Can you please explain to me your version of the "closed loop premise" in regards to energy sustainability? I have been following this thread and I am totally lost as to what your point is.
Eh? I would have thought that this is covered by basic logic..? Wikipedia defines sustainable energy as "the sustainable provision of energy that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs". By definition, this doesn't cover fossil fuels. (I hope that that much is obvious.)
Search "closed loop premise" and tell me what you find. A closed loop is entirely different depending on your context, and at no point in this conversational line - until now - did you define what that meant. I don't care if this is an article about PV and sustainable energy, your term for "closed loop premise" is not common jargon within this context, especially when Pixelpusher220 in fact mentions that he is aware of the "full loop" earlier in this comment line, and you completely ignore this moving foreward. You just dropped your own version of the jargon expecting people to know. Then you follow up your personal term for something by telling pixelpusher220 that their entire argument is a non-sequitur based on this term you have not yet defined. Because you ignored that Pixelpusher220 is aware of your version of the "closed loop premise", I had to ask for your definition.
Basically, that is just poor arguing.
Regardless though, thank you for providing me with the Wikipedia entry definition for sustainable energy. Now that sustainable energy is your definition for the "closed loop premise" as it relates to the world's energy, while admitting that fossil fuels do not fit within this definition, can you explain to me how pixelpusher220's argument doesn't follow in this particular comment line within this article thread? He seems to be arguing that solar is sustainable in the long run, while burning fossil fuels is not, and that fossil fuel industries should pay for PV R&D via government appropriations.
User pixelpusher220 (529617) actually makes a point and argues it, while you shout out "closed loop" a couple times, then call him out on a non-sequitur that you haven't established.
Any process with a positive net carbon output (into the atmosphere) is unsustainable. Again, just try to use basic logic.
This most certainly seems to fit the definition of sustainable energy, now that you have actually defined your terms. Don't call out my logic when your's is absent throughout this article's comments. You don't even have a point, and aren't arguing in any direction. In fact, the argument you provide from here on out is almost literally the exact same argument put forth by PixelPusher220, with minor deviations.
The carbon would have to come from *somewhere* and wherever that *somewhere* is, it would have to be a finite resource.
Pixelpusher220 is not arguing that we are just going to magically create PV (and very specifically states this within this comment reply line), much like fossil fuels don't just magically start producing energy. Everyone in this article's comments acknowledges there are emissions when creating the infrastructure for any energy program. In fact, he proposes that we should use current fossil fuel energy to make PV itself, and that taxing the fossil fuel industries for sustainable energy is a fair price for fossil fuel industries to pay in the short run.
Modulo the stellar evolution issue...
The fuck does this have to do with anything.
....and the possibility of developing commercially viable stable fusion in near future,...
Ah so now we see your intentions: You are trolling solar to talk about fusion.
As long as there are security concerns, stable fusion being vi
Hence why we have a system of checks, balances, accountability, and transparency.
When those exist and are used.
First of all, I apologize for using we, as you live in the USA. I am not a part of your "we".
I was arguing that in general (for human beings that are lucky enough to be able to vote for their public entity), some primary features that mark the difference between a public and private entity are exactly what I listed:
a system of checks, balances, accountability, and transparency
This is not to say a private entity won't do these things for the people they serve, just that they generally don't have to. There are empirical examples on both sides of this coin.
People expect and legislate these things for a public entity, and generally work to ensure that a public entity displays these features prominently.
This is a completely different issue as to whether or not these systems exist, or work, or are used.
Second of all, you cannot argue that the current USA government does not have systems of checks, balances, accountability, and transparency, unless you were home schooled and did not learn this material at any point in your high school education. In fact, it arguably has one of the best systems for all of these. This is a different issue as to whether or not these systems are abused.
It's worth noting with the US system, that it has grown very byzantine and corrupt which tends to thwart all of those.
Once again, this is a totally different argument as to whether or not people expect a system of checks, balances, accountability, and transparency out of their public entities. I submit that yes, in fact, most people do expect this.
Furthermore, this is still a totally different as to whether or not these systems exist within the USA, which I argue that they do.
While the absolute position derided by meglon is to a certain degree untenable, I think it's a bit disingenuous to ignore that government spends a lot more than the value it provides.
This may be true of the generally under (and poorly) educated people that run the country you live in, but it is not true of all governments, nor all public entities. You have a vote and a voice to change the public entity you belong to, and can work to ensure you are getting more value out of what you are paying. In my current country, Canada, I am very active in ensuring our elected officials keep a system of checks, balances, accountability, and transparency, all the while ensuring I am getting a better deal for each tax dollar I am paying. it takes effort, but contributions can be made by the individual.
Pragmatically, I agree with this point completely though. I used to live in the states for about 5 years, and it was pretty annoying knowing a lot of my federal taxes went to world policing and not much else that was visible to me. That being said, my local governments provided some of the best schools in the country, good policing and fire protection, as well as low cost clean water for those on the town well. All things being equal, I wanted the school, police, and fire system the town (and state) provided, and was able to get lower cost water through the town versus living in the outskirts of the town where I needed my own (or street) well. I am not suggesting that the town was more efficient at providing water to me, just that it was a lower cost than the alternative given my other criteria, mostly due to economies of scale.
More on that last point (total side-note though so disregard this as a trolling comment), it was pretty annoying knowing that there are huge disparities in education from region to region in the USA.
There's an inherent inefficiency to spending other peoples' money and it is worsened by this complex system which handles way too much money and pow
I wouldn't put so much faith in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles vary wildly in quality.
