> Whatever Google's bargaining power with an insurance company, Which means that it still costs them more money to hire a gay employee
My god are you thick, you've never negotiated for something in your life have you? How about seen the results of such a thing? Google through its shear mass can tell an insurance company what they are willing to pay (ie same cost for married vs same sex coupled)... and if the insurance company refuses... they move on to another company.
It's called doing business... or do you just take the first offer handed to you?
Did you know it tends to cost more to insure a smoker vs a non-smoker? Unless the company negotiates that cost away... last company I worked for did just that... they opted to have a single rate within the company, smoker or non.
If that poo-dunk little company of ~150 people in South Dakota can do that... lord knows Google can do far more.
Granted this is/.... I've been nice and tried to explain things in a simple way to you and yet you refuse to listen or comprehend... which is why this conversation ends now.
Pick a side and stick with it will you? Originally you said:
> This law prevents Google from giving same sex partners benefits for the same price. Insuring two unmarried people is far more expensive than two married people.
Only to respond to my argument with:
> Unless you can provide supporting documentation, I stand firm by the position that no matter how much clout or negotiating power you have, the same amount of clout results in a lower price to insure a married couple than to insure two "unrelated" people, as is the case for "normal" insurance rates.
This article is about Google, not smaller third companies. Pick one, not both.
Re: Supporting documentation... it's interesting that you expect me to prove the cost savings of bulk purchasing power, something that is well known not only in the insurance industry but in the economy as a whole. Instead... I suggest you do your own research into what major companies offer for same sex domestic partners... such as Microsoft and Google.
I'm afraid that I'm going to have to throw the BS flag on that one.
Are you telling us that a company the size of Google doesn't have the clout with insurance companies to be able to offer their employees whatever policy Google so wants?
I'll tell ya a little secret... companies don't provide insurance because they are forced to by law or because it makes them feel good, they do it to attract and retain employees.
Depending on the size of the company different options can be had, more often than not the larger the company the better the insurance is offered. Why? Given their buying power they can pretty much dictate to a prospective insurance company what they want... or better yet, be self-insured and write their own plan and turn management over to a third party.
For years any time I had a bill, statement, tax form or other document I thought "You know... there is a remote possibility I might just want that in a year or 9"... I'd do a quick Print to PDF and bang... I've got my own copy without any need to wonder 'how long should they keep it for me'.
Sure... the hard drive it's own could die, but because in this horrible thing called self reliance... I take steps to make sure that I will still have access to copies just in case without having to ask such questions or worry about hard drive death or house fires.
> the president is the man who must follow the will of the legislative branch
Do you really think the founding fathers thought that the at present 535 members of congress should be 'leading'? No, I'm not attacking at the present political makeup congress (which is always so easy) but the simply the number of members... heck, go back to the first congress where at the end there were 26 Senators and 64 Representatives... and even in a group of 90 people.
Constitutionally it is clear who the 'leader' is through the presidents delegated powers as well as higher requirements for office.
That you can't see the massive difference between a communicative information-sharing populous and an invasive privacy-violating government shows how willfully incapable of reason you are.. oh.. right.. slashdot.
You really do encourage people to discuss things in an adult way with you don't you?
It's a shame though, you actually raised a single point I would have enjoyed debating... but despite that, continuing this would require my stooping to a level I prefer to avoid and would likely be pointless as it is quite clear from your post above that you are so emotionally invested in a single world view that you are likely incapable of conceiving of the possibility that you are wrong or the fact that you are mixing up the facts of several cases so as to try to justify your attempt at harassment.
Never a good way to start, continue or end a debate or discussion I'm afraid... so I will.
It's always amazes me how those who scream bloody murder about privacy around cases such as this, especially when there is evidence of wrongdoing... throw caution to the wind and blatantly violate someone else's privacy.
Oh right... it's ok for you to do it because... Lawless is bad and Tamm is good? Because you agree with one and not the other? One persons privacy is more valuable and should be protected over another?
