Yup. The US has defended itself against threats from Afghanistan, tried to restore order in Sudan, and (with UN authority) bombed Yugoslavia. We also supported the (UN chartered) country of Israel. We have also declined to trade with nations with whose policies we do not agree. We have tried to set up democratic governments where there were none, and we have supported those who fight against oppression (like in Afghanistan and Central America)
I don't remember Afghanistan hating us so much when our surface to air missiles and training support were the only things between them and being a Russian state. I don't remember Sudan hating us when we sent food and water and humanitarian aid.
No, I DON'T understand why we're hated. Maybe I'm an ugly American, but this does not compute. The injustices and inequalities that this article argues create terrorism CANNOT be addressed, because in large part they are fabricated and perpetrated by the very terrorists who purport to abhor them. America is far from perfect. Sometimes, it's not even very good. But which regime would you rather have running the show? George W. Bush, or the Taliban?
Re:What can be done about terrorism?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 2
Non capitalist countries, by definition, couldn't be ina sociopolitical position to take advantage (or capitalize) on the industrial revolution because the industrial revolution was a capitalist phenomenon. That's like saying "Cite examples of square wheeled cars that failed for reasons other than their square wheels."
Re:What can be done about terrorism?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 2
Let me get this straight. In order to justify capitalism, you are asking the poster to cite examples of successful non-capitalist countries? Huh?
By your logic, non-capitalist countries are not successful enough on the world stage to invest in technology research. And one would want to have a non-capitalist economy why exactly?
Sweden and Norway both maintain military forces though. Sweden is one of the few (I can think of about three: US, Sweden, and France) countries who design and build their own multirole fighters.
I'm not arguing that you have to be an aggressive military powerhouse in order to survive. I argue that you must be willing to defend yourself and your interests, or else people who are not so high-minded will be happy to take them away from you.
Where exactly is America so aggressive? I don't understand what you're talking about.
Sure, there's a trade-off between light weight and ultimate strength. You can ALWAYS build a building stronger. The trick is to build is strong enough, because otherwise you're wasting money and construction time.
If the building had been twice as strong, it might still be standing. However, it might also not have been built. This is the engineer's dilemma: How strong is strong enough? It's a tough call.
Cool. So the terries only have to secure a room on the ground, rather than one in the air. Or else hack the control frequencies and do it from a moving car. Uhh, bad idea Sparky.
And do you really think that Jane Q. Public is going to climb on a jet flown by remote control? Fat chance.
They wouldn't risk it. Although I think that the agent provocateur scenario is very likely (Bin Laden sounds like a red herring to me...although I wouldn't mind taking him out just on principle) Israel knows that without MASSIVE American military support, they would not be able to hold on. Their country would be overrun in a matter of weeks, if it were to come out that they were responsible for this.
Crazy Jewish fundamentalists? Maybe. Unlikely, but possible. The Israeli government? Absolutely not.
Maybe not by any stretch of the imagination, but certainly by definition in Air Force training manuals.
It's a technical term. Just because you don't happen to agree with the definition doesn't mean that USAF ought to rewrite decades of institutional jargon.
And how, exactly, should the Air Force be handling this? Oh, I've got an idea. We'll just make some big signs to attach to the rudders of the F-16's, you know, airborne advertising. Have them say "PLEASE DON'T CRASH INTO ANY BUILDINGS. THANKS FOR YOUR COOPERATION. FROM: YOUR FRIENDS AT THE US AIR FORCE."
Brilliant. I'll get the elementary school kids right on it. Need more finger paint, though...
This illustrates an interesting point, though. Think about what would happen if I were celebrating in the streets of Kabul last night, rejoicing at the Northern Alliance's attacks on the city. Do you think I'd just be questioned by police and released? What about if I did the same thing in Iraq? Or Libya?
The point is that even in on a terribly dark day, the American people tolerate dissention in a way that is almost unparalleled. These terrorists tried to break our spirits and reduce us to their level.
They failed. And they will continue to fail. And soon, they will pay handsomely for their folly.
Bzzzt. The reason Switzerland became neutral in the first place is because Europe was TERRIFIED of Swiss mercenary forces. I believe it was Napoleon who talked the Swiss into agreeing that they would remain neutral in future European conflicts, in exchange for the honor of guarding the Vatican (you know, those guys with the poofy uniforms and the halberds).
Today, every Swiss family has a Heckler & Koch G3 7.62mm assault rifle in the closet, ready to deploy as part of the militia. This is NOT a pacifistic nation, it's a neutral one. Not the same thing.
Please cite historical examples of pacifistic nation-states that have survived more than, say, 100 years when not isolated.
