Kinda of a by-the-way little news item for something which could potentially be so devastating? What will happen to Linux's ease of install? Will the topic du jour a few years from now be "Boycott PCs with this BIOS, only buy hardware with this BIOS" ?
How about it? It provides very little information about how it reaches its numbers,
You must not have spent very much time looking at the data. On the left side in the navigation menu is a link called Methodology
and many of the sources it cites are groups with noted biases in this area (Human Rights Watch comes immediately to mind).
So it's ok for you to used biased sources but not me?:)
For a report of this sort which works harder to back its claims, see Freedom House's annual report for 2001 [freedomhouse.org]. Ironically, the audit you cite claims Freedom House as one of their main sources, but reaches very different results.
Umm.. Freedom house's survey ranks countries on a much smaller scale (1-7). Their results are less granular as a consequence. But in any case, Freedom House gives Sweden and the US the SAME rating. So even their findings (which I would have thought you'd find too vague) do alot more for my argument than for yours.
So, my good man, I have shown you 3 studies from 3 different and very well respected international organisations that state in no uncertain terms that Sweden (since we decided to pick on that country) is AT LEAST AS FREE as the USA. These reports are published by groups with absolutely NO political interest in distorting the facts (unlike special interest lobbies).
So getting back to the root of our argument, the one that started with your question: "Care to point to another nation (UN member or not) whose citizens enjoy as much freedom as Americans do?"
World Audit says: Denmark, New Zealand, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Netherlands, Australia, Canada, Austria
Freedom House says: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize,Canada, Cyprus (G), Demark, Dominica, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Kiribati, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Sweden, Switzerland, Tuvalu, Uruguay
The United Nations says: Norway, Australia, Canada, Sweden and Belgium.
You have to admit... AT THE VERY LEAST.. that whether or not America is the only nation whose citizens enjoy so much freedom is NOT A FORGONE CONCLUSION. ie: (And I'm being nice here) it's at least *debatable*.
The USA offers a level of freedom that is SO close to that offered by most other industrialized democracies, that the ultimate "ranking" comes down to a matter of personal preference for which freedoms are more important than others.
It's been a real pleasure debating with you. You argue like a gentleman. I hope we have the opportunity to be on the same side of an issue one day!;)
You maintain that income and purchasing power have nothing to do with standard of living.
I maintain no such thing. I said that income and purchasing power are not in themselves indicative of the standard of living. They form metrics which, when combined with other metrics, can give someone an idea of the standard of living.
by American standards not 5 percent but rather the vast majority percent of Swedes are `poor'
Only if you count cash in hand. Americans are in fact more deeply in debt than swedes. Look. It comes down to the difference between net-worth and cashflow. Americans have high cashflow. Lots more cash in hand, but many more expenses. Swedes earn less, but don't need as much money to lead similar lives.
this is the problem with the UN study you cite -- it takes only your issues into account and not economics or individual liberty, thus providing a picture which is at least as incomplete as you claim that provided by the study I posted is.
Umm.. it does take economics into account. fully one third of the score. But ok. How about this then?
I assert that the US is the most free, the most democratic, and the most prosperous nation on earth,
See the link above as to the first two. As to the third, you and I finally agree. I cannot argue with the statement that the US has the strongest economy in the world. It is simply true.
Perfectly clear, but only because it is taken out of context. The UN Charter also says: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations." so, again, after the attacks of September 11 occurred, all bets were off as far as the restrictions placed by the UN charter.
Look who's taking things out of context.:):
", until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."
So your statement that "all bets are off" is simply false. Not to mention the fact that Afghanistan under the Taliban NEVER attacked the US. There was no "armed-attack" by the Taliban on the USA. The silly Bush doctrine of unleashing collective punishment on any nation that directly or indirectly harbors or supports a terrorist organization would in theory justify a British attack of the US for harboring/supporting the IRA, or a host of other nations attacking Americans because various insurgent groups are living comfortable lives in US terrirory.
On September 28, 2001, both the Security Council and the General Assembly approved US-drafted, US-sponsored measures approving our actions in response to the attacks of September 11. I welcome you to look these up.
If you had actually looked these up yourself, you would have noticed that I refered to the same resolution directly in the text you were replying to. Yes, resolution 1373. Now if you'll actually *read* the resolution you will see NOTHING about the security council approving the US bombing of Afghanistan.
What you do see is a series of guidelines on how states should behave with respect to terroist groups, as well as some of the financial steps to be taken to freeze assets and the like.
Where there IS some indirect reference to more forceful action, it is ALWAYS qualified with "in accordance to the UN Charter" or "in accordance to its responsibilities under the Charter".
If you'll read up on those responsibilities, you'll learn that MANY measures need to be taken BEFORE the use of force is even considered. You know.. things like sanctions and stuff like that.
So you'll have to do much better than that to show me that the Security Council somehow supported the bombing of Afghanistan.
This is a misrepresentation of a specific provision of the Conventions, which actually calls for such tribunals only in the case where a nation has generally upheld their obligations under the conventions, but where an individual soldier caught fighting in civilian garb claims that he had legitimate reasons to do so.
For more on the Geneva Conventions, see this article [opinionjournal.com]
Your statements confirm for me that you have almost certainly never READ the Geneva convention's provisions on the treatment of POWs. Rather than point you to some editorial, I'll point you instead to the actual text of the convention, ok? Here.
In it, you'll find this:
"Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. " - Article 2, paragraph 3.
You might also be interested in Article 4 (emphasis is mine) which states, in part:
"A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
[...]
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. "
And as for my "deliberate misreading", I'll quote, and you can read for yourself:
"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. " -- Article 5, paragraph 2.
>Afghanistan is free? When did this happen?
Around when it was liberated by US and Northern Alliance troops, basically. Is there more progress to be made? Sure. Is it miles beyond where it was under the Taliban? Clearly.
It's funny that you deny that Canada, the UK, Sweden, Germany and others are free, and yet you claim that Afghanistan, which has not had an election in decades, is free. Also, your claims about the state of the nation now that the Taliban is gone sound an awful lot like what was said about the Taliban when they took over in the first place.
I'll be the first to condemn the Taliban as a bunch of back-assward thugs. But the same can be said of the Northern alliance. Afghanistan is most certainly NOT free.
How 'bout you post any reason to believe that these figures are not indicative of a lower standard of living?
Very very little of that document discussed actual quality of life metrics. Most of it was concentrated on median household income which has nothing to do with the standard of living. For instance, it ignores the fact that in the USA, most homes are dual-income.
OK. Here are some figures that actually speak to the standard of living rather than the standard salary.
First is the UN's Human development index. It provides a measure of the "standard of living" by combining metrics dealing with life expectancy, litteracy/education and adjusted real income. Here are the top 10 in 2001, starting with number 1: Norway, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Belgium, United States, Iceland, Netherlands, Japan and Finland.