No kidding?
This is why Wikipedia has a system of accountability and the headers of many articles contain information about the validity of each article, or what needs to be done to improve them. Many article headers ask for academics and experts to review the information, and in the case of the articles on Communism and Capitalism, these entries on wikipedia read about as well as any textbook you could hope to buy regarding the theories.
Both the Capitalism and Communism articles on wikipedia are a part of a heavily edited series on the website, and there are no calls for action from Wikipedia to improve the quality of these articles - they are about as quality as you can get for human knowledge (and sound logic) on these topics. You can review the debates in the notes for the articles themselves. Arguing semantics and the finer points of each theory, like you are doing, is a totally different thing. I am willing to engage in said argument with you, because I have the freedom and right to do so.
This is also why instead of just reading a couple Wikipedia articles I studied economics and political science in school so that I can have these conversations with people like you.
Apparently the one [Wikipedia Article] you're quoting is poorly written unless you're misrepresenting it.
In my previous comment I copied and pasted the first sentence word for word from the Wikipedia article so that you could interpret it. I have already interpreted it, and my initial comment in this thread was almost exactly the same. Allow me to post the first sentence from the Wikipedia article again (so that you can interpret it again), since you clearly think my one sentence is/was totally off base:
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of capital goods and the means of production, with the creation of goods and services for profit.[1][2] Elements central to capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, and a price system.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
Now, allow me to post my original comment (which I again re-posted in my last comment so that you could compare both), in order to tell whether or not I have misinterpreted the Wikipedia statement (I hate being repetitive, but don't tell me I am misinterpreting the english language when you aren't even reading my comments):
In Capitalism each agent within the system maintains private ownership over its belongings, and has the freedom to choose its activities within the system.
Are you really going to sit here and tell me I egregiously misinterpreted what was written on Wikipedia? Like, actually?
In your defense, in my follow up comment I offered a lengthy explanation as to how the second half of my comment regarding capitalism can only be implied by virtue of the existence for perfectly competitive markets within capitalist theory. I admitted that the second half of this comment was slightly off base, but offered an explanation for how each agent must be "free" to act in a perfectly competitive market.
You offer no such explanation as to how I have misinterpreted this information, but instead ramble on about the definition of capitalism, which is clearly stated within that one sentence pasted above, again.
But moving on to the argument where you supposedly debunk my misinterpretations:
Communism and Capitalism are complex subjects.
Once again, no kidding? Hence why I asked you to elaborate on your point instead of just calling me wrong. Hence why I elaborated on my one sentence from my first comment, with a paragraph in my second comment, even though I should not have entertained you with a better explanation since all you did was say:
It is quite clear in this thread that the above commenters were making the point that all energy sources (solar and coal specifically) create emissions when the infrastructure for both is being built. I don't think anyone in this thread feels either of these processes leads to bootstrapping.
The problem is that my initial point in this thread referred to the point in time in which this situation would cease, a fact that commenters above (especially pixelpusher220) decided to casually overlook. *After* that, you only need to emit CO2 when reducing large amounts of ore to metals, not in relation with sustained energy production.
Actually, in this particular conversational line you make no initial point. Your first comment in this particular conversational/comment thread (and is indicative of your other comments on this article) is a troll's comment to say "fuck solar, because neither solar nor coal can bootstrap (irregardless to questions of sustainability), thus solar people are hypocritical" even though the other commenters are clearly stating that both coal AND solar have start up and maintenance costs, and are all potentially harmful to the green person soul. Your only other comment in this line is your response to my comment.
Allow me to quote pixelpusher220, who you take an issue with:
Everything has start up manufacturing/infrastructure costs.
Did pixelpusher220 really ignore this?
And are you sure that your theories regarding bootstrapping are correct? Can you please be more specific about the point at which certain things, like bootstrapping, "cease" in your mind?
This particular comment line hardly references the point at which these things cease to exist. But feel free to elaborate about the scientific processes after this point, as my education is simply limited to the economics of natural resources and energy. Call me stupid, or something.
Government should create money to provide for the General Welfare.
"Not making money means consuming more in energy, resources and labor than you get in return. That in itself isn't good for the planet, or us uncultured swines."
Alternative energy is good for the planet and good for us. If business is too short-sighted to invest in it, then government should create the money to do it.
I hate it when countries make stuff for us for free or below cost. Maybe we should punish them buy sending them some free/discounted stuff. I'm sure that will teach them a lesson they won't soon forget.
While I laughed at your joke, it is generally missing the point in how the Chinese government operates in order to exert undue influence in certain markets, especially via international trade law. It helps when your labour is mostly free, and has few rights. After that, we can start getting into the nitty gritties of the details, but we don't really need to since as the previous commenter alluded to: The Chinese game the international trade system quite well.
In fact, it is often amusing to see how creatively they game our systems, much like it was amusing to see your joke.
Now, did you make sure all the maintenance supplies were generated by solar power? Was the metal for the vehicles that transport these supplies smelted with solar produced electricity?
So, you're saying that because you can't bootstrap, you aren't allowed to sustain? Isn't that sort of hypocritical?
What the christ are you even saying here?
It is quite clear in this thread that the above commenters were making the point that all energy sources (solar and coal specifically) create emissions when the infrastructure for both is being built. I don't think anyone in this thread feels either of these processes leads to bootstrapping.
You come in here on your high horse and start trolling solar left, right, and centre all over this thread.
Where does the carbon come from? The fossil fuels we're burning every day.
You've completely ignored the closed loop premise. That makes effectively the rest of your comment non-sequitur.
