There's no "thought" about it. If someone walks up w/ a knife and demands my wallet they're robbing me. Once they're good and dead it's time to call the police and fill out a lot of paperwork about a failed robbery and a permanently out-of-work robber.
Can you tell me one instance in history where one country managed to change another country's system of government by war without permanent occupation?
Guess that depends on your definition of occupation. Do you consider Germany and Japan occupied?
Again, we didn't start the war.
I notice you dodged my question about when aid has ever worked in the past. Because you know it hasn't.
The problem with your statement is this: Aid has never worked. Can you point to a single instance that it has? I can point to numerous instances where war solved problems.
We've given and still give millions and billions of dollars of aid to them every year. Buying off your enemies never has worked and never will work. How will AID stop the genocide in Darfur? How will AID stop the suicide bombings in Israel? How will AID stop the political assassinations in Lebanon?
Actually the action was completely in response to attacks by their Arab neighbors. And the Palestinians who were "forced" off their land in fact fled when said Arab neighbors announced their intention to drive the Jews into the sea, with the intention of coming back when the shooting was done. The problem being the Jews had no intention of going on a permanent swim. There are plenty of Muslims who did not leave when Israel was formed and who live there peacefully with the same rights as a Jewish citizen.
Meanwhile the UN is run by mostly anti-semites who condemn Israel for building a fence to keep out suicide bombers but see no problems whatsoever with the PA supporting people purposely who blow up busses of Israeli schoolchildren. I don't know how any sane person can see Israel as the "bad guy" when the other side is the one purposely blowing up civilians and often their own people (as evidenced in the recent rocket attack).
You know, I realized one thing... You've denigrated my thoughts on the matter... But I haven't heard any alternative approach from you. What's your idea for solving the problem w/ Islamic terrorism?
I think you're wrong in every way, and you think I am. We will have to revisit this conversation in ten years. By then, I think history will have judged that the US's international actions (from the strange alliance with Israel to the random military interventions) made the world a much less safe place for all.
There were people saying very similar things in my country after WWII. Time magazine for instance.
I can't understand for the life of me what you mean by 'the strange alliance with Israel'. Is there something wrong with supporting a democracy whose neighbors are trying to drive into the sea?
Interesting. You are proposing an instant execution of petty criminals. I am presuming you would not bother with such liberal concepts as charges, trials, juries and judges either. See somebody steal and then instatly execute them on the spot.
No, I said someone robbing ME would be shot. Because the only way they can rob me is by threatening my life, meaning they deserve to die.
Funnily enough I know a couple people who are living on hourly Wal-Mart wage who have health insurance as well, which confused me why people believe so strongly Wal-Mart doesn't take care of its people...
This in turn hurts taxpayers like you and me who are forced to subsidize corporations like WalMart that pay so little that most of their staff are on welfare.
Simple solution. Abolish welfare. When people can no longer support themselves working at Wal Mart, Wal Mart will either raise wages or go out of business.
Nevermind the fact that you shouldn't be trying to support a family stocking shelves at Wal Mart.
The average Muslim is simply not taught that 'God smiles upon people who blow themselves up to kill non-Muslims'. What makes you think that is the case?
That sadly is the case in much of the Middle East. They either believe that suicide bombers are justified in what they do OR they believe that, in fact, it's secretly the Jews and the US pretending to be suicide bombers who are doing the killing, as is the case in Egypt. When people like the new President of Iran (one of the terrorists who held the American embassy workers hostage) stop being looked up to as leaders in the Middle East, you might have a chance of convincing me otherwise.
While Wahabiism is the problem we face, until Islam as a whole is willing to deal with it like Christianity excised the Inquisition from its ranks so long ago it will be part of the problem. As long as every Imam follows every proclamation 'condemning' terrorism as 'anti-Islamic' with a 'But...' they'll be part of the problem.
I will have to disagree with you on the best way to stop terrorism.
Dead terrorists don't kill people. This is irrefutable.
As far as I can see, the events of the last two years have massively increased the danger from terrorism, recruited thousands to the 'cause' and done nothing whatsoever to reduce the problem.
Then you've got blinders on. A populace that is aware that it is under attack is much less likely to be caught off guard and much more likely to deal with the problem. That if nothing else reduces the danger of terrorism today. The war hasn't recruited anyone to the 'cause' that didn't already believe in it. It just gave them a convenient drive-in location to be killed, instead of leaving them to plot and plan and come to the US to kill us.
What it has done is brought thousands of Iraqis around to the point that they're actively killing the Saudis, Syrians, and Iranians that are crossing the borders to blow them up. What it has done is kicked off efforts for democratic reform in surrounding nations. What it has done is put despots on notice, so that even old hard-liners like Gadafhi are giving up their ways and Syria has pulled out of Lebanon after decades of control, abuse, and assassination of their political rivals giving the Lebanese people a real chance at self government. Has it cooled the flames of seething hatred that already existed in the Middle East? Of course not. We're not in the business of befriending those who would kill us--we're there to destroy them.
although it appears the US public is wising up.