It's easy to be peaceful when the only people around are your people. When other peoples are competing with you, however, pacifism is a great way to get your genome wiped out.
Liberty has only one price: Blood. Blood of soliders, and sometimes blood of innocents. It's an unfortunate side effect of the human condition. I would MUCH rather live in a free society and run the risk of being killed by terrorists than live in a police state and risk being killed by the government. Terrorists are typically less well-organized.
No, the group that has been selected (Mr. Bin Laden's) is one that:
a) has threatened, in the last few weeks, major terrorist action in the US.
b) Is known to have been training people to fly passenger jets.
c) Hates everybody who doesn't look like him.
Circumstantial evidence, to be sure. But I don't give a DAMN what race the guy is...I do care that he's a psychopath. You can try to make this a race issue, but it simply is not. Just ask the (foolish) fellow who rode up to a crowd on a corner in Washington, DC, expressed his support for the terrorists, was briefly questioned by the police, and allowed to go on his way. Show me THAT sort of thing happening in, say, Afghanistan. Not bloody likely.
Finding examples of suicidal airline pilots is one thing. Finding examples of four, simultaneously suicidal, pilots on American carriers is, well, ridiculous. The planes must have been hijacked, the pilots removed, and the terrorists drove the planes into an Earth-shattering kaboom.
Of course, they don't even KNOW what an Earth-shattering kaboom is...but I'll wager that the US Military is going to educate them very very soon.
And all the terries would have to do is turn off the radar transponder, and ATC couldn't even see the aircraft. ATC radar is not powerful enough to get a location on the body of the aircraft at long range. It relies on a transponder beacon on board the plane for radar position fixes.
Sure. By the same logic, we shouldn't punish thieves. We should just let society get so tired of the thieves stealing that some enterprising person goes and steals a bunch of stuff from the thief.
The rule of law (should) exist in this country to prevent this sort of thing. Microsoft broke the law, and they should therefore be punished. The fact that I'm being almost criminally optimistic is beyond the scope of my point. : )
Slashdot Mirror
I only thought that because it's what you said. My bad, smart guy.
You're not too hep to this sarcasm thing, are you?
Yup. The US has defended itself against threats from Afghanistan, tried to restore order in Sudan, and (with UN authority) bombed Yugoslavia. We also supported the (UN chartered) country of Israel. We have also declined to trade with nations with whose policies we do not agree. We have tried to set up democratic governments where there were none, and we have supported those who fight against oppression (like in Afghanistan and Central America)
I don't remember Afghanistan hating us so much when our surface to air missiles and training support were the only things between them and being a Russian state. I don't remember Sudan hating us when we sent food and water and humanitarian aid.
No, I DON'T understand why we're hated. Maybe I'm an ugly American, but this does not compute. The injustices and inequalities that this article argues create terrorism CANNOT be addressed, because in large part they are fabricated and perpetrated by the very terrorists who purport to abhor them. America is far from perfect. Sometimes, it's not even very good. But which regime would you rather have running the show? George W. Bush, or the Taliban?
Non capitalist countries, by definition, couldn't be ina sociopolitical position to take advantage (or capitalize) on the industrial revolution because the industrial revolution was a capitalist phenomenon. That's like saying "Cite examples of square wheeled cars that failed for reasons other than their square wheels."
Let me get this straight. In order to justify capitalism, you are asking the poster to cite examples of successful non-capitalist countries? Huh?
By your logic, non-capitalist countries are not successful enough on the world stage to invest in technology research. And one would want to have a non-capitalist economy why exactly?
Sweden and Norway both maintain military forces though. Sweden is one of the few (I can think of about three: US, Sweden, and France) countries who design and build their own multirole fighters.
I'm not arguing that you have to be an aggressive military powerhouse in order to survive. I argue that you must be willing to defend yourself and your interests, or else people who are not so high-minded will be happy to take them away from you.
Where exactly is America so aggressive? I don't understand what you're talking about.
Sky Marshals may well be a prudent measure. Remote controlling airplanes is not.
Sure, there's a trade-off between light weight and ultimate strength. You can ALWAYS build a building stronger. The trick is to build is strong enough, because otherwise you're wasting money and construction time.
If the building had been twice as strong, it might still be standing. However, it might also not have been built. This is the engineer's dilemma: How strong is strong enough? It's a tough call.
Cool. So the terries only have to secure a room on the ground, rather than one in the air. Or else hack the control frequencies and do it from a moving car. Uhh, bad idea Sparky.
And do you really think that Jane Q. Public is going to climb on a jet flown by remote control? Fat chance.
They wouldn't risk it. Although I think that the agent provocateur scenario is very likely (Bin Laden sounds like a red herring to me...although I wouldn't mind taking him out just on principle) Israel knows that without MASSIVE American military support, they would not be able to hold on. Their country would be overrun in a matter of weeks, if it were to come out that they were responsible for this.