Can you please explain to me your version of the "closed loop premise" in regards to energy sustainability? I have been following this thread and I am totally lost as to what your point is.
User pixelpusher220 (529617) actually makes a point and argues it, while you shout out "closed loop" a couple times, then call him out on a non-sequitur that you haven't established.
Fine, let him move off the grid... no electricity, no phone, no roads, no tv, no fresh water unless he goes down to the stream, no medical services, no police, no firefighters, no military protections...and if he's doing just as good as he is now with all that, then the Unibomber has found his long lost twin.
Or he could just pay per use. Just treat government, when it actually provides the service (which isn't always the case BTW), just like any private entity.
Should be fun to pay for emergency surgery when you need it.
We don't treat the government as a private entity because it is NOT a private entity. Hence why we have a system of checks, balances, accountability, and transparency. These are not things a private entity HAS to afford its constituents.
I am glad you gave it to this guy good and dropped some F-Bombs. Hopefully, at the bare minimum, people with these ideologies can leave these forums alone.
Cutting government spending is also an investment into future generations.
Uh. No?
Cutting government spending on projects with no present or future value does not imply an investment into future generations. It merely implies a shift in the metrics that compose the current GDP.
With less money controlled by the government and more by private agents it is POSSIBLE that this newly reallocated government spending might be re-invested by the private sector.
Yet with natural resources and energy, we find that when left to human nature and our own devices we experience two major problems: The Tragedy of the Commons and the Race to the Bottom.
This is generally why the government is involved with Solar, as it should be.
I feel like this severely understates the relationship between the Taliban and Al Queda
Is that you way of saying "I'm just going to ignore the fact that Bush refused to ignore an extradition offer from the Taliban?"
You are 100% correct, I did ignore this in my last post. I ignored this because the previous commenter already stated it, and I did not feel the need to repeat him/her/it. However, you clearly feel the need to repeat the same fact over and over again. Unless you can't read (I can, actually) you would know that yes, you are correct: The Taliban did in fact offer extradition for Osama Bin Laden, if NATO handed over information proving that Osama Bin Ladin was directly connected to the 9/11 attacks. However, like the FBI notes, there was no direct link to convict Osama in court for the 9/11 attacks. As everyone knows, admission of guilt does not necessarily lead to a conviction. I have the internet and google search too, you know. At the same time, is it really so hard to believe that Osama (the man who took credit for the attacks) would inevitably end up being the symbol of the war?
Yet I feel like you are pointing to this one fact over and over to ignore what is in front of you. The United Nations Security Council approved NATO military missions against terrorist groups connected to 9/11 with multiple resolutions, starting with UN Security Council Resolution 1368 and moving on from there. This was done such that there was a legal device for NATO to pursue justice against the perpetrators of 9/11 within the sovereign borders of other nations. As we both agree, the Taliban controlled Afghanistan was only offering one of these perpetrating individuals (Osama) as justice for 9/11. Before you state "BUT IT DOES NOT DECLARE WAR AGAINST THE AFGHANS SPECIFICALLY, I already know: It merely allows the pursuit of justice in foreign controlled lands. Furthermore, Self Defense is in fact a part of the UN Charter, and did you honestly expect there to be no lethal ramification for 9/11? Is one Osama justice for 9/11, when we already know it wasn't him? If you love peace that much and are the persoanlity type not to fight back when you are attacked, then we can agree to disagree on all context related to the facts moving forward. Allow me to repeat a point I have made several times in this thread:
An eye for an eye is not analgous to a race to the bottom. An eye for an eye leaves one person with one eye. Furthermore, Al Quada and the Taliban had no ability to take the last metaphorical eye, yet they took the first. Am I supposed to feel sympathy, or am I just a bigot? I love peace as much as the next Canadian, but don't piss in my mouth and expect me to drink.
And regardless, all of this is different than the UNSC approving Operation Enduring Freedom, which they FACTUALLY did not directly do, obviously. "Nation building" is totally different than the initial CIA Drone strikes and 40 JTF2 Personell that were originally dispatched to Afghanistan, in order to take out very specific Al Quada, Taliban, and allied war lord targets. The entire nation of Afghanistan was not attacked. I obviously do not support nation building and wide spread warfare against the Afghanistan people, but I do think it is important for the Afghan people to have their own security force in order to protect their own elections from groups like the Taliban. Training is easy and does not have to cost lives, nor does it imply that there is undue influence by NATO in the Afghanistan election. Those are different issues.
But back to the original question: Why did the UN Security Council approve military missions to respond to 9/11, but not Iraq? Why was the Al Quada and the Taliban regime of Afghanistan the first (and only) two groups added to the sanctions list after UN Security Council Resolution 1373, even when the term "terrorism" wasn't properly defined in the eyes of most? Is it maybe because there were legitimate reasons to do so? Is this maybe
Care to elaborate, or was my initial sentence entirely too close to what is listed on Wikipedia? What is your view on Capitalism/Communism?
Allow me to quote my statement regarding Capitalism:
In Capitalism each agent within the system maintains private ownership over its belongings, and has the freedom to choose its activities within the system.
Now allow me to quote Wikipedia:
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of capital goods and the means of production, with the creation of goods and services for profit.[1][2] Elements central to capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, and a price system.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
Yeah, sorry for being TOTALLY off base with a sentence that took me less than 5 seconds to write (sarcasm).
But in all fairness to your incorrect statement, perhaps the second part of my original statement was off-base, simply due to semantics. After all, Capitalism does not imply freedom: It merely provides each agent within the system private ownership (as I already stated), and capital accumulation (as per the wiki def).