Go here for the report. Some other interesting numbers (not as fresh but that's all I could dig up on short notice.):
Average Household Savings: Sweden 10,943 United States 4,201
Percent Poverty level: United States 17.1 Sweden 5.3
Percent Children under the poverty level: United States 22.4 Sweden 5.0
Life Expectancy (men/women): Sweden 74.2/80.4 United States 71.6/78.6
Infant Mortality Rate (per 1,000 live births): United States 10.4 Sweden 5.9
Premature Death (years of life lost before the age of 64 per 100 people): United States 5.8 years Sweden 3.8
percentage of families headed by single parents: United States 8.0% Sweden 3.2
People per police officer: Sweden 328 United States 459
Prisoners (per 1,000 people): United States 4.2 Sweden 0.6
Murder rate (per 100,000 people): United States 8.40 Sweden 1.73
Rape (per 100,000 people): United States 37.20 Sweden 15.70
Armed robbery (per 100,000 people): United States 221 Sweden 49
Percent Voter participation: Sweden 86 United States 49
http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/8Comparison.htm
> Sure. For one thing, the attack on Afghanistan >itself was against international law.
Care to back this claim up with a cite?
Sure. I'll quote the UN charter, which is binding to all UN member nations: "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UN."
I'd say that's pretty clear.
Leaving aside the fact that the security council did, in fact, rule that US action in Afghanistan was justified,
Your turn to cite evidence that the security council approved of how the US chose to respond to 9-11. (Surely you don't mean security council resolutions 1368 and 1373.)
what makes you think that an organization whose Human Rights committee includes Syria, China, and the Sudan is any sort of sane judge of international law?
I see you can spew some FUD of your own.:) Can you provide me with a shred of evidence that the presence of Syria, China or Sudan has had an adverse effect on the judgement of the human rights committee? If not, then your argument is a straw-man and the statement is of no value.
Also, I feel the need to point out that your statement essentially reflects the US attitude to international law: To hell with it. We know better.
It states that if a nation follows the requirements of the convention, including only using uniformed combatants, having a clear hierarchy of ranks, and not attacking civilians, then their combatants are entitled to certain protections.
It also states that whether or not they have followed the requirements of the convention is a matter for a tribunal to decide, and that until such a decision has been made, they are to be considered POW's and treated as such.
under the Geneva convention their combatants can legally be summarily executed.
Please show me where it says this!
I have seen us leave open the option of a response to a nuclear, biological, or chemical attack by others.
You forgot the catch-all "Surprising military developments."
I would argue that International Law has a longstanding precedent of preemptive self defense.
Umm. No. What you call "preemptive self defense" is commonly called anticipatory self defense, and it is most definately NOT accepted by international laws and conventions. For reference, please see every instance where the UN has passed resolutions condemning such action.
But you don't need to go that far to see how self-defeating this doctrine of anticipatory self defense is. Under this doctrine, Iraq (anticipating a US attack) is entitled to pre-defend itself against this attack. And in turn the US, anticipating Iraq's anticipation, is entitled to pre-defending itself against Iraq's pre-defense. Then of course Iraq anticipates the US's anticipation of its anticipation... and so on and so on.. we descend into an Abbott and Costello routine.
How is Afghanistan being free, for a change,
Afghanistan is free? When did this happen?
having food aid get through instead of being seizeb by the Taliban
Food aid is STILL at the present time lower than it was prior to the US attack.
Likewise, where do you get this? This isn't why Mr. Bin Laden says he hates us -- he's complaining about `Jews and Crusaders' and speaking of the `tragedy of Andalusia',
Well, first, you are wrong. Every single statement he has made has started with complaints about the Palestinian injustice, the Iraq sanctions and the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia.
But no matter, because I clearly stated that I did not give a hoot about Bin Laden or what he thinks. So what you are doing is diverting the argument away from the fact that US foreign policy has resulted in many injustices, whether Osama Bin Laden talks about them or not.
So while Bin Laden may be a mad man who will hate America no matter what, many of those who make up his reservoir of support, like the parents, friends or children of those who were blown to bits in Afghanistan, have ample reason to be angry.
Anyway. I've devoted too much time to these posts already, and we are getting way sidetracked. You said no other country in the world enjoys the kind of freedom America does. I disagree. I've stated my reasons for disagreeing, and I think that I have made a very good case for the fact that although the US is indeed a "Free country" by accepted definitions, it is by no means alone.
OK, then, can you provide any cite to back up your claim that the law permits this? Any?
Sure. You referenced the EFF earlier, so try this. That's the full text of the USA PATRIOT act. Section 411 is a good place to start. Try to read the whole thing. It's not easy to read. Very cross-referenced and cryptic at times. But this is the law of the land and before you continue to sing the praises of American freedom, you ought to at least have read this.
I'll also point you to this EFF document which helps analyse some parts of the USA PATRIOT act: link
On the contrary, by any reasonable standard the Swedes have a lower standard of living
Care to back this statement up with some facts?
calling a position `right-wing' doesn't discredit it in any way -- if you have an actual argument to make, make it.
I didn't mean to imply that being right-wing automatically discredited an opinion. I meant to imply that providing the opinion of a special-interest LOBBY group as some sort of definitive proof of something was disingenuous.
the infrastructure which made those attacks possible has been largely dismantled, and finish up with the fact that we have sent a clear message that nations cannot expect to sponsor terrorism against us without facing repercussions. Looks like A+ work to me -- full credit.
I guess we'll talk again right after the next terrorist attack, then.
Can you provide any grounding for your claim that the current solution `flies in the face of International law.'?
Sure. For one thing, the attack on Afghanistan itself was against international law. The USA did not meet Security Council guidelines for "self-defense" when it started dropping bombs. The use of cluster bombs and daisy cutters which kill indiscriminantly over large areas? That's a violation of international law. The prisoners at camp X-ray were held in violation of international law. The USA invented a new word to classify them "unlawful combatants" for the specific purpose of skirting the geneva convention. The US has made threats to attack signatories of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty with nuclear weapons. A violation of said treaty and of the principles of international law sayeth the ICJ at the Hague.
More examples available upon request.
Remember that International law fully recognizes the rights of states not only to defend themselves against attacks, but to preempt attacks which are being prepared.
I suggest you read up on International law. The term "defend" is defined. And the actions to take to "preempt" are also defined.
Two problems with this approach: first off, this is exactly the approach we tried after the embassy bombings and the attack on the USS Cole
No, it is not. For political reasons, several opportunities to arrest Osama Bin Laden and/or other senior Al-Qaeda members were deliberately passed up.
attacks, remember, which with the aid of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, could be much more deadly than the attacks of September 11.
But not to worry. That can't happen now that we've burried Afghanistan under its own rubble.. again. Right?
Are you really suggesting that we should be making our foreign policy decisions based not on what we see as being right or wrong but on what will appease madmen like Mr. Bin Laden? Really?
Well what do YOU think? Do you honestly think that's what I am suggesting? If not, then why would you say something like that? I am in fact suggesting almost the exact OPPOSITE.
I am suggesting that RIGHT and WRONG could and SHOULD dictate America's foreign policy. I am suggesting that this country's foreign policy is currently NOT being guided by the principles of right and wrong. It is guided by the principle of "American interests" which actually means "Money".
I don't care about appeasing Bin Laden. He can rot in a rat-infested dungeon for all I care. But the anger and hatered that give a man like Bin Laden his power are rooted in an environment which has suffered great injustices at the hands of the US. And I *am* interested in fixing THAT, regardless of who it appeases and who it pisses off.
