilian life that warrants such behaviour.
For the second question, for those that think war is bad, most think that the tools of war is an instance of that greater badness. For me, war is bad. Cluster bombs are bad, but that is one reason why war is bad. This war was illegal. Worse, the means by which it was waged was illegal, unethical and beyond norms or standards of modern warfare. Individual's illegal acts are part and parcel to warfare such as an individual shooting a prisoner on the battlefield. But when they are organized in a way such as Falluja, that shows an organizational intent. If the US was signatory to the International Crimminal Court, there would be generals in jail.
Unless they make nukes, invasion is a done deal. The Middle East holds the last of the cheap oil. If all the cheap oil magically moved to Wisconsin overnight there would be no war, but as it stands, the US (and the West) require a reliable source of oil that is not threatened by regional wanna-bes like Saddam Hussein, ideologies like Muslum fundamentalism, or sabre rattlers like Iranian what's his face. The price of oil is very elastic. Risky oil is expensive oil. Expensive oil means trade deficits and lessening the economic wellbeing the US and the West. That is what drives policy.
It is true that the North Korean situation was unique in that their artillery would have levelled Seoul should they be invaded. When the US accused N. Korea of possessing a nuclear weapon, they simply admitted it. I don't think there is doubt there. But they also truly think that the US could invade them in the near future. And that their extremely strong conventional deterrant was the only thing holding that invasion back. Nuclear weapons, again, become increasingly important to a country like N. Korea because it is analagous to their convensional experienc
Since this is holding up the PS3...s ony.playstation.reut/index.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/fun.games/02/20/
I wonder if Microsoft (and pals) are somehow dragging feet in the discussion to hold up the PS3?
On torture the US claimes they don't. But do.
Same goes for attempting to limit collateral damage:
Remember "shock and awe"? That was not limiting the collateral damage was it? One hears of the use of smart bombs in the context of limiting unnecessary killing. Accurate, yes, but when they take out a city block, that does undermine the claim. Same with Lithium bombs. They deny they use them, (in urban areas, no less) until the evidence is overwelming. Same with napalm style weapons. Same with cluster bombs. They don't deny the use of depleted uranium weapons, just the effects. The use of these weapons in urban environments indicates--at best-- an calice indifference to the suffering of civilians in this conflict. Of course you will not hear that spin from the official sources, as they are too busy denying what happens on the ground. Note that Rumsfield doesn't wish for a 24 hour propaganda channel in the US...
Yes, Iran wants nukes. After the invasion of Iraq, they definitely want them now! Not to say that they are a pleasant regime in any way. But they have been forced into a corner: whether they intend to build them or not, they will be invaded in the next few years. They see the writing in the wall and rationally, nuclear weapons are the only guarantee that the won't become a larger Iraq. In fact, the risk of invasion to all nations that don't get along with the US is much higher today than at any time. Hence the incentive to build nukes for these countries is much higher too.
Isreal would dearly love to wipe Iran off the map and they have the ability. It is not in their benefit to do so right now, but that may change. They are natural rivals and locked in a power struggle for middle eastern dominance. The Isreali government is too sophisticated to spout off in public, but that does not change their opinion.. They simply do not benefit from such public statements.
Now we have talk of the invevitability of war with Iran. That war is not necessarily a winnable war using conventional weapons because the Iranians have assets where the invasion would launch from (Iraq). This could much worse before it gets better.
We all have to sacrifice, my dear.
= )