Its been some years, so things might have changed.
But back in 1995(ish) when I was using, administering and programming for IBM AIX platform (AIX 3.2, xlc, xlC, Motif), I had excellent documentation available.
BRAVO. It is good to see someone to have the gust to say so in public, specially among all this "privacy at all costs, screw everything else" crowd we have on Slashdot (mostly).
I find it particularly disturbing that, these days, parents have to justify themselves (or feel the need to) about monitoring the activities of their children.
Add to that the fact it is YOU paying for the internet connection (regardless of they being your children).
I got tired of relying on other companies for my e-mail needs (which are a big part of my money making). So I ended up getting my own domain and a small, unmanaged dedicated server (US$45/month), where I host my own e-mail server. Yes, it is more expensive than $8/month, but I can have as many address as I want, and the server will work the way I want, with the rules and services I want.
I know this is not a solution for everyone (managing your own server), but having a dedicated server is something I recommend. I hate shared servers (web, e-mail etc). They always work the way other people want, and not how I want.
In case of a global pandemic, keeping the communication networks up and running (well) is very important, and a very tricky thing to do. The first thing that comes to mind is the necessity for some kind of high priority communication procedure. Also, lots of people will be trying to contact lots of other people (I hope, because if they are trying to contact themselves, the problem gets worst).
Add the fact a lot of maintenance people will be home sick (or in hospitals), and you have a recipe for a very nasty communications breakdown.
An even more perfect lawyer solution would be a simple, brightly colored, warning label on the outside marriage offices, stating that giving birth to lawyers is illegal and punishable by death.
In the mean time, we only need to get a few empty buses, fill them with lawyers and... well, you get the picture.
It is interesting what you can come up with when you start researching. Since I have no particular stakes on this subject, from the start it didn't matter to me if I were right or wrong. My only stake on this was the fact the USA education system is seriously lacking on regarding geography, but that would be preaching to the choir here.
As I said in another post, there are some source that mention Central America as a separated continent, including one of my high school books, which I just confirmed by calling an old teacher of mine. After talking to said teacher, and doing a little bit more research based on what he said, the one thing I can say for sure is this: what a mess.
- In purely geographical terms, Central America is not separated from North America. Thus, it is incorrect to say, as I previously stated, that Central America is a continent. A continent is a purely geographical definition. I stand corrected on this one. (Please keep reading)
- In a geopolitical definition, Central America IS indeed separated from North America. Thus, Central America is a separated region. There are no "geopolitical" continents.
However, according to my teacher, based on those concepts, it would be correct to say that Europe and Asia are separated continents. In purely geographical terms, both should be considered a single continent (Eurasian Continent). The reason North and South americas can be considered separated is due to an Isthmus (he didn't mentioned which one, and that would take more research I'm willing to do). So, in the sense that the separation of Europe and Asia is geopolitical, Central America could also be considered a separated continent, which sparkled controversy for a long time (and still does, as we can see here).
Officially, there are 7 continents:
1) Australia (Oceania) 2) Antarctica 3) Asia 4) Europe 5) Africa 6) North America 7) South America
However, there are several controversies regarding where which country stands, specially Mexico. The United Nations geoscheme includes Mexico in Central America. The European Union,whoever, excludes both Mexico from the area. Geopolitically, Mexico is frequently not considered part of Central America.
Another geopolitical definition would have Northern America (Mexico and whatever is to the north, including USA, Canada, Greenland and Bermuda), and Middle America (Mexico plus the rest of Central America). I've also hard the designation "British America" encompassing USA and Canada. I suppose that makes sense if you also use "Latin America" as a definition.
Some other sources mention there North, Central and South Americas are just regions of a single continent. However, as far as I could research, none of these sources are official in any capacity. It is how they teach it in some schools, tho. I can't confirm this, but I would think those same schools say Eurasia is a single continent (thus reducing the number of continents to 5). There is at least 1 other post here that says there is only 1 America continent.
