From the prospective of the USA's legal system, the use of force was 100% legal, having been approved by Congress. The president has broad powers to enter into conflicts WITHOUT congress approving it, but must report to congress within 90 days of doing so and seek their approval to continue. Bush got approval BEFORE the fighting started.
The UN does not decide for the USA what's legal any more than it decides for Russia so it's of little consequence what the UN authorizes. Multiple countries have participated in this use of force, the USA did not act on it's own, even if it was the leading player in Iraq. Significant contributions of men, equipment and expertise where made from a number of other countries who supported this.
So, the statement that the war was "illegal" is patently false. The claim that it is "illegitimate" (i.e. not justified) is also not true and can be easily debated, even with the WMD question.
However, the moral question will forever remain a matter of personal prospective and conviction. There are those who oppose war regardless and for them, Iraq was NOT moral, nor was WW1, WW2 or any other conflict for any reason. Then there are folks who seem all too willing to bomb the (blank) out of any country that dares to say disrespectful things about the USA. And there are most of us who fall in between the two extremes. Arguing about your moral positions verses mine is really not profitable or useful so I'm not going to do it.
Yea, you need the game system, a collection of games, pizza, caffeinated drinks and multiple sets of batteries for your wireless controllers and head sets.... The trick is to keep everything within arms reach of the recliner you are sitting in.
Oh wait... You are talking about physically RUNNING as in OUTSIDE and more than 5 paces? Dude... We don't do that here on Slashdot.
Also, how on earth did you catch a wife that runs? I mean a real one, I thought we had lower standards than that here.... Turn in that "Geek/Nerd card" and draw a "Man card" out of petty cash.
Some ARE kicking down the door.... But we usually call that malware and viruses..
Personally, I hand out "personal information" for a person who is totally fiction beyond the name to any website who requires I give up information to them and I still want to use their website. There are exceptions, of course, but I only share what is required and stick to the identity I invented as much as possible.
Actually, what the researcher says is that 9 out of 10 websites leak information about who visits them to third parties, but if you think about it, ANY site that accepts banner ads does this... So if you are surprised by this revelation, I feel sorry for you..
And you think Slashdot doesn't share it for some reason? Don't give me this "they didn't say they would share" excuse...
If you do ANYTHING on the big "I" net, you are giving up information, like it or not... It's worse for you, you are posting on Slashdot for Pete's sake....
Weapons are usually relatively big metal objects, how can they miss them?
I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. Seriously, it's not that hard to imagine how weapons of all kinds could get though security. Think social engineering, think of things that bypass the process... Use the rules to get around the screening process. It's not that hard if you think about what's happening and what tools TSA uses and stop looking at the think like a sheep.
Only keeps honest people honest. They are designed to provide the APPEARANCE of security, not actual security.
If the TSA was about real security, I can assure you they would operate differently and your TSA screening would start the instant you purchased your ticket. They'd be doing background checks on EVERYBODY, full searches of you, your baggage, both using X-Rays, magnetometers, and blue gloves going everywhere you can imagine on everybody entering the secure areas. Plus, they'd do this to mechanics, ramp workers, crew members, cleaners and ANYBODY who has even indirect access to aircraft or things that go on them.
TSA is just window dressing... And until the American people are willing to accept the intrusion that real security demands the TSA will remain just that.
Personally, I think it's time to just forget this experiment of the TSA and put the airlines back in charge of their own security arrangements. If they want to put armed guards on their airplanes, just reinforced cockpit doors or what have you is up to them. Then let the market decide how much security passangers are willing to pay for...
The war may have been marked using the WMD issue, but the REASON for it was clearly terrorism and the prevention of another 9/11 like attack. Of course, there are those who, for political reasons, want to change that so they can bash Bush.
So, I don't accept your view. The war was authorized and legal and the majority of the democrats voting for it said as much at the time. IMHO - Now they just want to revise history so they can bludgeon Bush/republicans with the thing and play politics over principle. Personally, I'd rather support the principled over the politicians who stick their fingers in the air to figure out what way to vote, but to each their own.
Yes, Sanders was nearly alone in his objection. He's opposed to ANY interference in foreign affairs so this is not a surprise. Of course your CURRENT commander and chief voted FOR the war, as did Kerry, who voted for it and later changed his mind about it... Wonder what he thinks now?