Those wrongs needed to be righted BEFORE 9-11, and they still need to be righted now.
Can you provide one instance of someone being jailed for giving to such an organization? One? I don't need to. The law is what it is. And my point is still a valid counter-point to your criticism of British law.
The return they see on their tax rates is a stagnant economy which hurts everyone's standard of living. To pick an example, were Sweden to become a US state, it would not only be the poorest US state, but Swedes as an ethnic group would be the poorest ethnic group in the US
Both you and the article have trouble distinguishing between wealth and the standard of living. What good is a high salary if you spend it all on health insurance and college bills, for example? Cash-in-hand and standard of living are not the same thing. The article is based on a study by a right-wing trade lobby (special interest) so their "confusion" is understandable. What is your excuse?
how would you suggest we respond to the attacks of September 11 -- no credit will be given if your answer doesn't provide for preemption of future attacks.
No credit? Really? And the current approach to the "terrorist problem" preempts future attacks how, exactly? Wasn't it just last week Vice President Dick gave us ominous warnings of nuclear attacks by terrorists?
By your own criterea, the current "solution" gets "no credit".
How would I suggest we respond? Well, for one thing I suggest that our response not fly in the face of International law. I suggest that America should seek out those responsible, try them as war criminals and punish them in a manner consistent with International law. (Note: that would effectively prevent those same people from attacking the US again.)
I suggest that while America seeks justice against those who attacked it, it also make changes to its own foreign policy where such changes are warranted. America's stance on terrorism is currently nothing short of hypocritical. That has to be changed, September 11th or not.
Restoring some sense of fair play and humanity in US foreign policy will do a hell of a lot more to curb terrorism than dropping bombs on hospitals, schools, power stations and television stations ever will.
I would argue that citizens of the US enjoy the highest standard of living in the world -- as well as enjoying the most freedom.
Well, yes. I *know* you would argue that. That's how all this started. I would argue that the US does NOT enjoy the highest standard of living in the world, and that it enjoys a level of freedom that is equivalent to that enjoyed in other industrialized nations.
Thanks for taking the time to have this discussion with me.
Let's be real here for a moment, if Pim Fortuyn was a communist who was murdered by a neofascisct,[...] Reagan wasn't shot for political purposes, he was shot by a madman.
That still has nothing to do with the freedom of Nederlanders.
Canada made it a crime to mention a particular murder case in any web site or news medium.
Your gross overstatement of the facts in the Homolka gag-order notwithstanding, one would not have to search for long to find similar over-reactions in the US. (DeCSS anyone?)
Prior restraint on the press and the Official Secrets Act, which makes it legal for the government to decide something was secret after the fact and jail you for saying it.
As opposed to deciding that a charity is a "terrorist organization" after the fact and jail you for contributing to it before it was declared so?
Incredibly confiscatory systems of taxation
Given the return these people see on the taxes they pay (free healthcare, free/affordable education, free/affordable legal aid, not having to rebuild the sidwalk in front of your house eventhough it was a city snowplow that destroyed it) as opposed to the virtual ABSENCE of a return on the taxes WE pay, I'd say it's the US tax system that is confiscatory! (Where are my taxes going???? Just bombs?)
bad records on privacy rights
Have you read the USAPATRIOT act? Are you aware of how easy it is now for the FBI to tap your phone line without a warrant?
Home of a court system where the vaguely defined term `human rights violations' is a catch-all for any sort of prosecution, and can get you jailed for months waiting for trial.
As opposed the home of a court system where the vaguely defined term "terrorist" is a catch-all for any sort of prosecution and can get you jailed indefinately awaiting a military trial with no possibility of appeal.?
Where Pim Fortuyn was just brutally murdered for daring to express a popular but conservative political opinion?
Oh.. so political assassinations are fair game? Martin Luther King, anyone? JFK? They missed Reagan, but they tried. What the hell does that have to do with freedom?
Which is cooperating with the EU on financial privacy invasions in the name of `Uniform Tax Enforcement'
AKA Enron-style tax havens?? Give me a break.
all of these nations save Switzerland are signatory to abusive treaties such as the EU treaty of extraditions
As opposed to bombing the hell out of a third world country when it won't extradite an alleged criminal based on no evidence whatsoever? Or were you instead refering to the far better practice of refusing to extradite convicted war criminals? The US has done both these things.
Whatever conclusions you wish to draw, it is plainly obvious to the thinking person that at the VERY LEAST, there are OTHER countries in the world which offer a level of freedom that is very very comparable to that enjoyed by Americans.
True, as your examples clearly show, no country in the world has a PERFECT record on Freedom, Civil Liberties and Equality. Even countries where the citizens enjoy the highest standards of living in the world (eg: Sweden) have blemishes on their records. But you should get your head out of the sand and see that this includes the good'ole US-of-A.
Is the USA a free country? By International standards: yes. But it is most certainly NOT alone.
Canada? The UK? Sweden? Norway? France? Belgium? The Netherlands? Swizerland? Germany? In many ways, several of the aformentioned could be said to offer MORE freedom to their citizens than the US does. Not to mention that MOST of the above have a legal system that make it possible for a poor person to protect his/her own rights in court.
According to Business Week, roughly a quarter of the oil that Iraq produces ends up in the US.
Is this not the case for every oil exporting country? Does the Business Week article mention whether Iraq's oil production is the same today as it was 12 years ago? If the oil production has dropped dramatically, does the Business Week article mention why?
What are you saying? That fighting oppression or fighting to stem the growth of oppressive systems is a form of terrorism?
Of course not. If that's what I were saying, I'd be an idiot. So given that the above can't possibly be what I'm saying, what *am* I saying?
If you can't see a difference, I won't even bother to argue the point.
Killing innocent civilians in the name of the Bin Laden way versus killing innocent civilians in the name of the American way.. You're right. I don't see a difference.
You see, it doesn't matter *why* you commit injustices. It only matters *that* you commit injustices. Suppose for one second: Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Bin Laden is right. Let's say he is TOTALLY RIGHT. If that were so, would that make the WTC bombing OK? Of course not, right? Because no matter what the reason for doing what he did, it was WRONG.
Likewise, sponsoring terrorist organizations in Central and South America, overthrowing democratically elected governments in Chile and Iran, dropping nuclear bombs on Japan, using chemical warfare in Vietnam, starving the civilian population of Iraq, shelling the civilian population of Afghanistan: these things are wrong, no matter what lofty ideals are used to justify them. If you don't understand *that*, then you are more like a terrorist than you realize.
Well, I don't have a lot of hard numbers to back anything up, but anecdotally, watching the Arab reaction to bin Laden's "confession" video, it was amazing to see that most Arabs interviewed on the streets still had serious doubts that bin Laden was guilty.
I agree. It's a pretty damning video tape. Not exactly a smoking gun, but pretty close. However I found it equally baffling that the American people were willing to believe Bin Laden was guilty without any evidence whatsoever. The video tape came out well after the bombing of Afghanistan started, with the full support of the American general public. This on nothing but the government and the media's good word. Fascinating.
Rather, we hear statistics like this one, that 77% of Palestinians support suicide bombings (though, of course, 77% of Palestinans aren't actually suicide bombers).