I have to say that, personally, I like the British/Latin America definitions. They make sense geopolitically. However, on that same note, Belize would have to be included in "British America". Oddly enough, it is still included in "Latin America", as far as I know (no research on this one, so if anyone could clarify, it would be appreciated).
This was a very interesting "fun" time. Research is always interesting, even if it leave you with a headache at the end. What a mess.
Despite your thong-in-check post, this has sparkled some research of my part.
You are right it is not just the USA. I have seen references that mentioned Central America as a separated continent, some that mention it as part of North America, and some that mention it as part of the South America.
I'm still trying to find which organization can be considered the official source of this information, and will post here when I find it.
I'm willing to give there is some confusion about there being 1 or 3 Americas. I've seen some discussion about it myself. But the point here was about 2 or 3 Americas.
- Considering the laws of my country don't apply to me while I'm outside said country - Considering the laws of the USA do apply to me while I'm inside said country
it would only make sense the rights granted by the USA law would also apply to me while in USA soil. Thus, his request for a quotation of a law/text/etc that stated that, while my obligations inside the USA are the same as that of other people (USA citizens), INCLUDING TAXES, my rights will be different.
We really have to question how much this all is costing. The overall economic impact, so to speak.
The USA is spending a shipload of money in Iraq and also within its borders. Also, it is loosing a lot of tourist income (even a 1% drop on that revenue source is a lot of money, and I'm betting it is higher than that).
Less income with more expenses. That can't be a good thing.
America (the USA) and America (the two continents)
And thus it is proved the USA education system still can't teach people geography. 3 continents, please: North, Central and South America.
Also, someone earlier said Mexico is part of Central America. Unless they changed the maps and I wasn't informed, Mexico is part of North America. The confusion is somewhat understandable since Mexico is the only country in the North America to be part of the so called Latin America.
Considering the number of americans that thing the brazilian capital is Buenos Aires and stuff like that, I shouldn't be surprised. I have had people from USA ask me if I didn't mind using the same currency as the rest of Europe, and other pearls like that.
Please, don't take this as a personal attack. It is a criticism at a long standing problem with the USA education system.
When he mentioned it was valid in that context, I started to think of why he would use it.
Calling people from USA "USisans" might be an attempt to say people from USA only thing about themselves ("us"), or that they consider themselves separated from the rest of the world.
Regardless of agreeing with him or not, you have to concede that under that point of view, he using "USisans" makes some sense, and you get a free "*woot*".
How do you prove a negative, anyway ? I don't know how people that comes from a system where everyone is innocent until proven guilty can keep going over and over again that people has to prove Iraq had no WMDs. Or people at least barely scientifically minded.
Is it possible to prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, Iraq had NO WMDs ? No. Again, can't prove a negative. All this argument is, at best, pointless.
Was there enough proof to indicate Iraq had WMDs ? That is the point. If there was, it would be very easy for the Bush government to say: "Well, looks like they really didn't have any, but this is the data we had to work with. I'm sure most of you will come to the same conclusion we had".
The problem is that, even to date, the Bush government keeps insisting there were WMDs, but somehow keep failing to find them. And the supporters here and everywhere else keep insisting on that. I will say it again: people are not saying there was enough evidence of WMDs to make an honest mistake; they keep insisting there were WMDs.
With all this denial and cover-ups, I have to ask the same question: was there enough evidence to make an "honest mistake" ? Doesn't seems likely.
You can still look at which side has the most evidence and make a logical conclusion.
I was once talking to a Jesuit Priest who was a physics teacher, and asked him about the whole "science vs. religion" thing (way before the whole ID bullshit). His answer was pretty simple:
Some ignorant people are too concerned on the "how" god made things. There is nothing in science that goes against religion. DNA, Dinosaurs. Why can't people that believe in god simply understand that the bible was written to be read by people who didn't understand science, and to people who didn't understand science. As far as I believe, this is just the way god decided to do things. One can easily believe in god and still believe in evolution
Despite personal believes, it is still good to see there is sane people even inside the roman catholic church, who can separate science and religion. Actually, that same priest (which was my teacher at one point) was a vigorous defender of evolution. I haven't talked to him for about 15 years, but I'm pretty sure he is just as sick of the ID people as we all are. And he is a priest. Which just shows how stupid the ID people are.