The Original reason for the Iraq war was about terrorism and Iraq harboring and equipping them. I know you lefties want to hammer Bush on the WMD issue, but pretty much everybody at the time believed Sadam's claims that he still had them and would use them should the US invade and clearly Bush expected this and equipped the troops accordingly. The best intelligence we had at the time said he had them. Remember that we KNOW that Sadam had chemical weapons because he had used them in his conflict with Iran, Sadam was clearly saying he still had them. So Bush was not inventing some story to justify a war, although the WMD claim ultimately turned out to be less than accurate because the intelligence was faulty.
So, yes, your side is inventing an issue here, or at least making this issue into more than it was when you call it an illegal war. Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq, the UN authorized the use of force and nearly everybody was on board for this. It wasn't "illegal" or even "illegitimate" but fully authorized BEFORE troops set foot in Iraq by both the UN and Congress. Congress had full access to the same intelligence that Bush had but nobody stood up then to contradict what was being said, NOBODY, and nearly everybody voted in favor of the war.
You know, I don't care what folks think about me and I'm willing to accept that MY code is crap at times. I've been publicly reprimanded on a number of occasions by people I really respect, so I understand your position.
However, I've also observed that there is only so much I can do alone and the bulk of people I've worked with DO care about such nonsense. So where you and I might not care, we are in a distinct minority. Part of being effective as a manager is understanding how to best relate to the members of your team, so if you want to be good at this management job, you adjust YOUR behavior. You do this to assemble and keep the best people.
Please understand what I'm saying. If I'm having a problem relating to somebody, I seriously consider how I can change my behavior/approach and restore the relationship. This means I go out of my way to avoid offending others by what I say or do. I understand you cannot win them all, that there just are people who for what ever reason don't like me. I also realize that some may think that bending over backwards for others is not worth it or fair, but I realize that it is to my advantage to be as accommodating to other's faults as possible. I suggest you might consider doing that too.
Iraq was Not illegal and you are inventing this pretense you claim to be false. Death is the usual result of war, everybody knows this happens going in. The rise of ISIS was because we left before the Iraqis could keep the peace on their own and that was on the current president's watch. (Oh and let's not forget, nearly everybody, republican and democrat, supported the use of force in Iraq at the time, many of whom had full access to the same intelligence as the president.)
Oh he knows, but he proceeded to violate law by executive order until the court ordered him to stop on at least one occasion.
IMHO - He's been treading on very thin constitutional ice for a lot of his activities since his party lost control of congress in his 2nd year. For those who have blindly supported this, I submit that you should be seriously concerned about the precedents he's now set. The left won't be in the presidency forever you know...
I actually have an "out" with users in a case where they are insisting on some feature that we've already rejected. If after showing them how they can do their job, they insist it "should not be this way" I have them put in a bug report because "I cannot fix this right now and you have a work around". I just explain to them that the company policy is that if there is a way to work around the issue for the user, we take a bug report so we can schedule the work.
If their bug report doesn't make it past the review process or never gets high enough priority to be worked, so be it. Again, I'm as helpful as I can be, showed them how to do their jobs and by being friendly and helpful have not caused a problem.
Ben Carson has actually raised more money than Jeb, who is pretty much on par with Ted Cruz.
But it looks to me like the Jeb donors are jumping to Rubio and Cruz to me... Should Jeb's support split between the two candidates, I don't think Carson will come out on top.... But hey, Ben Carson has done better than I thought so far.
Not quite. Biden isn't running because he doesn't want to get whacked.
By who? Hillary? I think Biden knows that unless Hillary gets perpwalked in handcuffs, his best day in the polls would be when he officially started the campaign. He doesn't have the juice to compete with the Clinton machine. He'd loose like he did before.
Or the Republican? It's pretty clear to me that the republican nominee would wipe the floor with Biden. Biden is a walking gaff machine when he's out talking off the cuff, and if he ran it would really hard for him to stay on prompter. He'd be forever walking back the gaffs...
BTW - Ole' Ben Carson has been running a campaign for nearly a year now. Maybe not officially, but there has been a PAC on this for a LONG time. He wasn't totally unknown when he officially filed the paperwork.
Except he isn't really? I mean he can't even PROPOSE laws, he has to have someone else do it.
What part of "I have a phone and a Pen and I'm not afraid to use them" didn't register with you? The president may not be able to make law, but they have a LOT of power.
Slashdot Mirror
Only if you know what you are doing...
From the prospective of the USA's legal system, the use of force was 100% legal, having been approved by Congress. The president has broad powers to enter into conflicts WITHOUT congress approving it, but must report to congress within 90 days of doing so and seek their approval to continue. Bush got approval BEFORE the fighting started.