Surely a majority of Israelis must also support the killing of innocent Palestinians or it would not be happening at the rate that it is. (If the Palestinian bombers enjoy a 77% approval rating, as you alledge, then one shudders to think at the approval rating of the Israeli army which kills Palestinians at a rate 3 times greater!)
"Getting on our good side" would include such things as punishing human rights abuses, adopting democratic and capitalistic reforms, allowing free speech and freedom of religion, et al.
Actually, once again history does not bear this out. Case in point: Iran. The people of Iran democratically elected a government. This was a secular and tolerant government, but they made the mistake of trying to nationalize their oil resources. America responded by overthrowing that regime and installing the Shah, a dictator. Next, we took back the oil resources and divided it between ourselves and the British.
Ergo: "Getting on our good side" means "getting on our business side". To hell with democracy, free speech and religious tolerance if our economic interests are not served. There are many examples of this if you care to research the past.
Anyway, this is getting way, waaay off-topic...
Yes, but it's good that we are talking about it. That's how you protect democracy: never make discussing important issues taboo.
Your freedom of speech does NOT mean that I have to pay you to defamate my character!
1) You wrongly assume that the people getting American oil money and the people with the anti-American sentiments are one and the same.
2) It's "defame", not "defamate".
I guess it doesn't bother you that the Iraqi goverment will take the vast profits from the oil we buy from them and support groups like Al-Qaida to blow up our buildings and terrorize our population.
Your arguments would carry alot more weight if they were a little more informed.
1) America barely buys ANY oil from Iraq. Iraq has been under US-sponsored UN sanctions for over a decade. Yes, there is the oil-for-food program, but by no stretch of the imagination can it be said that Iraq is making "huge profits from the oil we buy from them".
2) Saddam Hussein and his government have been earmarked for destruction by Bin Laden's Al-Qaida. They consider him an infidel despot who must be elliminated. It's highly unlikely that Iraq funds a group that is dedicated to its destruction.
However, groups that sponsor terrorism and governments that either sponsor or tolerate them are the enemies of the civilized world, in no uncertain terms.
In no uncertain terms? Do you fully appreciate the role that the US government played in Afghanistan during the 80's? Are you aware of the kind of activity the US government sponsored in Nicaragua, also in the 80s? Do you know what the US military mean when they say "insurgency" or "guerilla warfare" or "psychological operations"?
I think that opinions may vary, but to claim that terrorism and/or support of terrorism makes one an enemy of civilization in no uncertain terms.. well.. only if you define terrorism as "what they do" and civilization as "what we do" can that ever be true.
What's worse is that many moderates in Islam don't condone these activities, but they don't condemn them, either.
There are over 1 Billion Muslims in the world. Even 1% of that can seem like "many". It's unfortunate that the out-pouring of sympathy for the victims of the WTC bombing, even from "many" Muslim countries has already been forgotten.
What many people fail to grasp, in this frenzied time, is that there are those who are opposed to wanton destruction and the death of innocent people whether they are American, Israeli, Afghan or Iraqi. So while many condemned the attacks on the WTC, many of the same people fail to support the US government's attacks on Afghanistan. And in a climate of war-mongering, that's seen as only a half-hearted condemnation of the WTC tragedy. And that's sad.
However, we also have to recognize that OPEC nations have more influence over us than we have over them.
I *have* to think you were being sarcastic here.
If they want our money, they need to find out how to get on our good side.
I think "they" understand that quite well. Unfortunately, they tend to "get on our good side" at the expense of the welfare of their own people. Hence the "anti-American sentiment" you were talking about before.
I agree with you. I too still cling to GNOME, mostly because I have contributed small amounts of code (The GNOME Stock Ticker.. whoopteedoo) and because I still have a bias for GNOME/GTK look and feel.
I also, for no particular reason, feel that GNOME is more lightweight than KDE. I have no evidence to back this up.
Honestly, at this point, the only reason I am still using GNOME is that I couldn't find Solaris Packages of KDE. (Oh, and that "One, Two, Three, Four" business on the KDE Panel reminds me too much of CDE. I like the GNOME pager better.
So... yeah. It's becoming increasingly difficult to ignore that KDE is miles ahead of GNOME - TODAY. Ximian was a great thing for GNOME, but the whole.GNU/Mono thing makes me sick to my stomach.
A disillusioned, lightly battered, glazed and stir-fryed General Tao.
When I run helix-update, I get all the newest stuff in a neat little window. It gives me warm fuzzies. True, I only get a list of packages that have been blessed by Helix-code, but all I do is double-click on the little soda-can on my desktop. When the smoke clears, all the neat little apps are installed, and I can access them all from my GNOME menu.
Having said that, what's *really* holding Linux back is NOT ease of use. We're there as far as that's concerned. It's strictly a matter of application availability, ie: We either need more support from mainstream application vendors, or OUR applications need to BECOME mainstream. Either would be fine, and either would totally solve our problems. Ease of use (though there is always room for improvement) is yesterday's news.
I'm sorry, but in our efforts to humble ourselves, we've gotten way too accustomed to putting ourselves down. Linux is NOT hard to use. Come on! What about KDE or GNOME is inherently harder to use than Windows? I'm serious. There may be some differences.. but please tell me what is so damned hard about pointy-clicky-KDE or GNOME?
No. It may be harder to exploit the full power of Linux versus the full power of Windows, but that is only because there is less power to exploit under windows. If you're strictly talking about dialing up to the Internet, browsing around, using office applications, balancing your checkbook or whatever.. Linux is NOT NOT NOT harder than Windows. That's no longer true.
If you are talking about server tasks, ok. It's harder to set up a server under Linux than under Windows. That's why there are fewer IDIOTS running Linux boxes than Windows boxes.
I've got years of experience designing and maintaining large Cisco networks. Have worked for some big-name telcos in key positions. Also have very strong UNIX skills. Would you entertain the possibility of hiring a telecommuter?
And this is different how? If I have money, I sleep on a more comfortable bed, I drive a faster car, I eat better food, and I have better Internet access. Isn't that how America works?
It's interesting that you didn't go on to say that Windows was a copy of MacOS which was a copy of the Xerox GUI, which indeed was just a computer generated copy of a desk with papers and folders on it.
RedHat probably has a thing or two to learn about shmoozing the customer, but the comparison between what you get for M$'s $2000 and RH's $5000 is ridiculous.
M$ certification produces over-confident trained monkeys whose only skill is to anticipate the contents of a window before it comes up. Ask them to tell you just what it is that all those points and clicks do and you'll get a "deer in headlights" response.
RedHat is training people to use a true and powerful multi-user system that operates more or less like every flavour of UNIX out there. They gain a thorough understanding of the system AND the technologies. You end up with a well-rounded technician who can provide insight into Linux in particular and operating systems/network applications in general. Worth the extra money to wind up with someone who's got more than a Pavlovian sense of how to run a server.
Slashdot Mirror
Kinda of a by-the-way little news item for something which could potentially be so devastating? What will happen to Linux's ease of install? Will the topic du jour a few years from now be "Boycott PCs with this BIOS, only buy hardware with this BIOS" ?
I'm worried.