To paraphrase your comment farther down, name me one government that is NOT violent.
Hey, it was you that used the "violent" card to justify attacking Iraq.
What you said was that I said Bush only went through the UN because it was convenient, which is exactly opposite of what I said. If you can't understand that twice now, there's nothing more I can say.
That is not what I said. What I said is that, when it became inconvenient (ie: went against the USA interests), he went ahead and disregarded the UN.
So 2 wrongs make a right now? Make a consistent argument for once. Is it OK that the UN is massively and thorougly corrupt because other governments are corrupt? In any case, it was the specific form of corruption that is the problem here. Hundreds of UN officials were making big money from Iraq on the Oil for Food Program. No matter what Bush did, he was not going to get approval to turn off their cash flow and reveal their corruption. Going around them was the only thing to do. I'm sorry you don't these things this way, so let's just agree to disagree.
Lets suppose you are right. If that is really the reason, one would expect a few things to happen: 1) For the USA to directly denounce said officials (link please) 2) For the USA stand in front of the UN, justify itself, and apologize for the UN (as a body) (link please)
I might be wrong here. I don't stand 24/7 in front of the TV/newspapers etc, so it is entirely possible these things happened and I missed (not being sarcastic here).
I'm sorry but, so far, with the information I have, the "corrupt UN officials" talk sounds like a bunch of excuses for ignoring the UN decision when it went against the US interests.
Have you never had an argument with a friend? Did it mean you were biter rivals forever afterward?
I never punched a friend in the face. Or went against his decision on something he had authority over.
Just because we disagreed with the UN on this occassion with this President does not mean we will not work with them in the future, as we have done in the past.
What was done goes a little beyond "disagreement", don't you think ?
Let's look at the number and type of resolutions being broken. The UN banned Iraq, a despotic and violent regime that had just invaded its neighbor, from having a WMD program and from having MRBMs. Iraq then violated 19 resolutions over 9 years that required them to turn everything over or account for its destruction. What other country has ever done anything remotely like that?
You can bet a lot of countries consider the USA despotic and violent (I myself consider it violent, but I also do most countries).
So, who should be the judge of all that ? Who should judge which countries are "despotic and violent", and have violated "an unreasonable number of UN resolutions" ? Should each country do the judging themselves ? Or is the USA the only country entitled to that kind of decision ? (In time: it doesn't matter what you or I think, the point here is what country governments think, decide and act upon).
Bush went through the UN because he wanted their blessing and the support of Democrats. When it turned out the UN was a waste of time, he pressed on.
How is that different from what I said ? Bush when to the UN and made a lot of effort trying to convince them of his point of view. When it failed, he went ahead anyway. Isn't that what happened ? That is exactly what I described earlier, albeit in more blunt terms.
Afterwards, they turned out to be corrupt
Please name one government that is not corrupt.
I'm still waiting for your answer for how can the UN still pretend to support the UN (and host it!) after the past actions. Or are you saying that this was a one time thing, and the USA won't do it again ?
Whatever UN resolutions you were implying the US broke hardly compares to the ones Iraq did.
And who decided which resolutions should be followed and which ones can be broken ? Or it is who should follow and who can break the resolutions ? Which of those two is the case here ?
Well, I think you're in the minority. It hardly made news and most people I know don't even know it happened.
There are many bad (should I say nasty?) act during the Clinton administration. But we should always take in account two things: 1) two wrongs don't make a right and, 2) the scale
As for the UN, we were pressured to get their blessing. So they passed another resolution for Iraq to turn over their WMDs or at least account for the ones that were destroyed. They handed over thousands of pages of meaningless crap. Democrats wanted to give them one more chance to come clean, and Bush said no more. I think it was the right thing to do in many ways. We were holding them accountable, finally, for the long string of defied resolutions. Going through the UN is the right way to do it, but they were never going to back up their own words.