Crazy Jewish fundamentalists? Maybe. Unlikely, but possible. The Israeli government? Absolutely not.
Iraq? Now you're talkin'.
The buildings were struck by a fucking airliner. I'm pretty sure that wasn't in the goddamn design specs.
Came down real fast, my ASS. The towers held together fine until the fires melted the steel structural members.
Maybe not by any stretch of the imagination, but certainly by definition in Air Force training manuals.
It's a technical term. Just because you don't happen to agree with the definition doesn't mean that USAF ought to rewrite decades of institutional jargon.
And how, exactly, should the Air Force be handling this? Oh, I've got an idea. We'll just make some big signs to attach to the rudders of the F-16's, you know, airborne advertising. Have them say "PLEASE DON'T CRASH INTO ANY BUILDINGS. THANKS FOR YOUR COOPERATION. FROM: YOUR FRIENDS AT THE US AIR FORCE."
Brilliant. I'll get the elementary school kids right on it. Need more finger paint, though...
Great. Make it so the terrorists can do it all by remote control. This is a good idea...why?
This illustrates an interesting point, though. Think about what would happen if I were celebrating in the streets of Kabul last night, rejoicing at the Northern Alliance's attacks on the city. Do you think I'd just be questioned by police and released? What about if I did the same thing in Iraq? Or Libya?
The point is that even in on a terribly dark day, the American people tolerate dissention in a way that is almost unparalleled. These terrorists tried to break our spirits and reduce us to their level.
They failed. And they will continue to fail. And soon, they will pay handsomely for their folly.
Bzzzt. The reason Switzerland became neutral in the first place is because Europe was TERRIFIED of Swiss mercenary forces. I believe it was Napoleon who talked the Swiss into agreeing that they would remain neutral in future European conflicts, in exchange for the honor of guarding the Vatican (you know, those guys with the poofy uniforms and the halberds).
Today, every Swiss family has a Heckler & Koch G3 7.62mm assault rifle in the closet, ready to deploy as part of the militia. This is NOT a pacifistic nation, it's a neutral one. Not the same thing.
Please cite historical examples of pacifistic nation-states that have survived more than, say, 100 years when not isolated.
It's easy to be peaceful when the only people around are your people. When other peoples are competing with you, however, pacifism is a great way to get your genome wiped out.
Liberty has only one price: Blood. Blood of soliders, and sometimes blood of innocents. It's an unfortunate side effect of the human condition. I would MUCH rather live in a free society and run the risk of being killed by terrorists than live in a police state and risk being killed by the government. Terrorists are typically less well-organized.
Care to enlighten us on how to do that, Sparky? Turn the other cheek DOES NOT WORK on the international scale.
No, the group that has been selected (Mr. Bin Laden's) is one that:
a) has threatened, in the last few weeks, major terrorist action in the US.
b) Is known to have been training people to fly passenger jets.
c) Hates everybody who doesn't look like him.
Circumstantial evidence, to be sure. But I don't give a DAMN what race the guy is...I do care that he's a psychopath. You can try to make this a race issue, but it simply is not. Just ask the (foolish) fellow who rode up to a crowd on a corner in Washington, DC, expressed his support for the terrorists, was briefly questioned by the police, and allowed to go on his way. Show me THAT sort of thing happening in, say, Afghanistan. Not bloody likely.
Yeah, except for the radio and TV stations with their antennae on top of the World Trade Center. Betcha they're not faring too well.
Finding examples of suicidal airline pilots is one thing. Finding examples of four, simultaneously suicidal, pilots on American carriers is, well, ridiculous. The planes must have been hijacked, the pilots removed, and the terrorists drove the planes into an Earth-shattering kaboom.
Of course, they don't even KNOW what an Earth-shattering kaboom is...but I'll wager that the US Military is going to educate them very very soon.
And all the terries would have to do is turn off the radar transponder, and ATC couldn't even see the aircraft. ATC radar is not powerful enough to get a location on the body of the aircraft at long range. It relies on a transponder beacon on board the plane for radar position fixes.
Sure. By the same logic, we shouldn't punish thieves. We should just let society get so tired of the thieves stealing that some enterprising person goes and steals a bunch of stuff from the thief.
The rule of law (should) exist in this country to prevent this sort of thing. Microsoft broke the law, and they should therefore be punished. The fact that I'm being almost criminally optimistic is beyond the scope of my point. : )
Ummm...use the same algorithm to generate yourself a new layout? Just a thought.
Glad to have amused you. : ) Nothing personal, of course...just sorta struck me as funny.