If not... haven't you just lost the ability to cry if someone investigates you or posts your personal information online?
Do tell the class... what is the point of your posting agent Lawless's personal information here? Harassment? Intimidation?
Federal law? Best to read the constitution and realize that such an option would be relegated to the state and NOT the federal government without a federal constitutional amendment which would not be likely to pass.
>there are some similar non compete restrictions when you buy Visual studio from Microsoft
Really? Care to support that argument with some facts? A quick through some VS eula's does seem to say that in Visual Studio 2002 you couldn't compete head on with Access provided you were using their JET backend... but other than that... you can build what you want.
Ding ding ding! To quote the declaration of independance: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
Gotta love the Windows haters who don't even have their fact straight... your idea might have some legitimacy if and only if all of the DRM stuff in Vista was in use if Apple was using it... remember, that stuff is only in use when required by a component/driver/application/etc... and how much do you want to bet that Apple is using their own system?... though if you still wanna blame the DRM despite this... you might as well just stuff you might as well play spin the wheel of blame as to what other not in use component is to blame.. my guess... the support for SCSI... afterall... how many of these systems were running SCSI at the time?
Microsoft is known to hire many interns every year and plenty of them are not US nationals... in fact I know a couple in Redmond right now who do not hold a us passport.
> on Slashdot, we're seeing them as like 6% of our page traffic now
Come on Taco... proper English (or at least something seemingly like it) isn't that hard... is 6% exactly, around 6% or really just 'like 6%'
I honestly like, do not recall like the last time I like, saw someone use 'like' in that long standing improper way in like text, it's always like, been for me, like only something a person like, verbalizes.
> "More rights than the Nazis"? You're a fascist too. Er, I mean "Republican". Oh, right, 2008 - that's "libertarian", check.
So rather than debate you resort to name calling? Strike-one.
> If you weren't a fascist, lying to make Nazis look like victims, you'd know that that's a bullshit lie.
Lying to make Nazi's look like victims? I fail to see how the link you supplied in anyway relates to the Eisentrager case.
Strike-two.
> But hey, you're really not sticking up for Nazis
I'm doing nothing of the sort. If you were to take a moment to read the Eisentrager case and compare that to last weeks decision in the Boumediene v. Bush case you might find some interesting similarities and yet.
But then it is hard for people like you (who have made quite clear that they do not know the facts) to accept the fact that reason that the prison was established at Guantanamo Bay was because of a previous court ruling that was largely overturned last week (ie Eisentrager).
Strike-three.
Until you bother to read the case in question (to which I linked not once but twice) I see no point in addressing your baseless personal attacks and flawed arguments any further.
So let me get this straight... when a judge rules in a way you dislike... she's a fascist... despite the precedent her decision is based on... and yet when a week earlier the Supreme Court throws out a long standing precedent (see Johnson v. Eisentrager) to give accused terrorists more rights than Nazi's had... it's ok?
Riiight.
(Before invoking Goodwin please see Johnson v. Eisentrager to understand the validity of this comparison).
Given your use of the term 'your presidents' I think it's safe to assume that you are not only not an American but that you do not know the US Constitution very well nor Presidential history.
It's laughable to call any US President a warmonger given reality. No nation in the history of the earth has had the level of unmatched military power as the United States has... let alone wielded it so limitedly.
Yes... we've gone to war to protect our interests... and what happens after? We walk away. Sure it may not happen as quick as you'd like... it happens and it happens on our dime and after having our brave men and woman fight for the freedom and safety.
It's ok... feel free to hate. We'll still be here in the end to help ensure your freedom.
Ahh my friend 1441 was not the only resolution on Iraq... I would call your attention to 686 which affirmed their agreement to the 1991 cease fire... as well as 687 which was followed by 707, 1134, 1143 and then 1441 (just to name a few on the subject) which dealt with their compliance and eventual lack of compliance with their previous agreements.
Always love the anonymous cowards spouting their anti-Semitism without even pointing to a single comparable case about a nation that they themselves are bringing into the discussion to try to defend bad behavior with more (alleged) comparable bad behavior.