Ok, this one deserves a full quote. So what you are saying is that countries (whatever country) should only go through the UN when it is convenient for them ? Or, rather, when the UN agree with them ? That is kind of easy, ain't it ? The trick is following your backing up your own word (supporting the UN, the UN charter etc) when it goes AGAINST what you would do otherwise, if left alone.
Uh, 19 consecutive resolutions to turn over prohibited WMDs and prohibited MRBMs? Uh, I'd have to say we never did that.
When did the UN pass a resolution for the USA turn over WMDs ? Sorry, I missed that one.
Does bombing it without one count, like when Clinton did it? Tell me you were as upset with him as you are with Bush.
Of course I was. You are defending my case here.
The UN was on the take with the corrupt Oil for Food program and France was selling the aformentioned phohibited MRBMs
Your point being what ? 3 wrongs make a right ?
Any surprise they weren't going to approve of offensive action?
Then why to pretend to be a part of it ? Or even worst, why host the UN itself within its borders ? If you are not going to respect the UN, at least be honest and break away from it.
I have to agree with the parent post. Get off your ass and go vote.
Even more, try and show other people they should also vote. Specially people who would support the same candidate.
It is all a process and won't happen overnight. But if you manage to get an "independent" candidate more notice this election, maybe on the next one more people would be willing to vote outside the 2-party. Even if he doesn't win right now, your vote can still make a difference.
Slashdot Mirror
The only real problem (only remembered it now) was that, for the real good manual, you had to pay some extra. But they were definitively worth it.
Why not just use their own internal protocol specification?
Usually, having access to internal protocol specifications only make things worst. Those things are, as a rule of thumb, awful.
Its been some years, so things might have changed.
But back in 1995(ish) when I was using, administering and programming for IBM AIX platform (AIX 3.2, xlc, xlC, Motif), I had excellent documentation available.
BRAVO. It is good to see someone to have the gust to say so in public, specially among all this "privacy at all costs, screw everything else" crowd we have on Slashdot (mostly).
I find it particularly disturbing that, these days, parents have to justify themselves (or feel the need to) about monitoring the activities of their children.
Add to that the fact it is YOU paying for the internet connection (regardless of they being your children).
Something is VERY wrong.
I'm in a variation of this one.
I got tired of relying on other companies for my e-mail needs (which are a big part of my money making). So I ended up getting my own domain and a small, unmanaged dedicated server (US$45/month), where I host my own e-mail server. Yes, it is more expensive than $8/month, but I can have as many address as I want, and the server will work the way I want, with the rules and services I want.
I know this is not a solution for everyone (managing your own server), but having a dedicated server is something I recommend. I hate shared servers (web, e-mail etc). They always work the way other people want, and not how I want.
It is a very valid issue.
In case of a global pandemic, keeping the communication networks up and running (well) is very important, and a very tricky thing to do. The first thing that comes to mind is the necessity for some kind of high priority communication procedure. Also, lots of people will be trying to contact lots of other people (I hope, because if they are trying to contact themselves, the problem gets worst).
Add the fact a lot of maintenance people will be home sick (or in hospitals), and you have a recipe for a very nasty communications breakdown.
An even more perfect lawyer solution would be a simple, brightly colored, warning label on the outside marriage offices, stating that giving birth to lawyers is illegal and punishable by death.
In the mean time, we only need to get a few empty buses, fill them with lawyers and ... well, you get the picture.
It is interesting what you can come up with when you start researching. Since I have no particular stakes on this subject, from the start it didn't matter to me if I were right or wrong. My only stake on this was the fact the USA education system is seriously lacking on regarding geography, but that would be preaching to the choir here.