First Love, now Joy! What's NEXT!?!?
Perhaps it should.
Hey, I'm no moderator but that was a great post. Really helpful and on-topic.
Use a patent to protect a business, but don't expect to build a business on a patent.
Sound advice!
How about it? It provides very little information about how it reaches its numbers,
:)
;)
You must not have spent very much time looking at the data. On the left side in the navigation menu is a link called Methodology
and many of the sources it cites are groups with noted biases in this area (Human Rights Watch comes immediately to mind).
So it's ok for you to used biased sources but not me?
For a report of this sort which works harder to back its claims, see Freedom House's annual report for 2001 [freedomhouse.org]. Ironically, the audit you cite claims Freedom House as one of their main sources, but reaches very different results.
Umm.. Freedom house's survey ranks countries on a much smaller scale (1-7). Their results are less granular as a consequence. But in any case, Freedom House gives Sweden and the US the SAME rating. So even their findings (which I would have thought you'd find too vague) do alot more for my argument than for yours.
So, my good man, I have shown you 3 studies from 3 different and very well respected international organisations that state in no uncertain terms that Sweden (since we decided to pick on that country) is AT LEAST AS FREE as the USA. These reports are published by groups with absolutely NO political interest in distorting the facts (unlike special interest lobbies).
So getting back to the root of our argument, the one that started with your question: "Care to point to another nation (UN member or not) whose citizens enjoy as much freedom as Americans do?"
World Audit says: Denmark, New Zealand, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Netherlands, Australia, Canada, Austria
Freedom House says: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize,Canada, Cyprus (G), Demark, Dominica, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Kiribati, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Sweden, Switzerland, Tuvalu, Uruguay
The United Nations says: Norway, Australia, Canada, Sweden and Belgium.
You have to admit... AT THE VERY LEAST.. that whether or not America is the only nation whose citizens enjoy so much freedom is NOT A FORGONE CONCLUSION. ie: (And I'm being nice here) it's at least *debatable*.
The USA offers a level of freedom that is SO close to that offered by most other industrialized democracies, that the ultimate "ranking" comes down to a matter of personal preference for which freedoms are more important than others.
It's been a real pleasure debating with you. You argue like a gentleman. I hope we have the opportunity to be on the same side of an issue one day!
Peace
You maintain that income and purchasing power have nothing to do with standard of living.
I maintain no such thing. I said that income and purchasing power are not in themselves indicative of the standard of living. They form metrics which, when combined with other metrics, can give someone an idea of the standard of living.
by American standards not 5 percent but rather the vast majority percent of Swedes are `poor'
Only if you count cash in hand. Americans are in fact more deeply in debt than swedes. Look. It comes down to the difference between net-worth and cashflow. Americans have high cashflow. Lots more cash in hand, but many more expenses. Swedes earn less, but don't need as much money to lead similar lives.
this is the problem with the UN study you cite -- it takes only your issues into account and not economics or individual liberty, thus providing a picture which is at least as incomplete as you claim that provided by the study I posted is.
Umm.. it does take economics into account. fully one third of the score. But ok. How about this then?
I assert that the US is the most free, the most democratic, and the most prosperous nation on earth,
See the link above as to the first two. As to the third, you and I finally agree. I cannot argue with the statement that the US has the strongest economy in the world. It is simply true.
Peace
.
Perfectly clear, but only because it is taken out of context. The UN Charter also says:
:) :
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations."
so, again, after the attacks of September 11 occurred, all bets were off as far as the restrictions placed by the UN charter.
Look who's taking things out of context.
", until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."
So your statement that "all bets are off" is simply false. Not to mention the fact that Afghanistan under the Taliban NEVER attacked the US. There was no "armed-attack" by the Taliban on the USA. The silly Bush doctrine of unleashing collective punishment on any nation that directly or indirectly harbors or supports a terrorist organization would in theory justify a British attack of the US for harboring/supporting the IRA, or a host of other nations attacking Americans because various insurgent groups are living comfortable lives in US terrirory.
On September 28, 2001, both the Security Council and the General Assembly approved US-drafted, US-sponsored measures approving our actions in response to the attacks of September 11. I welcome you to look these up.
If you had actually looked these up yourself, you would have noticed that I refered to the same resolution directly in the text you were replying to. Yes, resolution 1373. Now if you'll actually *read* the resolution you will see NOTHING about the security council approving the US bombing of Afghanistan.
What you do see is a series of guidelines on how states should behave with respect to terroist groups, as well as some of the financial steps to be taken to freeze assets and the like.
Where there IS some indirect reference to more forceful action, it is ALWAYS qualified with "in accordance to the UN Charter" or "in accordance to its responsibilities under the Charter".
If you'll read up on those responsibilities, you'll learn that MANY measures need to be taken BEFORE the use of force is even considered. You know.. things like sanctions and stuff like that.
So you'll have to do much better than that to show me that the Security Council somehow supported the bombing of Afghanistan.
This is a misrepresentation of a specific provision of the Conventions, which actually calls for such tribunals only in the case where a nation has generally upheld their obligations under the conventions, but where an individual soldier caught fighting in civilian garb claims that he had legitimate reasons to do so.
For more on the Geneva Conventions, see this article [opinionjournal.com]
Your statements confirm for me that you have almost certainly never READ the Geneva convention's provisions on the treatment of POWs. Rather than point you to some editorial, I'll point you instead to the actual text of the convention, ok? Here.
In it, you'll find this:
"Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. " - Article 2, paragraph 3.
You might also be interested in Article 4 (emphasis is mine) which states, in part:
"A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
[...]
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. "
And as for my "deliberate misreading", I'll quote, and you can read for yourself:
"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. " -- Article 5, paragraph 2.
>Afghanistan is free? When did this happen?
Around when it was liberated by US and Northern Alliance troops, basically. Is there more progress to be made? Sure. Is it miles beyond where it was under the Taliban? Clearly.
It's funny that you deny that Canada, the UK, Sweden, Germany and others are free, and yet you claim that Afghanistan, which has not had an election in decades, is free. Also, your claims about the state of the nation now that the Taliban is gone sound an awful lot like what was said about the Taliban when they took over in the first place.
I'll be the first to condemn the Taliban as a bunch of back-assward thugs. But the same can be said of the Northern alliance. Afghanistan is most certainly NOT free.
Peace
How 'bout you post any reason to believe that these figures are not indicative of a lower standard of living?
m
:) Can you provide me with a shred of evidence that the presence of Syria, China or Sudan has had an adverse effect on the judgement of the human rights committee? If not, then your argument is a straw-man and the statement is of no value.
Very very little of that document discussed actual quality of life metrics. Most of it was concentrated on median household income which has nothing to do with the standard of living. For instance, it ignores the fact that in the USA, most homes are dual-income.
OK. Here are some figures that actually speak to the standard of living rather than the standard salary.
First is the UN's Human development index. It provides a measure of the "standard of living" by combining metrics dealing with life expectancy, litteracy/education and adjusted real income. Here are the top 10 in 2001, starting with number 1: Norway, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Belgium, United States, Iceland, Netherlands, Japan and Finland.