As if you're 'co.uk' domain were not enough indication, this is an excellent indication of the fact that not only do you not live in the US, but you've obviously not been here recently, and get all your information about US public opinion in the echo chamber of the media. Where in God's name would you get that idea? The only thing the US public is "wising up" about is who our friends are and who's actually looking out for us. If you think that the average American's opinion is turning against the war, you don't know many average Americans.
Well I will admit to googling for the years, but the events I already knew. Especially Beirut and Khobar as family friends were killed in both instances.
As far as links between Iraq and terrorism, there were plenty. Paying off suicide bombers' families in Israel, harboring known terrorists, running training camps, etc. Saddam was also a loose end that should have been dealt with during the first Gulf War, not left to foment and torture his people and threaten the region.
As far as the attacks being a response to war: Islam was attacking the US irregardless of any involvement in wars in the Middle East, and freeing millions of people in Iraq from tyrrany is not the cause of any attacks against Western Nations. The threat of democracy spreading in the Middle East is what's gotten terrorists up in arms.
As long as the average Muslim in the Middle East is convinced his life sucks because Israel exists and is taught that God smiles upon people who blow themselves up to kill non-Muslims, terrorism will be a problem. Sticking our fingers in our ears and shutting our eyes and pretending the problem will go away didn't work for fifty years. The only thing that will work is taking the bull by the horns and freeing the people in the Middle East from despotism and tyrrany. Liberty is contagious.
Mayhaps you need to read Winston Churchill's thoughts on Islam from his experiences dealing w/ it in Africa... Much like Naziism, he seemed to be far ahead of the curve when it came to understanding the problems it presents.
Well if I had to pick a start to the war w/ Islamic terror I'd probably say Beirut in 1983. Though really it's been going on longer than that. 9/11 is just when we decided to start doing something about it. There was Beirut in 1983, the Achille Lauro & Rome & Vienna in 1985, the West Berlin Disco in 1986, the Pan-Am flight at Lockerbie in 1988, the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, Riyadh in 1995, Khobar Towers in 1996, the embassy bombings in 1998 and the USS Cole in 2000. All that before 9/11. 9/11 just convinced us that it was time to do something about all those loose ends, like Saddam Hussein.
That would be best for all those involved. But someone apparently sees a profit in starting wars by blowing up Americans... And as long as that's the case the US military will need to find better ways to protect its soldiers. And better ways to blow up those who would like to blow up Americans, natch.
Actually they'd probably be violating their contract as the Union would be a paying customer who was being denied service. Constitutional law wouldn't enter here. In the case of the website, I doubt the Union website is hosted by Telus and therefore no contract exists guaranteeing them any sort of service. Again, you don't understand Constitutional law or even rights for that matter.
Unless Telus is a monopoly or part of the government they can block access to whatever they want. A freedom of expression doesn't give you a right to be heard. If people disagree with it, they can change ISPs. You really don't understand constitutional law...
Had a chance to meet Mr. Vass at the 2005 TechSouth Expo where he gave a keynote. Cool guy, good demonstration of Sun Rays and their mobile desktop technology. Being able to insert a smart card and pull up his SunOS and/or Windows XP desktop in Lafayette, LA from their corporate HQ in a matter of seconds was pretty cool. He also took the opportunity to send some barbs towards Cox and Bellsouth over the proposed Fiber-to-the-Home initiative ("Stuff like this is why it's so great you guys are getting fiber run in this city!"). So that definitely won him some points in our book.;)
The point is, however, that following ICANN's 'recommendations' is still completely voluntary, as it should be. We don't need Internet overlords passing binding legislation deciding what can and can't be done, we need the people who actually run the damn thing getting together and agreeing on voluntary standards and practices on how things will be done. If enough people disagree with the "standard" way of doing things, it won't happen. End of story. Giving the UN the power to force people to do things one way or another goes against the entire history of how things have been done on the Internet. I mean, heck, the so called "Internet Standards" are RFCs, Requests for Comment, meaning anyone can have a hand in shaping them and you're not bound by them if you think they're braindead! All this will amount to is a money grab. They're even admitting that upfront.
Slashdot Mirror
Then I'm just shit out of luck, aren't I? :P
There's no "thought" about it. If someone walks up w/ a knife and demands my wallet they're robbing me. Once they're good and dead it's time to call the police and fill out a lot of paperwork about a failed robbery and a permanently out-of-work robber.
Can you tell me one instance in history where one country managed to change another country's system of government by war without permanent occupation?
Guess that depends on your definition of occupation. Do you consider Germany and Japan occupied?