As I said in another post, there are some source that mention Central America as a separated continent, including one of my high school books, which I just confirmed by calling an old teacher of mine. After talking to said teacher, and doing a little bit more research based on what he said, the one thing I can say for sure is this: what a mess.
- In purely geographical terms, Central America is not separated from North America. Thus, it is incorrect to say, as I previously stated, that Central America is a continent. A continent is a purely geographical definition. I stand corrected on this one. (Please keep reading)
- In a geopolitical definition, Central America IS indeed separated from North America. Thus, Central America is a separated region. There are no "geopolitical" continents.
However, according to my teacher, based on those concepts, it would be correct to say that Europe and Asia are separated continents. In purely geographical terms, both should be considered a single continent (Eurasian Continent). The reason North and South americas can be considered separated is due to an Isthmus (he didn't mentioned which one, and that would take more research I'm willing to do). So, in the sense that the separation of Europe and Asia is geopolitical, Central America could also be considered a separated continent, which sparkled controversy for a long time (and still does, as we can see here).
Officially, there are 7 continents:
1) Australia (Oceania)
2) Antarctica
3) Asia
4) Europe
5) Africa
6) North America
7) South America
However, there are several controversies regarding where which country stands, specially Mexico. The United Nations geoscheme includes Mexico in Central America. The European Union,whoever, excludes both Mexico from the area. Geopolitically, Mexico is frequently not considered part of Central America.
Another geopolitical definition would have Northern America (Mexico and whatever is to the north, including USA, Canada, Greenland and Bermuda), and Middle America (Mexico plus the rest of Central America). I've also hard the designation "British America" encompassing USA and Canada. I suppose that makes sense if you also use "Latin America" as a definition.
Some other sources mention there North, Central and South Americas are just regions of a single continent. However, as far as I could research, none of these sources are official in any capacity. It is how they teach it in some schools, tho. I can't confirm this, but I would think those same schools say Eurasia is a single continent (thus reducing the number of continents to 5). There is at least 1 other post here that says there is only 1 America continent.
I have to say that, personally, I like the British/Latin America definitions. They make sense geopolitically. However, on that same note, Belize would have to be included in "British America". Oddly enough, it is still included in "Latin America", as far as I know (no research on this one, so if anyone could clarify, it would be appreciated).
This was a very interesting "fun" time. Research is always interesting, even if it leave you with a headache at the end. What a mess.
If it is not US soil, how can the USA legislate about it ? Shouldn't the UN be the only group empowered to that ?
As I'm sure you can understand based on what I wrote, I'm talking about USA law.
Despite your thong-in-check post, this has sparkled some research of my part.
You are right it is not just the USA. I have seen references that mentioned Central America as a separated continent, some that mention it as part of North America, and some that mention it as part of the South America.
I'm still trying to find which organization can be considered the official source of this information, and will post here when I find it.
"Central America", vol. 3, Micropædia, The New Encyclopædia Britannica, Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 1990, 15th ed. ISBN 0-85229-511-1.
Does that answer your question ?
I'm willing to give there is some confusion about there being 1 or 3 Americas. I've seen some discussion about it myself. But the point here was about 2 or 3 Americas.
- Considering the laws of my country don't apply to me while I'm outside said country
- Considering the laws of the USA do apply to me while I'm inside said country
it would only make sense the rights granted by the USA law would also apply to me while in USA soil.
Thus, his request for a quotation of a law/text/etc that stated that, while my obligations inside the USA are the same as that of other people (USA citizens), INCLUDING TAXES, my rights will be different.
We really have to question how much this all is costing. The overall economic impact, so to speak.
The USA is spending a shipload of money in Iraq and also within its borders. Also, it is loosing a lot of tourist income (even a 1% drop on that revenue source is a lot of money, and I'm betting it is higher than that).
Less income with more expenses. That can't be a good thing.
America (the USA) and America (the two continents)
And thus it is proved the USA education system still can't teach people geography. 3 continents, please: North, Central and South America.