> Good; Isreal has ignored several UN resolutions despite being threatened with new ones.
Yes yes, bring on the anti-semitism by trying to divert attention away from the topic at hand. It's always the Jews fault isn't it?
> So I can count on your support when we invade, right?
Explain to me why we'd invade?
We didn't just invade Iraq because they were in violations of UN resolutions... we invaded them in large part because they violated the original 1991 cease fire that they had previously agreed to.
> Not of that crap about it being a sister democracy, right?
They aren't a democracy, neither are we. Please see a government or civics text book for more details.
> And if your idea of enforcing compliance is the death of 650 thousand Iraqi's,
Who has killed those 650,000 people? It's not been the US.
> destabilization of a stable *sovereign* government,
If by stable you mean one that makes it a point to pick fights with its neighbors, cannot be bothered to feed it's own people adequately and kills anyone who speaks out against the government then yes... it was a remarkably stable nation who benefited from a government formed due to a military coup and has some form of a military dictatorship for 40 some years.
I'm always fascinated by people who forget how Saddam achieved the level of stability he had and excuse it and instead focus on only what has happened since he lost power.
> and forced abandonment by 4 million Iraqi's of their own country,
If foreign powers were sending countless stateless actors who were keen on killing whoever they could... I might leave where I am to... though I suspect I'd be more likely to blame those actually planting the bombs and shooting civilians rather than those who enabled the situation. One enemy at a time.
> I *really* have to question whether you'ld feel the same when it comes to the US (which is *also* in violation of many UN Resolutions).
Not even going to provide examples similar to what we used to go after Iraq? I really don't think you are going to find the US in violation of very many cease fires or refusing to comply with UN weapons inspectors.
Why? Unlike Iraq and the vast majority of nations on earth... the US has shown it's stability over an extended period without any major upheavals or radical transitions of power.
Sure Al Gore and John Kerry were kinda sad to loose... as were there supporters. Did either man threaten to setup a shadow government or rally their supporters to overthrow the government? Do we have politicians locking up their political rivals? Do we riots in the streets?
Oh no... this country is remarkably stable for more reasons than I will go into here... and as a result UN resolutions of the sort made on Iraq (some of which they agreed to and later violated I might add) would not be likely to be imposed on the US.
> and now we know that Iraq COULDN'T turn over those weapons because they quite simply didn't exist. They said that over and over again - and nobody believed them.
As I said in a post above... they kept telling us they didn't have them but there was ample evidence of their existence... or do we just discount the whole fact that Saddam had many of his very own generals believing that he had the very things he was telling us he didn't?
> We now know that the US government knew this at the time and consciously sought to inflate the flimsiest evidence.
Ahh good ole revisionist history using the same methods that you accuse your opponents of using.
You are in effect accusing the administration of ignoring evidence which does not support their intended/desired outcome... and yet that is exactly what you are doing isn't it?
There has been ZERO evidence of a smoking gun proving that the Whitehouse deliberately knew X and said Y. Evidence that them having two conflicting pieces of intelligence and choosing the most dire does NOT indicate deception or a lie... it's simply a matter of precaution... a mentality they shared with many or have you forgotten?
Rather than me go through quotes from prominent democrats who had access to much of the same intelligence as the Whitehouse... or committee members who had oversight of the agencies presenting this intelligence I ask that you do a quick Google search on: Clinton Iraq 1998 to remind yourself that many of the claims we hear from the current administration did not in fact begin with the swearing in of George W. Bush.
>... is it any surprise that UN resolutions were passed to support the US agenda?
Again you suffer from either amnesia or revisionist history... there was great opposition against the US's attempts to deal with the issue multilaterally through the UN... or have you forgotten the opposition lead by the French, Germans and Russians?
The mistake made by the other countries of the UN was to award the US government that degree of trust. Based on past history, that seems like a reasonable thing to do - but again, fast-forward to 2008 and I can't imagine any country being that trusting of the US again.