Again, we didn't start the war.
I notice you dodged my question about when aid has ever worked in the past. Because you know it hasn't.
Aid. Nothing else will ever work.
The problem with your statement is this: Aid has never worked. Can you point to a single instance that it has? I can point to numerous instances where war solved problems.
We've given and still give millions and billions of dollars of aid to them every year. Buying off your enemies never has worked and never will work. How will AID stop the genocide in Darfur? How will AID stop the suicide bombings in Israel? How will AID stop the political assassinations in Lebanon?
Actually the action was completely in response to attacks by their Arab neighbors. And the Palestinians who were "forced" off their land in fact fled when said Arab neighbors announced their intention to drive the Jews into the sea, with the intention of coming back when the shooting was done. The problem being the Jews had no intention of going on a permanent swim. There are plenty of Muslims who did not leave when Israel was formed and who live there peacefully with the same rights as a Jewish citizen.
Meanwhile the UN is run by mostly anti-semites who condemn Israel for building a fence to keep out suicide bombers but see no problems whatsoever with the PA supporting people purposely who blow up busses of Israeli schoolchildren. I don't know how any sane person can see Israel as the "bad guy" when the other side is the one purposely blowing up civilians and often their own people (as evidenced in the recent rocket attack).
You know, I realized one thing... You've denigrated my thoughts on the matter... But I haven't heard any alternative approach from you. What's your idea for solving the problem w/ Islamic terrorism?
I think you're wrong in every way, and you think I am. We will have to revisit this conversation in ten years. By then, I think history will have judged that the US's international actions (from the strange alliance with Israel to the random military interventions) made the world a much less safe place for all.
There were people saying very similar things in my country after WWII. Time magazine for instance.
I can't understand for the life of me what you mean by 'the strange alliance with Israel'. Is there something wrong with supporting a democracy whose neighbors are trying to drive into the sea?
Thank you for further proving you've got no real argument to fall back to. :)
Interesting. You are proposing an instant execution of petty criminals. I am presuming you would not bother with such liberal concepts as charges, trials, juries and judges either. See somebody steal and then instatly execute them on the spot.
No, I said someone robbing ME would be shot. Because the only way they can rob me is by threatening my life, meaning they deserve to die.
Funnily enough I know a couple people who are living on hourly Wal-Mart wage who have health insurance as well, which confused me why people believe so strongly Wal-Mart doesn't take care of its people...
If you eliminate welfare then the people who can't make aliving will commit crimes.
Then people robbing me will be shot, removing their burden from society. Problem solved.
Okay, thanks, you restored some of my faith in humanity. :)
This in turn hurts taxpayers like you and me who are forced to subsidize corporations like WalMart that pay so little that most of their staff are on welfare.
Simple solution. Abolish welfare. When people can no longer support themselves working at Wal Mart, Wal Mart will either raise wages or go out of business.
Nevermind the fact that you shouldn't be trying to support a family stocking shelves at Wal Mart.
That sadly is the case in much of the Middle East. They either believe that suicide bombers are justified in what they do OR they believe that, in fact, it's secretly the Jews and the US pretending to be suicide bombers who are doing the killing, as is the case in Egypt. When people like the new President of Iran (one of the terrorists who held the American embassy workers hostage) stop being looked up to as leaders in the Middle East, you might have a chance of convincing me otherwise.
While Wahabiism is the problem we face, until Islam as a whole is willing to deal with it like Christianity excised the Inquisition from its ranks so long ago it will be part of the problem. As long as every Imam follows every proclamation 'condemning' terrorism as 'anti-Islamic' with a 'But...' they'll be part of the problem.
I will have to disagree with you on the best way to stop terrorism.
Dead terrorists don't kill people. This is irrefutable.
As far as I can see, the events of the last two years have massively increased the danger from terrorism, recruited thousands to the 'cause' and done nothing whatsoever to reduce the problem.
Then you've got blinders on. A populace that is aware that it is under attack is much less likely to be caught off guard and much more likely to deal with the problem. That if nothing else reduces the danger of terrorism today. The war hasn't recruited anyone to the 'cause' that didn't already believe in it. It just gave them a convenient drive-in location to be killed, instead of leaving them to plot and plan and come to the US to kill us.
What it has done is brought thousands of Iraqis around to the point that they're actively killing the Saudis, Syrians, and Iranians that are crossing the borders to blow them up. What it has done is kicked off efforts for democratic reform in surrounding nations. What it has done is put despots on notice, so that even old hard-liners like Gadafhi are giving up their ways and Syria has pulled out of Lebanon after decades of control, abuse, and assassination of their political rivals giving the Lebanese people a real chance at self government. Has it cooled the flames of seething hatred that already existed in the Middle East? Of course not. We're not in the business of befriending those who would kill us--we're there to destroy them.
although it appears the US public is wising up.