Go here for the report. Some other interesting numbers (not as fresh but that's all I could dig up on short notice.):
Average Household Savings: Sweden 10,943 United States 4,201
Percent Poverty level: United States 17.1 Sweden 5.3
Percent Children under the poverty level: United States 22.4 Sweden 5.0
Life Expectancy (men/women): Sweden 74.2/80.4 United States 71.6/78.6
Infant Mortality Rate (per 1,000 live births): United States 10.4 Sweden 5.9
Premature Death (years of life lost before the age of 64 per 100 people): United States 5.8 years Sweden 3.8
percentage of families headed by single parents: United States 8.0% Sweden 3.2
People per police officer: Sweden 328 United States 459
Prisoners (per 1,000 people): United States 4.2 Sweden 0.6
Murder rate (per 100,000 people): United States 8.40 Sweden 1.73
Rape (per 100,000 people): United States 37.20 Sweden 15.70
Armed robbery (per 100,000 people): United States 221 Sweden 49
Percent Voter participation: Sweden 86 United States 49
http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/8Comparison.ht
> Sure. For one thing, the attack on Afghanistan >itself was against international law.
Care to back this claim up with a cite?
Sure. I'll quote the UN charter, which is binding to all UN member nations:
"All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UN."
I'd say that's pretty clear.
Leaving aside the fact that the security council did, in fact, rule that US action in Afghanistan was justified,
Your turn to cite evidence that the security council approved of how the US chose to respond to 9-11. (Surely you don't mean security council resolutions 1368 and 1373.)
what makes you think that an organization whose Human Rights committee includes Syria, China, and the Sudan is any sort of sane judge of international law?
I see you can spew some FUD of your own.
Also, I feel the need to point out that your statement essentially reflects the US attitude to international law: To hell with it. We know better.
It states that if a nation follows the requirements of the convention, including only using uniformed combatants, having a clear hierarchy of ranks, and not attacking civilians, then their combatants are entitled to certain protections.
It also states that whether or not they have followed the requirements of the convention is a matter for a tribunal to decide, and that until such a decision has been made, they are to be considered POW's and treated as such.
under the Geneva convention their combatants can legally be summarily executed.
Please show me where it says this!
I have seen us leave open the option of a response to a nuclear, biological, or chemical attack by others.
You forgot the catch-all "Surprising military developments."
I would argue that International Law has a longstanding precedent of preemptive self defense.
Umm. No. What you call "preemptive self defense" is commonly called anticipatory self defense, and it is most definately NOT accepted by international laws and conventions. For reference, please see every instance where the UN has passed resolutions condemning such action.
But you don't need to go that far to see how self-defeating this doctrine of anticipatory self defense is. Under this doctrine, Iraq (anticipating a US attack) is entitled to pre-defend itself against this attack. And in turn the US, anticipating Iraq's anticipation, is entitled to pre-defending itself against Iraq's pre-defense. Then of course Iraq anticipates the US's anticipation of its anticipation... and so on and so on.. we descend into an Abbott and Costello routine.
How is Afghanistan being free, for a change,
Afghanistan is free? When did this happen?
having food aid get through instead of being seizeb by the Taliban
Food aid is STILL at the present time lower than it was prior to the US attack.
Likewise, where do you get this? This isn't why Mr. Bin Laden says he hates us -- he's complaining about `Jews and Crusaders' and speaking of the `tragedy of Andalusia',
Well, first, you are wrong. Every single statement he has made has started with complaints about the Palestinian injustice, the Iraq sanctions and the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia.
But no matter, because I clearly stated that I did not give a hoot about Bin Laden or what he thinks. So what you are doing is diverting the argument away from the fact that US foreign policy has resulted in many injustices, whether Osama Bin Laden talks about them or not.
So while Bin Laden may be a mad man who will hate America no matter what, many of those who make up his reservoir of support, like the parents, friends or children of those who were blown to bits in Afghanistan, have ample reason to be angry.
Anyway. I've devoted too much time to these posts already, and we are getting way sidetracked. You said no other country in the world enjoys the kind of freedom America does. I disagree. I've stated my reasons for disagreeing, and I think that I have made a very good case for the fact that although the US is indeed a "Free country" by accepted definitions, it is by no means alone.
It was an honor and a pleasure, sir.
OK, then, can you provide any cite to back up your claim that the law permits this? Any?
Sure. You referenced the EFF earlier, so try this.
That's the full text of the USA PATRIOT act. Section 411 is a good place to start. Try to read the whole thing. It's not easy to read. Very cross-referenced and cryptic at times. But this is the law of the land and before you continue to sing the praises of American freedom, you ought to at least have read this.
I'll also point you to this EFF document which helps analyse some parts of the USA PATRIOT act: link
On the contrary, by any reasonable standard the Swedes have a lower standard of living
Care to back this statement up with some facts?
calling a position `right-wing' doesn't discredit it in any way -- if you have an actual argument to make, make it.
I didn't mean to imply that being right-wing automatically discredited an opinion. I meant to imply that providing the opinion of a special-interest LOBBY group as some sort of definitive proof of something was disingenuous.
the infrastructure which made those attacks possible has been largely dismantled, and finish up with the fact that we have sent a clear message that nations cannot expect to sponsor terrorism against us without facing repercussions. Looks like A+ work to me -- full credit.
I guess we'll talk again right after the next terrorist attack, then.
Can you provide any grounding for your claim that the current solution `flies in the face of International law.'?
Sure. For one thing, the attack on Afghanistan itself was against international law. The USA did not meet Security Council guidelines for "self-defense" when it started dropping bombs. The use of cluster bombs and daisy cutters which kill indiscriminantly over large areas? That's a violation of international law. The prisoners at camp X-ray were held in violation of international law. The USA invented a new word to classify them "unlawful combatants" for the specific purpose of skirting the geneva convention. The US has made threats to attack signatories of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty with nuclear weapons. A violation of said treaty and of the principles of international law sayeth the ICJ at the Hague.
More examples available upon request.
Remember that International law fully recognizes the rights of states not only to defend themselves against attacks, but to preempt attacks which are being prepared.
I suggest you read up on International law. The term "defend" is defined. And the actions to take to "preempt" are also defined.
Two problems with this approach: first off, this is exactly the approach we tried after the embassy bombings and the attack on the USS Cole
No, it is not. For political reasons, several opportunities to arrest Osama Bin Laden and/or other senior Al-Qaeda members were deliberately passed up.
attacks, remember, which with the aid of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, could be much more deadly than the attacks of September 11.
But not to worry. That can't happen now that we've burried Afghanistan under its own rubble.. again. Right?
Are you really suggesting that we should be making our foreign policy decisions based not on what we see as being right or wrong but on what will appease madmen like Mr. Bin Laden? Really?
Well what do YOU think? Do you honestly think that's what I am suggesting? If not, then why would you say something like that? I am in fact suggesting almost the exact OPPOSITE.
I am suggesting that RIGHT and WRONG could and SHOULD dictate America's foreign policy. I am suggesting that this country's foreign policy is currently NOT being guided by the principles of right and wrong. It is guided by the principle of "American interests" which actually means "Money".