Now, regarding those semantics: Perfectly competitive markets imply that each agent within said market is free to act as the agent chooses (as there are no market conditions reducing the number of infinite agents, there are no entry and exit barriers, private property is honoured, etc, etc,) it does not imply that an agent CAN engage in the market, nor that the agent WANTS to engage in the market. True Capitalism does not exist without perfectly competitive markets, hence why true Capitalism does not exist (much like pure Communism generally cannot exist on any scale). Obviously there are other theoretical forms of Capitalism like the ones listed on Wikipedia that suggest a movement away from pure Capitalism, much like there are many theoretical forms of Communism.
The closest thing to pure capitalism as a result of it being a scaleable perfectly competitive market is the Internet. Do you consider the internet to be a bad thing? Do you fight against agents on the internet market that attempt to take away your freedoms? Or do you not have any freedoms within the Capitalistic Internet market?
If you understood capitalism fairly well, you would not have stated:
In Capitalism, the means of production belongs to financiers and say what you will and won't do with it.
But realistically, based on your follow up comment, this comment was meant to troll the likes of someone like me in order to engage in some decent online banter. Damn you human nature, and your need to constantly seek competition at every corner!!!!
But allow me to continue to entertain your most recent comment, starting with the second sentence:
Communism, in its truest sense, is the utopia form of society, being very inclusive.
At no point does Communism imply utopia. This would seemingly imply that Communism itself is perfect, which it is not, and this is before getting into your comments regarding human nature below. I can just as easily argue that anarchy is the utopia form of society, but it is not.
It may surprise you to learn that Democracies and Republics, or democratic-republics even, are generally considered to be very inclusive. Even a fascist system can be inclusive.
The biggest problem with it is human nature, which pretty much ensures that it'll be subverted and exploited. It's what we should be working towards as a species (until something better can be formulated, which it probably will at some point).
No the biggest problem with Communism is the fact that not all humans are created equally (regardless of that person's nature), the scale of the system (as you fairly mention below), and the inevitable rise of the ruling class. If all humans were not created equally, why would a system of governance that treats everyone equally seem optimal? Even if every human was concious and educated to the point that we were all aware and practiced enough not to subvert and exploit the system, there will always be disparities in active intelligence and knowledge capital from person to person, as well as genetic mutations not capable of being conscious/educated enough. Anyhow, the system itself needs to be managed, and by default that group of people has more power than everyone else. An amalgamation of a variety of other systems mitigates the government class check/balance problem.
If Communism was truly the best system we have currently formulated, certain Communist communes in places like British Columbia and California would not struggle to provide their inhabitants with basic human rights and security. And much like every instance in history where order rises out anarchy, a system management class will rise out of communism. Likely those that manage the system are the same Darwinian winners you fear from the Capitalist system, below:
Capitalism is confrontational and warlike, and very exclusive.
This is totally not true of the system itself. This is merely a representation of what you think of Capitalist systems. Capitalism is as inclusive as any system as it allows every single agent within the system the freedom to access private property and markets within that agent's scope of information. Governments typically put restrictions on freedoms (as to not infringe on the freedoms of others), and as such perfectly competitive markets are destroyed, and true Capitalism ceases to exist. Much like true Communism can never really exist, because, you know, human beings and all.
It's an evolution of the strongest (not necessarily the optimum) under certain constraints, many of which are part of the system itself. It's quite destructive in many ways, doesn't often hit the optimum strategies for the species wide constraints, but is very much in tune with current human behaviour (we're still a pretty primitive, warlike species).
A better argument would be that Capitalism is an evolution of the smartest, but neither of those arguments would go very far.
There is a big difference between belonings and means of production.
My statement clearly marked the differences between the two. Allow me to repeat, word for word.
First, regarding personal belongings:
In Capitalism each agent within the system maintains private ownership over its belongings.
Second, regarding means of production:
In Capitalism each agent within the system....has the freedom to choose its activities within the system
The first paragraph of the wikipedia entry for capitalism more or less says the exact same thing, in different words.
Regarding the rest of your comment:
Under capitalism, very few people own means of production (factories, businesses, etc.) and those who are concentrated in large corporations.
This may be true of your capitalist system or the industries within your capitalist system that you are familiar with, but this is not implicit within capitalism. Strong legislative governments within a pseudo capitalist system can work to contain privately owned monopolies or oligopolies. In fact, most "western" capitalist countries have many industries where it is illegal to have these types of market structures as to make the people better off. In 2013 in the real world that I live in most large corporations are publicly traded and the common joe has very little barrier to ownership within that joe's means.
And if you think of your computer as a tiny means of production, look how much ownership is slowly being taking away by being locked into platforms and walled gardens. If you have a Chromebook, who owns your data? You or Google?
Uhhhhhhhh. I'm not sure what this has to do with the previous commenter not understanding the basic notions of Communism and Capitalism, and why I had to call that commenter out.
Osama was not the architect of 9/11. Our own government told you that it was Khalid Sheik Mohammed. Bin Ladin expressed surprise (and delight) when the 9/11 attacks happened. Khalid Sheik Mohammed was captured in Pakistan. Afghanistan as a nation did not attack us.
I can agree with many of these statements while considering semantics, and believe them to be mostly factually true - though not with your connotation. That being said, it is very difficult to say Khalid Sheik Mohammed conducted no business under Taliban sovereignty, as he very factually did conduct business in Afghanistan many times across his "Terrorism Career" in order to plot against the USA. Northern Pakistan also kind of shares a border with Afghanistan and people travel between with ease. I'm sure you are aware of the many recent sovereignty problems there.