The UN does not decide for the USA what's legal any more than it decides for Russia so it's of little consequence what the UN authorizes. Multiple countries have participated in this use of force, the USA did not act on it's own, even if it was the leading player in Iraq. Significant contributions of men, equipment and expertise where made from a number of other countries who supported this.
So, the statement that the war was "illegal" is patently false. The claim that it is "illegitimate" (i.e. not justified) is also not true and can be easily debated, even with the WMD question.
However, the moral question will forever remain a matter of personal prospective and conviction. There are those who oppose war regardless and for them, Iraq was NOT moral, nor was WW1, WW2 or any other conflict for any reason. Then there are folks who seem all too willing to bomb the (blank) out of any country that dares to say disrespectful things about the USA. And there are most of us who fall in between the two extremes. Arguing about your moral positions verses mine is really not profitable or useful so I'm not going to do it.
Yea, you need the game system, a collection of games, pizza, caffeinated drinks and multiple sets of batteries for your wireless controllers and head sets.... The trick is to keep everything within arms reach of the recliner you are sitting in.
Oh wait... You are talking about physically RUNNING as in OUTSIDE and more than 5 paces? Dude... We don't do that here on Slashdot.
Also, how on earth did you catch a wife that runs? I mean a real one, I thought we had lower standards than that here.... Turn in that "Geek/Nerd card" and draw a "Man card" out of petty cash.
Some ARE kicking down the door.... But we usually call that malware and viruses..
Personally, I hand out "personal information" for a person who is totally fiction beyond the name to any website who requires I give up information to them and I still want to use their website. There are exceptions, of course, but I only share what is required and stick to the identity I invented as much as possible.
I want to know which one of the 10 is it?
Actually, what the researcher says is that 9 out of 10 websites leak information about who visits them to third parties, but if you think about it, ANY site that accepts banner ads does this... So if you are surprised by this revelation, I feel sorry for you..
... don't have my data.
And you think Slashdot doesn't share it for some reason? Don't give me this "they didn't say they would share" excuse...
If you do ANYTHING on the big "I" net, you are giving up information, like it or not... It's worse for you, you are posting on Slashdot for Pete's sake....
Weapons are usually relatively big metal objects, how can they miss them?
I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. Seriously, it's not that hard to imagine how weapons of all kinds could get though security. Think social engineering, think of things that bypass the process... Use the rules to get around the screening process. It's not that hard if you think about what's happening and what tools TSA uses and stop looking at the think like a sheep.
Only keeps honest people honest. They are designed to provide the APPEARANCE of security, not actual security.
If the TSA was about real security, I can assure you they would operate differently and your TSA screening would start the instant you purchased your ticket. They'd be doing background checks on EVERYBODY, full searches of you, your baggage, both using X-Rays, magnetometers, and blue gloves going everywhere you can imagine on everybody entering the secure areas. Plus, they'd do this to mechanics, ramp workers, crew members, cleaners and ANYBODY who has even indirect access to aircraft or things that go on them.
TSA is just window dressing... And until the American people are willing to accept the intrusion that real security demands the TSA will remain just that.
Personally, I think it's time to just forget this experiment of the TSA and put the airlines back in charge of their own security arrangements. If they want to put armed guards on their airplanes, just reinforced cockpit doors or what have you is up to them. Then let the market decide how much security passangers are willing to pay for...
The war may have been marked using the WMD issue, but the REASON for it was clearly terrorism and the prevention of another 9/11 like attack. Of course, there are those who, for political reasons, want to change that so they can bash Bush.
So, I don't accept your view. The war was authorized and legal and the majority of the democrats voting for it said as much at the time. IMHO - Now they just want to revise history so they can bludgeon Bush/republicans with the thing and play politics over principle. Personally, I'd rather support the principled over the politicians who stick their fingers in the air to figure out what way to vote, but to each their own.
Yes, Sanders was nearly alone in his objection. He's opposed to ANY interference in foreign affairs so this is not a surprise. Of course your CURRENT commander and chief voted FOR the war, as did Kerry, who voted for it and later changed his mind about it... Wonder what he thinks now?
The Original reason for the Iraq war was about terrorism and Iraq harboring and equipping them. I know you lefties want to hammer Bush on the WMD issue, but pretty much everybody at the time believed Sadam's claims that he still had them and would use them should the US invade and clearly Bush expected this and equipped the troops accordingly. The best intelligence we had at the time said he had them. Remember that we KNOW that Sadam had chemical weapons because he had used them in his conflict with Iran, Sadam was clearly saying he still had them. So Bush was not inventing some story to justify a war, although the WMD claim ultimately turned out to be less than accurate because the intelligence was faulty.