I don't care about appeasing Bin Laden. He can rot in a rat-infested dungeon for all I care. But the anger and hatered that give a man like Bin Laden his power are rooted in an environment which has suffered great injustices at the hands of the US. And I *am* interested in fixing THAT, regardless of who it appeases and who it pisses off.
Those wrongs needed to be righted BEFORE 9-11, and they still need to be righted now.
Can you provide one instance of someone being jailed for giving to such an organization? One?
I don't need to. The law is what it is. And my point is still a valid counter-point to your criticism of British law.
The return they see on their tax rates is a stagnant economy which hurts everyone's standard of living. To pick an example, were Sweden to become a US state, it would not only be the poorest US state, but Swedes as an ethnic group would be the poorest ethnic group in the US
Both you and the article have trouble distinguishing between wealth and the standard of living. What good is a high salary if you spend it all on health insurance and college bills, for example? Cash-in-hand and standard of living are not the same thing. The article is based on a study by a right-wing trade lobby (special interest) so their "confusion" is understandable. What is your excuse?
how would you suggest we respond to the attacks of September 11 -- no credit will be given if your answer doesn't provide for preemption of future attacks.
No credit? Really? And the current approach to the "terrorist problem" preempts future attacks how, exactly? Wasn't it just last week Vice President Dick gave us ominous warnings of nuclear attacks by terrorists?
By your own criterea, the current "solution" gets "no credit".
How would I suggest we respond? Well, for one thing I suggest that our response not fly in the face of International law. I suggest that America should seek out those responsible, try them as war criminals and punish them in a manner consistent with International law. (Note: that would effectively prevent those same people from attacking the US again.)
I suggest that while America seeks justice against those who attacked it, it also make changes to its own foreign policy where such changes are warranted. America's stance on terrorism is currently nothing short of hypocritical. That has to be changed, September 11th or not.
Restoring some sense of fair play and humanity in US foreign policy will do a hell of a lot more to curb terrorism than dropping bombs on hospitals, schools, power stations and television stations ever will.
I would argue that citizens of the US enjoy the highest standard of living in the world -- as well as enjoying the most freedom.
Well, yes. I *know* you would argue that. That's how all this started. I would argue that the US does NOT enjoy the highest standard of living in the world, and that it enjoys a level of freedom that is equivalent to that enjoyed in other industrialized nations.
Thanks for taking the time to have this discussion with me.
Let's be real here for a moment, if Pim Fortuyn was a communist who was murdered by a neofascisct,[...]
Reagan wasn't shot for political purposes, he was shot by a madman.
That still has nothing to do with the freedom of Nederlanders.
This is sarcasm, right? Has to be.
Silly little laws like the DMCA and Patriot Act can come under US Supreme Court review later to verify if they are even constitutional.
:) The same supreme court that decided you had no constitutional right to VOTE? hehe. How reassuring.
Your gross overstatement of the facts in the Homolka gag-order notwithstanding, one would not have to search for long to find similar over-reactions in the US. (DeCSS anyone?)
Prior restraint on the press and the Official Secrets Act, which makes it legal for the government to decide something was secret after the fact and jail you for saying it.
As opposed to deciding that a charity is a "terrorist organization" after the fact and jail you for contributing to it before it was declared so?
Incredibly confiscatory systems of taxation
Given the return these people see on the taxes they pay (free healthcare, free/affordable education, free/affordable legal aid, not having to rebuild the sidwalk in front of your house eventhough it was a city snowplow that destroyed it) as opposed to the virtual ABSENCE of a return on the taxes WE pay, I'd say it's the US tax system that is confiscatory! (Where are my taxes going???? Just bombs?)
bad records on privacy rights
Have you read the USAPATRIOT act? Are you aware of how easy it is now for the FBI to tap your phone line without a warrant?
Home of a court system where the vaguely defined term `human rights violations' is a catch-all for any sort of prosecution, and can get you jailed for months waiting for trial.
As opposed the home of a court system where the vaguely defined term "terrorist" is a catch-all for any sort of prosecution and can get you jailed indefinately awaiting a military trial with no possibility of appeal.?
Where Pim Fortuyn was just brutally murdered for daring to express a popular but conservative political opinion?
Oh.. so political assassinations are fair game? Martin Luther King, anyone? JFK? They missed Reagan, but they tried. What the hell does that have to do with freedom?
Which is cooperating with the EU on financial privacy invasions in the name of `Uniform Tax Enforcement'
AKA Enron-style tax havens?? Give me a break.
all of these nations save Switzerland are signatory to abusive treaties such as the EU treaty of extraditions
As opposed to bombing the hell out of a third world country when it won't extradite an alleged criminal based on no evidence whatsoever? Or were you instead refering to the far better practice of refusing to extradite convicted war criminals? The US has done both these things.
Whatever conclusions you wish to draw, it is plainly obvious to the thinking person that at the VERY LEAST, there are OTHER countries in the world which offer a level of freedom that is very very comparable to that enjoyed by Americans.
True, as your examples clearly show, no country in the world has a PERFECT record on Freedom, Civil Liberties and Equality. Even countries where the citizens enjoy the highest standards of living in the world (eg: Sweden) have blemishes on their records. But you should get your head out of the sand and see that this includes the good'ole US-of-A.
Is the USA a free country? By International standards: yes. But it is most certainly NOT alone.
Canada? The UK? Sweden? Norway? France? Belgium? The Netherlands? Swizerland? Germany?
In many ways, several of the aformentioned could be said to offer MORE freedom to their citizens than the US does. Not to mention that MOST of the above have a legal system that make it possible for a poor person to protect his/her own rights in court.
According to Business Week, roughly a quarter of the oil that Iraq produces ends up in the US.
Is this not the case for every oil exporting country? Does the Business Week article mention whether Iraq's oil production is the same today as it was 12 years ago? If the oil production has dropped dramatically, does the Business Week article mention why?
What are you saying? That fighting oppression or fighting to stem the growth of oppressive systems is a form of terrorism?
Of course not. If that's what I were saying, I'd be an idiot. So given that the above can't possibly be what I'm saying, what *am* I saying?
If you can't see a difference, I won't even bother to argue the point.
Killing innocent civilians in the name of the Bin Laden way versus killing innocent civilians in the name of the American way.. You're right. I don't see a difference.
You see, it doesn't matter *why* you commit injustices. It only matters *that* you commit injustices. Suppose for one second: Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Bin Laden is right. Let's say he is TOTALLY RIGHT. If that were so, would that make the WTC bombing OK? Of course not, right? Because no matter what the reason for doing what he did, it was WRONG.
Likewise, sponsoring terrorist organizations in Central and South America, overthrowing democratically elected governments in Chile and Iran, dropping nuclear bombs on Japan, using chemical warfare in Vietnam, starving the civilian population of Iraq, shelling the civilian population of Afghanistan: these things are wrong, no matter what lofty ideals are used to justify them. If you don't understand *that*, then you are more like a terrorist than you realize.
Well, I don't have a lot of hard numbers to back anything up, but anecdotally, watching the Arab reaction to bin Laden's "confession" video, it was amazing to see that most Arabs interviewed on the streets still had serious doubts that bin Laden was guilty.