Also, while the people of Afghanistan may not have chosen the Taliban to speak for them, this was the situation at the time. Thus, the UN approved the NATO military mission within the sovereign borders of Afghanistan. They did not do this for Iraq, and you are clearly confused about the differences between the two wars.
And technically, Osama took credit for the attacks though that does not necessarily imply that he was directly involved.
A small group of terrorists did, and they were taken care of pretty quickly.
I disagree with your assessment of how quickly all those involved were taken care of, and how small the group is. That being said, I consider every member of Al Quada and the Taliban to be complicit in this issue, or for fighting against it in the aftermath.
Those terrorists, in fact, were almost entirely Saudi Arabian, with a few exceptions, none of whom were Afghan (or Iraqi.)
I 100% agree with this and believe it to be factually correct.
The funding for the operation was also traced to Saudi Arabia.
I do not agree with this. Please provide me with your sources, as from what I can tell on Wikipedia via the 9/11 Commission about 500k for this exercise was amalgamated from multiple sources, from multiple countries.
Afghanistan no more attacked us than Carl Panzram's acts in Europe, South America and so forth were acts of the American nation.
WTF ???
This is where we start to seriously diverge. I also enjoy how thus far you have conveniently left out the fact that Mohammed Atef (the organizer of the hijackers themselves) was killed in Kabul by CIA drone strikes after 9/11. In your defense on this point, Atef's connection to the event may have been discovered after he was killed. But he was killed in a marked Al Queda location by CIA Drones. And why at no point have you mentioned the Taliban and their involvement here, and their sovereignty over the nation of Afghanistan?
It really does not matter that Osama "expressed surprise (and delight)" (your words) that America was attacked. He was the leader of Al Queda, and bore the responsibility of his group's actions (feel free to theoretically disagree with me on this point). His group was very much founded in Afghanistan, operated in Afghanistan, and was systematically protected within the Afghanistan borders by the Taliban, the group that operated the Afghanistan government at the time. The Taliban refused to hand over information leading to arrests, nor arrests themselves. It is quite unfortunate that the Afghani people did not vote the Taliban into office, as I would like to think elected officials would have done a better job.
Your analogy Between Al Queda/Taliban and Carl Panzram/USA is really poor. Panzram was a nomadic criminal with no factual allegiance to the operations of any particular government, nor the sovereignty of any nation. The 9/11 attacks were very factually related to Al Queda, which was factually protected by the Taliban, which was factually the sovereign ruler of Afghanistan of
Were the Taliban not harboring many Al Queda operations and people connected to the attack?
Even if true, that is still a law enforcement and diplomatic problem, not an excuse for invading a sovereign country.
I do not see how somebody blowing up your shit is a "law enforcement and diplomatic problem." Seems more like a "somebody just blew up my shit problem, heads are going to roll."
As a peace loving Canadian, I respectfully disagree with your entire sentiment. When somebody comes into your home, kills thousands of people, you go into their home and do the same. One should never initiate such an event, but one should take an eye for an eye. This is not a race to the bottom. An eye for an eye leaves one man with one eye, and I'd rather still be able to see. Neither the Taliban nor Al Queda had the ability to take the last eye, yet they decided to take the first.
The fact is, the US needed someone or something to hit after 9/11and the Taliban were foolish enough to provide them with a target.
Now, if this were true, why have two wars at the same time? Why not just line Cheney's pockets with money in Iraq? Why bother pretending like there was an actual issue in Afghanistan while totally fabricating one in Iraq?
But, yes, you are completely correct: The US needed someone to hit after 9/11. The Taliban were not going to hand over the people we wanted to bring to justice for the 9/11 events, thus the Taliban themselves were brought to justice.
Once again, a justified eye for an eye. Bush is a terrible person that belongs in jail for his Iraq war and other war crimes, but the government doesn't always lie to you. Like I posted to a previous commenter here, start with some Wikipedia before moving on to the next topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I am pretty sure Afghanistan was very connected to 9/11
No more so than Florida, where the hijackers went to flight school.
I feel like this severely understates the relationship between the Taliban and Al Queda, but that you would not like to be convinced to the contrary.
The state of Florida was not complicit on many governmental levels in ensuring those hijackers were trained to fly planes. The buck stops at the licensing centre in Florida, or with the FAA (or whoever deals with that incredibly minor detail within the 9/11 event) in your incredibly imperfect analogy.
Were the Taliban not harboring many Al Queda operations and people connected to the attack?
The Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laddin if we offered evidence that he was guilty of what we were accusing him of doing. So, Iraq wasn't Bush's first bogus war of choice.
Even the FBI, a group that does not directly connect Bin Ladin to 9/11, connects the hijackers to Al Queda, which Bin Ladin founded and maintained a position of seniority in. I think we can both agree that Bin Ladin's death was a symbol for the masses, and that he intentionally kept his involvement in the scheme to a minimum from the get go. Hence why many other organizers of the event, senior ranking members of Al Queda generally, were taken out as there was hard evidence to do so. Not fake Iraq war evidence, which was all debunked within 1 month. The Taliban (rulers of Afghanistan at the time) were very clearly supporting the activities of Osama and Al Queda (once again, there is hard evidence for this) and Afghanistan is where these groups all started and mostly called home.
I don't know why I am entertaining your fantasies and engaging in your argument, but when I see ignorance as blind as yours I must respond.
You don't understand Communism..... [rant aout communism]......