> Any evidence the US presents against Iran or North Korea or whatever other problem shows up will likely be regarded with deepest skepticism
You mean like say... North Korea detonating a nuclear bomb and/or Iran being very clear that they are working on the same thing?
Funny... those two counties were talked about a while ago weren't they along with what's the third? Oh yes... Iraq. Given how those two have come out (after years of previous work)... are you really that confident that Iraq wouldn't have seen a similar result had we done nothing?
You might... however Saddam's own scientists have said quite the opposite.
> - there is no way for the US to get UN support for anything anymore.
Incorrect yet again. The US is still the last remaining superpower and unless the Russians and Chinese continue their military expansions and some of the Democrats in this country (including Obama) are successful in destroying our own... we will continue to be so for quite some time a power that the UN needs as they don't exactly have that great of a track record of their own.
> It's amazing that one man can screw up so badly.
Compared to what? Sitting on your hands when Islamic terrorists are at war with you for a full 8 years of your administration? I know it's hard to accept but had Clinton done more than just launch a few cruise missiles and actually treated terrorism as a national security issue and not as a law enforcement problem... the world would be a very different place today.
While I may not agree with many of the things this President has done... he was simply playing the cards he was dealt in large part because of the previous administration.
> I literally could not believe my ears when he got elected to a second
> Well... Israel has had quite a few, thank God for the US noticing that. Turkey as well but why count, when we can sell you weapons.
Ahh the good ole argument of trying to excuse bad behavior with more bad behavior while never bothering to compare the actual behavior, a sevear case of intellectual dishonesty, more so in this case by trying to bring in an outside party to try to defend your stance.
You seem to have forgotten that Iraq was at the time of 1441, in material breach of the 1991 cease fire through his refusal to co-operate with UN weapons inspectors.
Quick history lesson: A condition of the 1991 cease fire was that Iraq would fully disarm AND fully compile with weapons inspections... something he stopped doing in the late 90's and that wasn't pushed again until the early 2000's.
Traditionally when one side violates a cease fire... hostilities resume. In this case they did not resume immediately as Iraq was given numerous opportunities to come into compliance, something that was rejected time and time again through various games.
> To add to that Iraq said we have no fricken weapons, send in your goons to find them.
Yup, that's what they said to us. That's not what they said to their own generals.
Their generals? Have you already forgotten about the planned 'red-line' defense of Baghdad that was being talked about by both sides right up until we reached Baghdad? Near the end the Iraqi generals were asking their C&C when they would be able to deploy the weapons that they themselves were told they had and would use of the US crossed a certain distance from the capitol.
> This does not stop our country from thumbing its nose at U.N. resolutions, however. Who is going to enforce it?
Care to point to the UN resolution that would/should have prevented the US from going into Iraq?
After you find that... do take a look at some of the UN resolutions on Iraq where you'll find that wording that gives any member nation unilateral authority to ensure compliance with existing resolutions.
Let us not forget that this whole thing began with Iraq thumbing it's nose at multiple UN resolutions despite new ones being threatened, passed and largely being ignored by all except for the US and it's allies.
The very fact that customers continue to buy unbranded CDMA phones in the US from Verizon and Sprint would seem to put at least some of the blame on the customers for choosing to do business with those companies.
Sure... in some places options may be limited. I recently moved from South Dakota where Verizon and Sprint were the only options with no official GMS carrier in sight (at least with the option of a 605 area code)... truth is that issue does not exist for most of the nation. For most major population centers in this country there is an option between GSM and CDMA and where that choice exists still significant people choose to purchase CDMA.
I wonder why.
The very fact though that people do so validates the actions of Sprint and Verizon of locking down their phones.
Don't like it? Don't buy from them, simple as that.
Slashdot Mirror
> Whatever Google's bargaining power with an insurance company, Which means that it still costs them more money to hire a gay employee
My god are you thick, you've never negotiated for something in your life have you? How about seen the results of such a thing? Google through its shear mass can tell an insurance company what they are willing to pay (ie same cost for married vs same sex coupled)... and if the insurance company refuses... they move on to another company.