So, yes, your side is inventing an issue here, or at least making this issue into more than it was when you call it an illegal war. Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq, the UN authorized the use of force and nearly everybody was on board for this. It wasn't "illegal" or even "illegitimate" but fully authorized BEFORE troops set foot in Iraq by both the UN and Congress. Congress had full access to the same intelligence that Bush had but nobody stood up then to contradict what was being said, NOBODY, and nearly everybody voted in favor of the war.
You know, I don't care what folks think about me and I'm willing to accept that MY code is crap at times. I've been publicly reprimanded on a number of occasions by people I really respect, so I understand your position.
However, I've also observed that there is only so much I can do alone and the bulk of people I've worked with DO care about such nonsense. So where you and I might not care, we are in a distinct minority. Part of being effective as a manager is understanding how to best relate to the members of your team, so if you want to be good at this management job, you adjust YOUR behavior. You do this to assemble and keep the best people.
Please understand what I'm saying. If I'm having a problem relating to somebody, I seriously consider how I can change my behavior/approach and restore the relationship. This means I go out of my way to avoid offending others by what I say or do. I understand you cannot win them all, that there just are people who for what ever reason don't like me. I also realize that some may think that bending over backwards for others is not worth it or fair, but I realize that it is to my advantage to be as accommodating to other's faults as possible. I suggest you might consider doing that too.
AND the tenth.... Boy we might as well burn these two these days. Actually, most of the Bill of Rights get's trampled by today's system.
Iraq was Not illegal and you are inventing this pretense you claim to be false. Death is the usual result of war, everybody knows this happens going in. The rise of ISIS was because we left before the Iraqis could keep the peace on their own and that was on the current president's watch. (Oh and let's not forget, nearly everybody, republican and democrat, supported the use of force in Iraq at the time, many of whom had full access to the same intelligence as the president.)
You know what they say ...
"Those that forget the past are condemned to repeat it."
Further.. Those who know history are condemned to watch while other's repeat it.
Follow the money.... It usually shows what's really going on...
Very apt description....
Oh he knows, but he proceeded to violate law by executive order until the court ordered him to stop on at least one occasion.
IMHO - He's been treading on very thin constitutional ice for a lot of his activities since his party lost control of congress in his 2nd year. For those who have blindly supported this, I submit that you should be seriously concerned about the precedents he's now set. The left won't be in the presidency forever you know...
I actually have an "out" with users in a case where they are insisting on some feature that we've already rejected. If after showing them how they can do their job, they insist it "should not be this way" I have them put in a bug report because "I cannot fix this right now and you have a work around". I just explain to them that the company policy is that if there is a way to work around the issue for the user, we take a bug report so we can schedule the work.
If their bug report doesn't make it past the review process or never gets high enough priority to be worked, so be it. Again, I'm as helpful as I can be, showed them how to do their jobs and by being friendly and helpful have not caused a problem.
Let him run as an independent.... I'd love to see that.
Ben Carson has actually raised more money than Jeb, who is pretty much on par with Ted Cruz.
But it looks to me like the Jeb donors are jumping to Rubio and Cruz to me... Should Jeb's support split between the two candidates, I don't think Carson will come out on top.... But hey, Ben Carson has done better than I thought so far.
Same reason Biden is not running.
Not quite. Biden isn't running because he doesn't want to get whacked.
By who? Hillary? I think Biden knows that unless Hillary gets perpwalked in handcuffs, his best day in the polls would be when he officially started the campaign. He doesn't have the juice to compete with the Clinton machine. He'd loose like he did before.
Or the Republican? It's pretty clear to me that the republican nominee would wipe the floor with Biden. Biden is a walking gaff machine when he's out talking off the cuff, and if he ran it would really hard for him to stay on prompter. He'd be forever walking back the gaffs...
BTW - Ole' Ben Carson has been running a campaign for nearly a year now. Maybe not officially, but there has been a PAC on this for a LONG time. He wasn't totally unknown when he officially filed the paperwork.
Except he isn't really? I mean he can't even PROPOSE laws, he has to have someone else do it.
What part of "I have a phone and a Pen and I'm not afraid to use them" didn't register with you? The president may not be able to make law, but they have a LOT of power.
for fining the fine finers have been fined.
But don't worry, the finees are just fine with the fine they have been fined by the fine finers.