In Capitalism, the means of production belongs to financiers and say what you will and won't do with it.
You don't understand Capitalism. In Capitalism each agent within the system maintains private ownership over its belongings, and has the freedom to choose its activities within the system.
Unlike Communism where nobody owns anything, as everybody owns everything. As an agent within such a system, your mobility and means of production are dictated by everyone else.
The poor IBM employees supporting the ThinkPad line are screwed.
As a general rule, IBM offers no support for ThinkPads (and for all intents and purposes are no longer affiliated in any way with the ThinkPad brand) unless some specific company has decided to purchase Lenovo ThinkPads but would prefer to have them serviced by IBM.
Basically, IBM does not actively sell or service the ThinkPad in any capacity.
Occasionally ThinkPad deals are tossed into large package deals with other IBM products and services, but IBM does not maintain any preference in this respect. IBM will gladly sell you an HP computer as long as you are buying it from IBM.
Slashdot Mirror
I also had no idea what on earth this K. S. Kyosuke (729550) was arguing about all over this article.
I hope I defended your screename and the position you put forth well over the duration of this thread.
Can you please explain to me your version of the "closed loop premise" in regards to energy sustainability? I have been following this thread and I am totally lost as to what your point is.
Eh? I would have thought that this is covered by basic logic..? Wikipedia defines sustainable energy as "the sustainable provision of energy that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs". By definition, this doesn't cover fossil fuels. (I hope that that much is obvious.)
Search "closed loop premise" and tell me what you find. A closed loop is entirely different depending on your context, and at no point in this conversational line - until now - did you define what that meant. I don't care if this is an article about PV and sustainable energy, your term for "closed loop premise" is not common jargon within this context, especially when Pixelpusher220 in fact mentions that he is aware of the "full loop" earlier in this comment line, and you completely ignore this moving foreward. You just dropped your own version of the jargon expecting people to know. Then you follow up your personal term for something by telling pixelpusher220 that their entire argument is a non-sequitur based on this term you have not yet defined. Because you ignored that Pixelpusher220 is aware of your version of the "closed loop premise", I had to ask for your definition.
Basically, that is just poor arguing.
Regardless though, thank you for providing me with the Wikipedia entry definition for sustainable energy. Now that sustainable energy is your definition for the "closed loop premise" as it relates to the world's energy, while admitting that fossil fuels do not fit within this definition, can you explain to me how pixelpusher220's argument doesn't follow in this particular comment line within this article thread? He seems to be arguing that solar is sustainable in the long run, while burning fossil fuels is not, and that fossil fuel industries should pay for PV R&D via government appropriations.
User pixelpusher220 (529617) actually makes a point and argues it, while you shout out "closed loop" a couple times, then call him out on a non-sequitur that you haven't established.
Any process with a positive net carbon output (into the atmosphere) is unsustainable. Again, just try to use basic logic.
This most certainly seems to fit the definition of sustainable energy, now that you have actually defined your terms. Don't call out my logic when your's is absent throughout this article's comments. You don't even have a point, and aren't arguing in any direction. In fact, the argument you provide from here on out is almost literally the exact same argument put forth by PixelPusher220 , with minor deviations.
The carbon would have to come from *somewhere* and wherever that *somewhere* is, it would have to be a finite resource.
Pixelpusher220 is not arguing that we are just going to magically create PV (and very specifically states this within this comment reply line), much like fossil fuels don't just magically start producing energy. Everyone in this article's comments acknowledges there are emissions when creating the infrastructure for any energy program. In fact, he proposes that we should use current fossil fuel energy to make PV itself, and that taxing the fossil fuel industries for sustainable energy is a fair price for fossil fuel industries to pay in the short run.
Modulo the stellar evolution issue...
The fuck does this have to do with anything.
....and the possibility of developing commercially viable stable fusion in near future,...
Ah so now we see your intentions: You are trolling solar to talk about fusion. As long as there are security concerns, stable fusion being vi
If I had have seen this comment, I would not have spent the time offering the counter argument for each of khallow's points. I am glad we both did.
Hence why we have a system of checks, balances, accountability, and transparency.
When those exist and are used.
First of all, I apologize for using we, as you live in the USA. I am not a part of your "we".
I was arguing that in general (for human beings that are lucky enough to be able to vote for their public entity), some primary features that mark the difference between a public and private entity are exactly what I listed:
a system of checks, balances, accountability, and transparency
This is not to say a private entity won't do these things for the people they serve, just that they generally don't have to. There are empirical examples on both sides of this coin.
People expect and legislate these things for a public entity, and generally work to ensure that a public entity displays these features prominently.
This is a completely different issue as to whether or not these systems exist, or work, or are used.
Second of all, you cannot argue that the current USA government does not have systems of checks, balances, accountability, and transparency, unless you were home schooled and did not learn this material at any point in your high school education. In fact, it arguably has one of the best systems for all of these. This is a different issue as to whether or not these systems are abused.
It's worth noting with the US system, that it has grown very byzantine and corrupt which tends to thwart all of those.
Once again, this is a totally different argument as to whether or not people expect a system of checks, balances, accountability, and transparency out of their public entities. I submit that yes, in fact, most people do expect this.
Furthermore, this is still a totally different as to whether or not these systems exist within the USA, which I argue that they do.
While the absolute position derided by meglon is to a certain degree untenable, I think it's a bit disingenuous to ignore that government spends a lot more than the value it provides.