It's called doing business... or do you just take the first offer handed to you?
Did you know it tends to cost more to insure a smoker vs a non-smoker? Unless the company negotiates that cost away... last company I worked for did just that... they opted to have a single rate within the company, smoker or non.
If that poo-dunk little company of ~150 people in South Dakota can do that... lord knows Google can do far more.
Granted this is /. ... I've been nice and tried to explain things in a simple way to you and yet you refuse to listen or comprehend... which is why this conversation ends now.
Pick a side and stick with it will you? Originally you said:
> This law prevents Google from giving same sex partners benefits for the same price. Insuring two unmarried people is far more expensive than two married people.
Only to respond to my argument with:
> Unless you can provide supporting documentation, I stand firm by the position that no matter how much clout or negotiating power you have, the same amount of clout results in a lower price to insure a married couple than to insure two "unrelated" people, as is the case for "normal" insurance rates.
This article is about Google, not smaller third companies. Pick one, not both.
Re: Supporting documentation... it's interesting that you expect me to prove the cost savings of bulk purchasing power, something that is well known not only in the insurance industry but in the economy as a whole. Instead... I suggest you do your own research into what major companies offer for same sex domestic partners... such as Microsoft and Google.
I'm afraid that I'm going to have to throw the BS flag on that one.
Are you telling us that a company the size of Google doesn't have the clout with insurance companies to be able to offer their employees whatever policy Google so wants?
I'll tell ya a little secret... companies don't provide insurance because they are forced to by law or because it makes them feel good, they do it to attract and retain employees.
Depending on the size of the company different options can be had, more often than not the larger the company the better the insurance is offered. Why? Given their buying power they can pretty much dictate to a prospective insurance company what they want... or better yet, be self-insured and write their own plan and turn management over to a third party.
Tell that to Jerry Brown, California's attorney general: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/14/AR2009011402930.html
For years any time I had a bill, statement, tax form or other document I thought "You know... there is a remote possibility I might just want that in a year or 9"... I'd do a quick Print to PDF and bang... I've got my own copy without any need to wonder 'how long should they keep it for me'.
Sure... the hard drive it's own could die, but because in this horrible thing called self reliance... I take steps to make sure that I will still have access to copies just in case without having to ask such questions or worry about hard drive death or house fires.
Personal responsibility... try it!
> the president is the man who must follow the will of the legislative branch
Do you really think the founding fathers thought that the at present 535 members of congress should be 'leading'? No, I'm not attacking at the present political makeup congress (which is always so easy) but the simply the number of members... heck, go back to the first congress where at the end there were 26 Senators and 64 Representatives... and even in a group of 90 people.
Constitutionally it is clear who the 'leader' is through the presidents delegated powers as well as higher requirements for office.
You know... with lines such as:
You're an idiot.
And
That you can't see the massive difference between a communicative information-sharing populous and an invasive privacy-violating government shows how willfully incapable of reason you are.. oh.. right.. slashdot.
You really do encourage people to discuss things in an adult way with you don't you?
It's a shame though, you actually raised a single point I would have enjoyed debating... but despite that, continuing this would require my stooping to a level I prefer to avoid and would likely be pointless as it is quite clear from your post above that you are so emotionally invested in a single world view that you are likely incapable of conceiving of the possibility that you are wrong or the fact that you are mixing up the facts of several cases so as to try to justify your attempt at harassment.
Never a good way to start, continue or end a debate or discussion I'm afraid... so I will.
It's always amazes me how those who scream bloody murder about privacy around cases such as this, especially when there is evidence of wrongdoing... throw caution to the wind and blatantly violate someone else's privacy.
Oh right... it's ok for you to do it because... Lawless is bad and Tamm is good? Because you agree with one and not the other? One persons privacy is more valuable and should be protected over another?
If not... haven't you just lost the ability to cry if someone investigates you or posts your personal information online?