Also, someone earlier said Mexico is part of Central America. Unless they changed the maps and I wasn't informed, Mexico is part of North America. The confusion is somewhat understandable since Mexico is the only country in the North America to be part of the so called Latin America.
Considering the number of americans that thing the brazilian capital is Buenos Aires and stuff like that, I shouldn't be surprised. I have had people from USA ask me if I didn't mind using the same currency as the rest of Europe, and other pearls like that.
Please, don't take this as a personal attack. It is a criticism at a long standing problem with the USA education system.
When he mentioned it was valid in that context, I started to think of why he would use it.
Calling people from USA "USisans" might be an attempt to say people from USA only thing about themselves ("us"), or that they consider themselves separated from the rest of the world.
Regardless of agreeing with him or not, you have to concede that under that point of view, he using "USisans" makes some sense, and you get a free "*woot*".
Don't waste your time.
There are no tests performed, no benchmarks, no comparisons.
The guy only went to 3 websites (Dell, Alienware and some other), read the specs, and said what he though of it.
Completely useless. Glad I use AdBlock. That site doesn't deserve a cent of advertisement money.
You can't prove any of this is the truth.
This phrase has much further implications.
How do you prove a negative, anyway ? I don't know how people that comes from a system where everyone is innocent until proven guilty can keep going over and over again that people has to prove Iraq had no WMDs. Or people at least barely scientifically minded.
Is it possible to prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, Iraq had NO WMDs ? No. Again, can't prove a negative. All this argument is, at best, pointless.
Was there enough proof to indicate Iraq had WMDs ? That is the point. If there was, it would be very easy for the Bush government to say: "Well, looks like they really didn't have any, but this is the data we had to work with. I'm sure most of you will come to the same conclusion we had".
The problem is that, even to date, the Bush government keeps insisting there were WMDs, but somehow keep failing to find them. And the supporters here and everywhere else keep insisting on that. I will say it again: people are not saying there was enough evidence of WMDs to make an honest mistake; they keep insisting there were WMDs.
With all this denial and cover-ups, I have to ask the same question: was there enough evidence to make an "honest mistake" ? Doesn't seems likely.
You can still look at which side has the most evidence and make a logical conclusion.
I was once talking to a Jesuit Priest who was a physics teacher, and asked him about the whole "science vs. religion" thing (way before the whole ID bullshit). His answer was pretty simple:
Despite personal believes, it is still good to see there is sane people even inside the roman catholic church, who can separate science and religion. Actually, that same priest (which was my teacher at one point) was a vigorous defender of evolution. I haven't talked to him for about 15 years, but I'm pretty sure he is just as sick of the ID people as we all are. And he is a priest. Which just shows how stupid the ID people are.
To paraphrase your comment farther down, name me one government that is NOT violent.
Hey, it was you that used the "violent" card to justify attacking Iraq.
What you said was that I said Bush only went through the UN because it was convenient, which is exactly opposite of what I said. If you can't understand that twice now, there's nothing more I can say.
That is not what I said. What I said is that, when it became inconvenient (ie: went against the USA interests), he went ahead and disregarded the UN.
So 2 wrongs make a right now? Make a consistent argument for once. Is it OK that the UN is massively and thorougly corrupt because other governments are corrupt? In any case, it was the specific form of corruption that is the problem here. Hundreds of UN officials were making big money from Iraq on the Oil for Food Program. No matter what Bush did, he was not going to get approval to turn off their cash flow and reveal their corruption. Going around them was the only thing to do. I'm sorry you don't these things this way, so let's just agree to disagree.
Lets suppose you are right. If that is really the reason, one would expect a few things to happen:
1) For the USA to directly denounce said officials (link please)
2) For the USA stand in front of the UN, justify itself, and apologize for the UN (as a body) (link please)
I might be wrong here. I don't stand 24/7 in front of the TV/newspapers etc, so it is entirely possible these things happened and I missed (not being sarcastic here).