This may be true of the generally under (and poorly) educated people that run the country you live in, but it is not true of all governments, nor all public entities. You have a vote and a voice to change the public entity you belong to, and can work to ensure you are getting more value out of what you are paying. In my current country, Canada, I am very active in ensuring our elected officials keep a system of checks, balances, accountability, and transparency, all the while ensuring I am getting a better deal for each tax dollar I am paying. it takes effort, but contributions can be made by the individual.
Pragmatically, I agree with this point completely though. I used to live in the states for about 5 years, and it was pretty annoying knowing a lot of my federal taxes went to world policing and not much else that was visible to me. That being said, my local governments provided some of the best schools in the country, good policing and fire protection, as well as low cost clean water for those on the town well. All things being equal, I wanted the school, police, and fire system the town (and state) provided, and was able to get lower cost water through the town versus living in the outskirts of the town where I needed my own (or street) well. I am not suggesting that the town was more efficient at providing water to me, just that it was a lower cost than the alternative given my other criteria, mostly due to economies of scale.
More on that last point (total side-note though so disregard this as a trolling comment), it was pretty annoying knowing that there are huge disparities in education from region to region in the USA.
There's an inherent inefficiency to spending other peoples' money and it is worsened by this complex system which handles way too much money and pow
I wouldn't put so much faith in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles vary wildly in quality.
No kidding?
This is why Wikipedia has a system of accountability and the headers of many articles contain information about the validity of each article, or what needs to be done to improve them. Many article headers ask for academics and experts to review the information, and in the case of the articles on Communism and Capitalism, these entries on wikipedia read about as well as any textbook you could hope to buy regarding the theories.
Both the Capitalism and Communism articles on wikipedia are a part of a heavily edited series on the website, and there are no calls for action from Wikipedia to improve the quality of these articles - they are about as quality as you can get for human knowledge (and sound logic) on these topics. You can review the debates in the notes for the articles themselves. Arguing semantics and the finer points of each theory, like you are doing, is a totally different thing. I am willing to engage in said argument with you, because I have the freedom and right to do so.
This is also why instead of just reading a couple Wikipedia articles I studied economics and political science in school so that I can have these conversations with people like you.
Apparently the one [Wikipedia Article] you're quoting is poorly written unless you're misrepresenting it.
In my previous comment I copied and pasted the first sentence word for word from the Wikipedia article so that you could interpret it. I have already interpreted it, and my initial comment in this thread was almost exactly the same. Allow me to post the first sentence from the Wikipedia article again (so that you can interpret it again ), since you clearly think my one sentence is/was totally off base:
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of capital goods and the means of production, with the creation of goods and services for profit.[1][2] Elements central to capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, and a price system.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
Now, allow me to post my original comment (which I again re-posted in my last comment so that you could compare both), in order to tell whether or not I have misinterpreted the Wikipedia statement (I hate being repetitive, but don't tell me I am misinterpreting the english language when you aren't even reading my comments):
In Capitalism each agent within the system maintains private ownership over its belongings, and has the freedom to choose its activities within the system.
Are you really going to sit here and tell me I egregiously misinterpreted what was written on Wikipedia? Like, actually?
In your defense, in my follow up comment I offered a lengthy explanation as to how the second half of my comment regarding capitalism can only be implied by virtue of the existence for perfectly competitive markets within capitalist theory. I admitted that the second half of this comment was slightly off base, but offered an explanation for how each agent must be "free" to act in a perfectly competitive market.
You offer no such explanation as to how I have misinterpreted this information, but instead ramble on about the definition of capitalism, which is clearly stated within that one sentence pasted above, again .
But moving on to the argument where you supposedly debunk my misinterpretations:
Communism and Capitalism are complex subjects.
Once again, no kidding? Hence why I asked you to elaborate on your point instead of just calling me wrong. Hence why I elaborated on my one sentence from my first comment, with a paragraph in my second comment, even though I should not have entertained you with a better explanation since all you did was say:
It is quite clear in this thread that the above commenters were making the point that all energy sources (solar and coal specifically) create emissions when the infrastructure for both is being built. I don't think anyone in this thread feels either of these processes leads to bootstrapping.
The problem is that my initial point in this thread referred to the point in time in which this situation would cease, a fact that commenters above (especially pixelpusher220) decided to casually overlook. *After* that, you only need to emit CO2 when reducing large amounts of ore to metals, not in relation with sustained energy production.
Actually, in this particular conversational line you make no initial point. Your first comment in this particular conversational/comment thread (and is indicative of your other comments on this article) is a troll's comment to say "fuck solar, because neither solar nor coal can bootstrap (irregardless to questions of sustainability), thus solar people are hypocritical" even though the other commenters are clearly stating that both coal AND solar have start up and maintenance costs, and are all potentially harmful to the green person soul. Your only other comment in this line is your response to my comment.
Allow me to quote pixelpusher220, who you take an issue with:
Everything has start up manufacturing/infrastructure costs.
Did pixelpusher220 really ignore this?
And are you sure that your theories regarding bootstrapping are correct? Can you please be more specific about the point at which certain things, like bootstrapping, "cease" in your mind?
This particular comment line hardly references the point at which these things cease to exist. But feel free to elaborate about the scientific processes after this point, as my education is simply limited to the economics of natural resources and energy. Call me stupid, or something.
Government should create money to provide for the General Welfare.
Alternative energy is good for the planet and good for us. If business is too short-sighted to invest in it, then government should create the money to do it.
You have missed the point. Here is your ribbon.
Read a book.
Not to mention the comments of the previous user "chill" were logically sound on every basis....