Do tell the class... what is the point of your posting agent Lawless's personal information here? Harassment? Intimidation?
Ahh moral supremacy at it's finest!
Federal law? Best to read the constitution and realize that such an option would be relegated to the state and NOT the federal government without a federal constitutional amendment which would not be likely to pass.
Good luck passing such a law in all 50 states!
>there are some similar non compete restrictions when you buy Visual studio from Microsoft
Really? Care to support that argument with some facts? A quick through some VS eula's does seem to say that in Visual Studio 2002 you couldn't compete head on with Access provided you were using their JET backend... but other than that... you can build what you want.
Ding ding ding! To quote the declaration of independance: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
Gotta love the Windows haters who don't even have their fact straight... your idea might have some legitimacy if and only if all of the DRM stuff in Vista was in use if Apple was using it... remember, that stuff is only in use when required by a component/driver/application/etc... and how much do you want to bet that Apple is using their own system?... though if you still wanna blame the DRM despite this... you might as well just stuff you might as well play spin the wheel of blame as to what other not in use component is to blame.. my guess... the support for SCSI... afterall... how many of these systems were running SCSI at the time?
Microsoft is known to hire many interns every year and plenty of them are not US nationals... in fact I know a couple in Redmond right now who do not hold a us passport.
> on Slashdot, we're seeing them as like 6% of our page traffic now
Come on Taco... proper English (or at least something seemingly like it) isn't that hard... is 6% exactly, around 6% or really just 'like 6%'
I honestly like, do not recall like the last time I like, saw someone use 'like' in that long standing improper way in like text, it's always like, been for me, like only something a person like, verbalizes.
> "More rights than the Nazis"? You're a fascist too. Er, I mean "Republican". Oh, right, 2008 - that's "libertarian", check.
So rather than debate you resort to name calling? Strike-one.
> If you weren't a fascist, lying to make Nazis look like victims, you'd know that that's a bullshit lie.
Lying to make Nazi's look like victims? I fail to see how the link you supplied in anyway relates to the Eisentrager case.
Strike-two.
> But hey, you're really not sticking up for Nazis
I'm doing nothing of the sort. If you were to take a moment to read the Eisentrager case and compare that to last weeks decision in the Boumediene v. Bush case you might find some interesting similarities and yet.
But then it is hard for people like you (who have made quite clear that they do not know the facts) to accept the fact that reason that the prison was established at Guantanamo Bay was because of a previous court ruling that was largely overturned last week (ie Eisentrager).
Strike-three.
Until you bother to read the case in question (to which I linked not once but twice) I see no point in addressing your baseless personal attacks and flawed arguments any further.
So let me get this straight... when a judge rules in a way you dislike... she's a fascist... despite the precedent her decision is based on... and yet when a week earlier the Supreme Court throws out a long standing precedent (see Johnson v. Eisentrager) to give accused terrorists more rights than Nazi's had... it's ok?
Riiight.
(Before invoking Goodwin please see Johnson v. Eisentrager to understand the validity of this comparison).
Given your use of the term 'your presidents' I think it's safe to assume that you are not only not an American but that you do not know the US Constitution very well nor Presidential history.
It's laughable to call any US President a warmonger given reality.
No nation in the history of the earth has had the level of unmatched military power as the United States has... let alone wielded it so limitedly.
Yes... we've gone to war to protect our interests... and what happens after? We walk away. Sure it may not happen as quick as you'd like... it happens and it happens on our dime and after having our brave men and woman fight for the freedom and safety.
It's ok... feel free to hate. We'll still be here in the end to help ensure your freedom.
Ahh my friend 1441 was not the only resolution on Iraq... I would call your attention to 686 which affirmed their agreement to the 1991 cease fire... as well as 687 which was followed by 707, 1134, 1143 and then 1441 (just to name a few on the subject) which dealt with their compliance and eventual lack of compliance with their previous agreements.