As if you're 'co.uk' domain were not enough indication, this is an excellent indication of the fact that not only do you not live in the US, but you've obviously not been here recently, and get all your information about US public opinion in the echo chamber of the media. Where in God's name would you get that idea? The only thing the US public is "wising up" about is who our friends are and who's actually looking out for us. If you think that the average American's opinion is turning against the war, you don't know many average Americans.
I've read and re-read this and it makes less sense to me every time.
IIRC, the original xbox was 299 at launch.. Or was it 249?
Yes, it was $299.
Its got a G5 which we all know is the best processor evar, and they made mac's worth 3x the price of a comparable PC, so surely this is a bargain, no?
This was meant as a joke, right? Are G5 fanboys becoming as bad as Cell fanboys?
Well I will admit to googling for the years, but the events I already knew. Especially Beirut and Khobar as family friends were killed in both instances.
As far as links between Iraq and terrorism, there were plenty. Paying off suicide bombers' families in Israel, harboring known terrorists, running training camps, etc. Saddam was also a loose end that should have been dealt with during the first Gulf War, not left to foment and torture his people and threaten the region.
As far as the attacks being a response to war: Islam was attacking the US irregardless of any involvement in wars in the Middle East, and freeing millions of people in Iraq from tyrrany is not the cause of any attacks against Western Nations. The threat of democracy spreading in the Middle East is what's gotten terrorists up in arms.
As long as the average Muslim in the Middle East is convinced his life sucks because Israel exists and is taught that God smiles upon people who blow themselves up to kill non-Muslims, terrorism will be a problem. Sticking our fingers in our ears and shutting our eyes and pretending the problem will go away didn't work for fifty years. The only thing that will work is taking the bull by the horns and freeing the people in the Middle East from despotism and tyrrany. Liberty is contagious.
Mayhaps you need to read Winston Churchill's thoughts on Islam from his experiences dealing w/ it in Africa... Much like Naziism, he seemed to be far ahead of the curve when it came to understanding the problems it presents.
Well if I had to pick a start to the war w/ Islamic terror I'd probably say Beirut in 1983. Though really it's been going on longer than that. 9/11 is just when we decided to start doing something about it. There was Beirut in 1983, the Achille Lauro & Rome & Vienna in 1985, the West Berlin Disco in 1986, the Pan-Am flight at Lockerbie in 1988, the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, Riyadh in 1995, Khobar Towers in 1996, the embassy bombings in 1998 and the USS Cole in 2000. All that before 9/11. 9/11 just convinced us that it was time to do something about all those loose ends, like Saddam Hussein.
I never said anything about 9/11. Why are you bringing it up?
The problem w/ state sponsored terrorism and radical Islam didn't start w/ 9/11 and it won't stop w/ Iraq.
I am thinking. You're the one that seems to be missing the big picture.
That would be best for all those involved. But someone apparently sees a profit in starting wars by blowing up Americans... And as long as that's the case the US military will need to find better ways to protect its soldiers. And better ways to blow up those who would like to blow up Americans, natch.
Actually they'd probably be violating their contract as the Union would be a paying customer who was being denied service. Constitutional law wouldn't enter here. In the case of the website, I doubt the Union website is hosted by Telus and therefore no contract exists guaranteeing them any sort of service. Again, you don't understand Constitutional law or even rights for that matter.
Unless Telus is a monopoly or part of the government they can block access to whatever they want. A freedom of expression doesn't give you a right to be heard. If people disagree with it, they can change ISPs. You really don't understand constitutional law...
Had a chance to meet Mr. Vass at the 2005 TechSouth Expo where he gave a keynote. Cool guy, good demonstration of Sun Rays and their mobile desktop technology. Being able to insert a smart card and pull up his SunOS and/or Windows XP desktop in Lafayette, LA from their corporate HQ in a matter of seconds was pretty cool. He also took the opportunity to send some barbs towards Cox and Bellsouth over the proposed Fiber-to-the-Home initiative ("Stuff like this is why it's so great you guys are getting fiber run in this city!"). So that definitely won him some points in our book. ;)
The point is, however, that following ICANN's 'recommendations' is still completely voluntary, as it should be. We don't need Internet overlords passing binding legislation deciding what can and can't be done, we need the people who actually run the damn thing getting together and agreeing on voluntary standards and practices on how things will be done. If enough people disagree with the "standard" way of doing things, it won't happen. End of story. Giving the UN the power to force people to do things one way or another goes against the entire history of how things have been done on the Internet. I mean, heck, the so called "Internet Standards" are RFCs, Requests for Comment, meaning anyone can have a hand in shaping them and you're not bound by them if you think they're braindead!
All this will amount to is a money grab. They're even admitting that upfront.
Yeah, just looked that up. My bad.
I don't think there's another launch window until September last I checked?