I agree. It's a pretty damning video tape. Not exactly a smoking gun, but pretty close. However I found it equally baffling that the American people were willing to believe Bin Laden was guilty without any evidence whatsoever. The video tape came out well after the bombing of Afghanistan started, with the full support of the American general public. This on nothing but the government and the media's good word. Fascinating.
Rather, we hear statistics like this one, that 77% of Palestinians support suicide bombings (though, of course, 77% of Palestinans aren't actually suicide bombers).
Surely a majority of Israelis must also support the killing of innocent Palestinians or it would not be happening at the rate that it is. (If the Palestinian bombers enjoy a 77% approval rating, as you alledge, then one shudders to think at the approval rating of the Israeli army which kills Palestinians at a rate 3 times greater!)
"Getting on our good side" would include such things as punishing human rights abuses, adopting democratic and capitalistic reforms, allowing free speech and freedom of religion, et al.
Actually, once again history does not bear this out. Case in point: Iran. The people of Iran democratically elected a government. This was a secular and tolerant government, but they made the mistake of trying to nationalize their oil resources. America responded by overthrowing that regime and installing the Shah, a dictator. Next, we took back the oil resources and divided it between ourselves and the British.
Ergo: "Getting on our good side" means "getting on our business side". To hell with democracy, free speech and religious tolerance if our economic interests are not served. There are many examples of this if you care to research the past.
Anyway, this is getting way, waaay off-topic...
Yes, but it's good that we are talking about it. That's how you protect democracy: never make discussing important issues taboo.
A few nits, if you'll allow me...
Your freedom of speech does NOT mean that I have to pay you to defamate my character!
1) You wrongly assume that the people getting American oil money and the people with the anti-American sentiments are one and the same.
2) It's "defame", not "defamate".
I guess it doesn't bother you that the Iraqi goverment will take the vast profits from the oil we buy from them and support groups like Al-Qaida to blow up our buildings and terrorize our population.
Your arguments would carry alot more weight if they were a little more informed.
1) America barely buys ANY oil from Iraq. Iraq has been under US-sponsored UN sanctions for over a decade. Yes, there is the oil-for-food program, but by no stretch of the imagination can it be said that Iraq is making "huge profits from the oil we buy from them".
2) Saddam Hussein and his government have been earmarked for destruction by Bin Laden's Al-Qaida. They consider him an infidel despot who must be elliminated. It's highly unlikely that Iraq funds a group that is dedicated to its destruction.
However, groups that sponsor terrorism and governments that either sponsor or tolerate them are the enemies of the civilized world, in no uncertain terms.
In no uncertain terms? Do you fully appreciate the role that the US government played in Afghanistan during the 80's? Are you aware of the kind of activity the US government sponsored in Nicaragua, also in the 80s? Do you know what the US military mean when they say "insurgency" or "guerilla warfare" or "psychological operations"?
I think that opinions may vary, but to claim that terrorism and/or support of terrorism makes one an enemy of civilization in no uncertain terms.. well.. only if you define terrorism as "what they do" and civilization as "what we do" can that ever be true.
What's worse is that many moderates in Islam don't condone these activities, but they don't condemn them, either.
There are over 1 Billion Muslims in the world. Even 1% of that can seem like "many". It's unfortunate that the out-pouring of sympathy for the victims of the WTC bombing, even from "many" Muslim countries has already been forgotten.
What many people fail to grasp, in this frenzied time, is that there are those who are opposed to wanton destruction and the death of innocent people whether they are American, Israeli, Afghan or Iraqi. So while many condemned the attacks on the WTC, many of the same people fail to support the US government's attacks on Afghanistan. And in a climate of war-mongering, that's seen as only a half-hearted condemnation of the WTC tragedy. And that's sad.
However, we also have to recognize that OPEC nations have more influence over us than we have over them.
I *have* to think you were being sarcastic here.
If they want our money, they need to find out how to get on our good side.
I think "they" understand that quite well. Unfortunately, they tend to "get on our good side" at the expense of the welfare of their own people. Hence the "anti-American sentiment" you were talking about before.
I agree with you. I too still cling to GNOME, mostly because I have contributed small amounts of code (The GNOME Stock Ticker.. whoopteedoo) and because I still have a bias for GNOME/GTK look and feel.
.GNU/Mono thing makes me sick to my stomach.
I also, for no particular reason, feel that GNOME is more lightweight than KDE. I have no evidence to back this up.
Honestly, at this point, the only reason I am still using GNOME is that I couldn't find Solaris Packages of KDE. (Oh, and that "One, Two, Three, Four" business on the KDE Panel reminds me too much of CDE. I like the GNOME pager better.
So... yeah. It's becoming increasingly difficult to ignore that KDE is miles ahead of GNOME - TODAY. Ximian was a great thing for GNOME, but the whole
A disillusioned, lightly battered, glazed and stir-fryed General Tao.
You got me on that one.
When I run helix-update, I get all the newest stuff in a neat little window. It gives me warm fuzzies. True, I only get a list of packages that have been blessed by Helix-code, but all I do is double-click on the little soda-can on my desktop. When the smoke clears, all the neat little apps are installed, and I can access them all from my GNOME menu.
Having said that, what's *really* holding Linux back is NOT ease of use. We're there as far as that's concerned. It's strictly a matter of application availability, ie: We either need more support from mainstream application vendors, or OUR applications need to BECOME mainstream. Either would be fine, and either would totally solve our problems. Ease of use (though there is always room for improvement) is yesterday's news.
I'm sorry, but in our efforts to humble ourselves, we've gotten way too accustomed to putting ourselves down. Linux is NOT hard to use. Come on! What about KDE or GNOME is inherently harder to use than Windows? I'm serious. There may be some differences.. but please tell me what is so damned hard about pointy-clicky-KDE or GNOME?
No. It may be harder to exploit the full power of Linux versus the full power of Windows, but that is only because there is less power to exploit under windows. If you're strictly talking about dialing up to the Internet, browsing around, using office applications, balancing your checkbook or whatever.. Linux is NOT NOT NOT harder than Windows. That's no longer true.
If you are talking about server tasks, ok. It's harder to set up a server under Linux than under Windows. That's why there are fewer IDIOTS running Linux boxes than Windows boxes.
I've got years of experience designing and maintaining large Cisco networks. Have worked for some big-name telcos in key positions. Also have very strong UNIX skills. Would you entertain the possibility of hiring a telecommuter?
And this is different how? If I have money, I sleep on a more comfortable bed, I drive a faster car, I eat better food, and I have better Internet access. Isn't that how America works?
It's interesting that you didn't go on to say that Windows was a copy of MacOS which was a copy of the Xerox GUI, which indeed was just a computer generated copy of a desk with papers and folders on it.
Get real.
M$ certification produces over-confident trained monkeys whose only skill is to anticipate the contents of a window before it comes up. Ask them to tell you just what it is that all those points and clicks do and you'll get a "deer in headlights" response.
RedHat is training people to use a true and powerful multi-user system that operates more or less like every flavour of UNIX out there. They gain a thorough understanding of the system AND the technologies. You end up with a well-rounded technician who can provide insight into Linux in particular and operating systems/network applications in general. Worth the extra money to wind up with someone who's got more than a Pavlovian sense of how to run a server.
which very well known piece of software?