Always love the anonymous cowards spouting their anti-Semitism without even pointing to a single comparable case about a nation that they themselves are bringing into the discussion to try to defend bad behavior with more (alleged) comparable bad behavior.
> Good; Isreal has ignored several UN resolutions despite being threatened with new ones.
Yes yes, bring on the anti-semitism by trying to divert attention away from the topic at hand. It's always the Jews fault isn't it?
> So I can count on your support when we invade, right?
Explain to me why we'd invade?
We didn't just invade Iraq because they were in violations of UN resolutions... we invaded them in large part because they violated the original 1991 cease fire that they had previously agreed to.
> Not of that crap about it being a sister democracy, right?
They aren't a democracy, neither are we. Please see a government or civics text book for more details.
> And if your idea of enforcing compliance is the death of 650 thousand Iraqi's,
Who has killed those 650,000 people? It's not been the US.
> destabilization of a stable *sovereign* government,
If by stable you mean one that makes it a point to pick fights with its neighbors, cannot be bothered to feed it's own people adequately and kills anyone who speaks out against the government then yes... it was a remarkably stable nation who benefited from a government formed due to a military coup and has some form of a military dictatorship for 40 some years.
I'm always fascinated by people who forget how Saddam achieved the level of stability he had and excuse it and instead focus on only what has happened since he lost power.
> and forced abandonment by 4 million Iraqi's of their own country,
If foreign powers were sending countless stateless actors who were keen on killing whoever they could... I might leave where I am to... though I suspect I'd be more likely to blame those actually planting the bombs and shooting civilians rather than those who enabled the situation.
One enemy at a time.
> I *really* have to question whether you'ld feel the same when it comes to the US (which is *also* in violation of many UN Resolutions).
Not even going to provide examples similar to what we used to go after Iraq? I really don't think you are going to find the US in violation of very many cease fires or refusing to comply with UN weapons inspectors.
Why? Unlike Iraq and the vast majority of nations on earth... the US has shown it's stability over an extended period without any major upheavals or radical transitions of power.
Sure Al Gore and John Kerry were kinda sad to loose... as were there supporters. Did either man threaten to setup a shadow government or rally their supporters to overthrow the government? Do we have politicians locking up their political rivals? Do we riots in the streets?
Oh no... this country is remarkably stable for more reasons than I will go into here... and as a result UN resolutions of the sort made on Iraq (some of which they agreed to and later violated I might add) would not be likely to be imposed on the US.
> and now we know that Iraq COULDN'T turn over those weapons because they quite simply didn't exist. They said that over and over again - and nobody believed them.
... is it any surprise that UN resolutions were passed to support the US agenda?
As I said in a post above... they kept telling us they didn't have them but there was ample evidence of their existence... or do we just discount the whole fact that Saddam had many of his very own generals believing that he had the very things he was telling us he didn't?
> We now know that the US government knew this at the time and consciously sought to inflate the flimsiest evidence.
Ahh good ole revisionist history using the same methods that you accuse your opponents of using.
You are in effect accusing the administration of ignoring evidence which does not support their intended/desired outcome... and yet that is exactly what you are doing isn't it?
There has been ZERO evidence of a smoking gun proving that the Whitehouse deliberately knew X and said Y. Evidence that them having two conflicting pieces of intelligence and choosing the most dire does NOT indicate deception or a lie... it's simply a matter of precaution... a mentality they shared with many or have you forgotten?
Rather than me go through quotes from prominent democrats who had access to much of the same intelligence as the Whitehouse... or committee members who had oversight of the agencies presenting this intelligence I ask that you do a quick Google search on: Clinton Iraq 1998 to remind yourself that many of the claims we hear from the current administration did not in fact begin with the swearing in of George W. Bush.
>
Again you suffer from either amnesia or revisionist history... there was great opposition against the US's attempts to deal with the issue multilaterally through the UN... or have you forgotten the opposition lead by the French, Germans and Russians?
The mistake made by the other countries of the UN was to award the US government that degree of trust. Based on past history, that seems like a reasonable thing to do - but again, fast-forward to 2008 and I can't imagine any country being that trusting of the US again.