I'm sorry but, so far, with the information I have, the "corrupt UN officials" talk sounds like a bunch of excuses for ignoring the UN decision when it went against the US interests.
Have you never had an argument with a friend? Did it mean you were biter rivals forever afterward?
I never punched a friend in the face. Or went against his decision on something he had authority over.
Just because we disagreed with the UN on this occassion with this President does not mean we will not work with them in the future, as we have done in the past.
What was done goes a little beyond "disagreement", don't you think ?
Let's look at the number and type of resolutions being broken. The UN banned Iraq, a despotic and violent regime that had just invaded its neighbor, from having a WMD program and from having MRBMs. Iraq then violated 19 resolutions over 9 years that required them to turn everything over or account for its destruction. What other country has ever done anything remotely like that?
You can bet a lot of countries consider the USA despotic and violent (I myself consider it violent, but I also do most countries).
So, who should be the judge of all that ? Who should judge which countries are "despotic and violent", and have violated "an unreasonable number of UN resolutions" ? Should each country do the judging themselves ? Or is the USA the only country entitled to that kind of decision ? (In time: it doesn't matter what you or I think, the point here is what country governments think, decide and act upon).
Bush went through the UN because he wanted their blessing and the support of Democrats. When it turned out the UN was a waste of time, he pressed on.
How is that different from what I said ? Bush when to the UN and made a lot of effort trying to convince them of his point of view. When it failed, he went ahead anyway. Isn't that what happened ?
That is exactly what I described earlier, albeit in more blunt terms.
Afterwards, they turned out to be corrupt
Please name one government that is not corrupt.
I'm still waiting for your answer for how can the UN still pretend to support the UN (and host it!) after the past actions. Or are you saying that this was a one time thing, and the USA won't do it again ?
Whatever UN resolutions you were implying the US broke hardly compares to the ones Iraq did.
And who decided which resolutions should be followed and which ones can be broken ? Or it is who should follow and who can break the resolutions ? Which of those two is the case here ?
Well, I think you're in the minority. It hardly made news and most people I know don't even know it happened.
There are many bad (should I say nasty?) act during the Clinton administration. But we should always take in account two things: 1) two wrongs don't make a right and, 2) the scale
As for the UN, we were pressured to get their blessing. So they passed another resolution for Iraq to turn over their WMDs or at least account for the ones that were destroyed. They handed over thousands of pages of meaningless crap. Democrats wanted to give them one more chance to come clean, and Bush said no more. I think it was the right thing to do in many ways. We were holding them accountable, finally, for the long string of defied resolutions. Going through the UN is the right way to do it, but they were never going to back up their own words.
Ok, this one deserves a full quote. So what you are saying is that countries (whatever country) should only go through the UN when it is convenient for them ? Or, rather, when the UN agree with them ? That is kind of easy, ain't it ? The trick is following your backing up your own word (supporting the UN, the UN charter etc) when it goes AGAINST what you would do otherwise, if left alone.
Uh, 19 consecutive resolutions to turn over prohibited WMDs and prohibited MRBMs? Uh, I'd have to say we never did that.
When did the UN pass a resolution for the USA turn over WMDs ? Sorry, I missed that one.
Does bombing it without one count, like when Clinton did it? Tell me you were as upset with him as you are with Bush.
Of course I was. You are defending my case here.
The UN was on the take with the corrupt Oil for Food program and France was selling the aformentioned phohibited MRBMs
Your point being what ? 3 wrongs make a right ?
Any surprise they weren't going to approve of offensive action?
Then why to pretend to be a part of it ? Or even worst, why host the UN itself within its borders ? If you are not going to respect the UN, at least be honest and break away from it.
I have to agree with the parent post.
Get off your ass and go vote.
Even more, try and show other people they should also vote. Specially people who would support the same candidate.
It is all a process and won't happen overnight. But if you manage to get an "independent" candidate more notice this election, maybe on the next one more people would be willing to vote outside the 2-party. Even if he doesn't win right now, your vote can still make a difference.