> Any evidence the US presents against Iran or North Korea or whatever other problem shows up will likely be regarded with deepest skepticism
You mean like say... North Korea detonating a nuclear bomb and/or Iran being very clear that they are working on the same thing?
Funny... those two counties were talked about a while ago weren't they along with what's the third? Oh yes... Iraq. Given how those two have come out (after years of previous work)... are you really that confident that Iraq wouldn't have seen a similar result had we done nothing?
You might... however Saddam's own scientists have said quite the opposite.
> - there is no way for the US to get UN support for anything anymore.
Incorrect yet again. The US is still the last remaining superpower and unless the Russians and Chinese continue their military expansions and some of the Democrats in this country (including Obama) are successful in destroying our own... we will continue to be so for quite some time a power that the UN needs as they don't exactly have that great of a track record of their own.
> It's amazing that one man can screw up so badly.
Compared to what? Sitting on your hands when Islamic terrorists are at war with you for a full 8 years of your administration? I know it's hard to accept but had Clinton done more than just launch a few cruise missiles and actually treated terrorism as a national security issue and not as a law enforcement problem... the world would be a very different place today.
While I may not agree with many of the things this President has done... he was simply playing the cards he was dealt in large part because of the previous administration.
> I literally could not believe my ears when he got elected to a second
> Well ... Israel has had quite a few, thank God for the US noticing that. Turkey as well but why count, when we can sell you weapons.
Ahh the good ole argument of trying to excuse bad behavior with more bad behavior while never bothering to compare the actual behavior, a sevear case of intellectual dishonesty, more so in this case by trying to bring in an outside party to try to defend your stance.
You seem to have forgotten that Iraq was at the time of 1441, in material breach of the 1991 cease fire through his refusal to co-operate with UN weapons inspectors.
Quick history lesson: A condition of the 1991 cease fire was that Iraq would fully disarm AND fully compile with weapons inspections... something he stopped doing in the late 90's and that wasn't pushed again until the early 2000's.
Traditionally when one side violates a cease fire... hostilities resume. In this case they did not resume immediately as Iraq was given numerous opportunities to come into compliance, something that was rejected time and time again through various games.
> To add to that Iraq said we have no fricken weapons, send in your goons to find them.
Yup, that's what they said to us. That's not what they said to their own generals.
Their generals? Have you already forgotten about the planned 'red-line' defense of Baghdad that was being talked about by both sides right up until we reached Baghdad? Near the end the Iraqi generals were asking their C&C when they would be able to deploy the weapons that they themselves were told they had and would use of the US crossed a certain distance from the capitol.
By that logic shouldn't every single President who has ever used military force without a declaration of war should have been impeached?
If so that leaves a pretty small list, especially in modern time of President's who would by your logic be safe.
> This does not stop our country from thumbing its nose at U.N. resolutions, however. Who is going to enforce it?
Care to point to the UN resolution that would/should have prevented the US from going into Iraq?
After you find that... do take a look at some of the UN resolutions on Iraq where you'll find that wording that gives any member nation unilateral authority to ensure compliance with existing resolutions.
Let us not forget that this whole thing began with Iraq thumbing it's nose at multiple UN resolutions despite new ones being threatened, passed and largely being ignored by all except for the US and it's allies.
Never heard of enablement have you?
The very fact that customers continue to buy unbranded CDMA phones in the US from Verizon and Sprint would seem to put at least some of the blame on the customers for choosing to do business with those companies.
Sure... in some places options may be limited. I recently moved from South Dakota where Verizon and Sprint were the only options with no official GMS carrier in sight (at least with the option of a 605 area code)... truth is that issue does not exist for most of the nation. For most major population centers in this country there is an option between GSM and CDMA and where that choice exists still significant people choose to purchase CDMA.
I wonder why.
The very fact though that people do so validates the actions of Sprint and Verizon of locking down their phones.
Don't like it? Don't buy from them, simple as that.