I hate it when countries make stuff for us for free or below cost. Maybe we should punish them buy sending them some free/discounted stuff. I'm sure that will teach them a lesson they won't soon forget.
While I laughed at your joke, it is generally missing the point in how the Chinese government operates in order to exert undue influence in certain markets, especially via international trade law. It helps when your labour is mostly free, and has few rights. After that, we can start getting into the nitty gritties of the details, but we don't really need to since as the previous commenter alluded to: The Chinese game the international trade system quite well.
In fact, it is often amusing to see how creatively they game our systems, much like it was amusing to see your joke.
That being said ....... #freesolar ........
Now, did you make sure all the maintenance supplies were generated by solar power? Was the metal for the vehicles that transport these supplies smelted with solar produced electricity?
So, you're saying that because you can't bootstrap, you aren't allowed to sustain? Isn't that sort of hypocritical?
What the christ are you even saying here?
It is quite clear in this thread that the above commenters were making the point that all energy sources (solar and coal specifically) create emissions when the infrastructure for both is being built. I don't think anyone in this thread feels either of these processes leads to bootstrapping.
You come in here on your high horse and start trolling solar left, right, and centre all over this thread.
Who's paying you? Knowledge with a capital K?
Where does the carbon come from? The fossil fuels we're burning every day.
You've completely ignored the closed loop premise. That makes effectively the rest of your comment non-sequitur.
Can you please explain to me your version of the "closed loop premise" in regards to energy sustainability? I have been following this thread and I am totally lost as to what your point is.
User pixelpusher220 (529617) actually makes a point and argues it, while you shout out "closed loop" a couple times, then call him out on a non-sequitur that you haven't established.
I second this.
Fine, let him move off the grid... no electricity, no phone, no roads, no tv, no fresh water unless he goes down to the stream, no medical services, no police, no firefighters, no military protections...and if he's doing just as good as he is now with all that, then the Unibomber has found his long lost twin.
Or he could just pay per use. Just treat government, when it actually provides the service (which isn't always the case BTW), just like any private entity.
Should be fun to pay for emergency surgery when you need it.
We don't treat the government as a private entity because it is NOT a private entity. Hence why we have a system of checks, balances, accountability, and transparency. These are not things a private entity HAS to afford its constituents.
I am glad you gave it to this guy good and dropped some F-Bombs. Hopefully, at the bare minimum, people with these ideologies can leave these forums alone.
Cutting government spending is also an investment into future generations.
Uh. No?
Cutting government spending on projects with no present or future value does not imply an investment into future generations. It merely implies a shift in the metrics that compose the current GDP.
With less money controlled by the government and more by private agents it is POSSIBLE that this newly reallocated government spending might be re-invested by the private sector.
Yet with natural resources and energy, we find that when left to human nature and our own devices we experience two major problems: The Tragedy of the Commons and the Race to the Bottom.
This is generally why the government is involved with Solar, as it should be.
The only part that sucks is finding seeders for my torrents.
Ratio ruined.
Is that you way of saying "I'm just going to ignore the fact that Bush refused to ignore an extradition offer from the Taliban?"
You are 100% correct, I did ignore this in my last post. I ignored this because the previous commenter already stated it, and I did not feel the need to repeat him/her/it. However, you clearly feel the need to repeat the same fact over and over again. Unless you can't read (I can, actually) you would know that yes, you are correct: The Taliban did in fact offer extradition for Osama Bin Laden, if NATO handed over information proving that Osama Bin Ladin was directly connected to the 9/11 attacks. However, like the FBI notes, there was no direct link to convict Osama in court for the 9/11 attacks. As everyone knows, admission of guilt does not necessarily lead to a conviction. I have the internet and google search too, you know. At the same time, is it really so hard to believe that Osama (the man who took credit for the attacks) would inevitably end up being the symbol of the war?
Yet I feel like you are pointing to this one fact over and over to ignore what is in front of you. The United Nations Security Council approved NATO military missions against terrorist groups connected to 9/11 with multiple resolutions, starting with UN Security Council Resolution 1368 and moving on from there. This was done such that there was a legal device for NATO to pursue justice against the perpetrators of 9/11 within the sovereign borders of other nations. As we both agree, the Taliban controlled Afghanistan was only offering one of these perpetrating individuals (Osama) as justice for 9/11. Before you state "BUT IT DOES NOT DECLARE WAR AGAINST THE AFGHANS SPECIFICALLY, I already know: It merely allows the pursuit of justice in foreign controlled lands. Furthermore, Self Defense is in fact a part of the UN Charter, and did you honestly expect there to be no lethal ramification for 9/11? Is one Osama justice for 9/11, when we already know it wasn't him? If you love peace that much and are the persoanlity type not to fight back when you are attacked, then we can agree to disagree on all context related to the facts moving forward. Allow me to repeat a point I have made several times in this thread:
An eye for an eye is not analgous to a race to the bottom. An eye for an eye leaves one person with one eye. Furthermore, Al Quada and the Taliban had no ability to take the last metaphorical eye, yet they took the first. Am I supposed to feel sympathy, or am I just a bigot? I love peace as much as the next Canadian, but don't piss in my mouth and expect me to drink.
And regardless, all of this is different than the UNSC approving Operation Enduring Freedom, which they FACTUALLY did not directly do, obviously. "Nation building" is totally different than the initial CIA Drone strikes and 40 JTF2 Personell that were originally dispatched to Afghanistan, in order to take out very specific Al Quada, Taliban, and allied war lord targets. The entire nation of Afghanistan was not attacked. I obviously do not support nation building and wide spread warfare against the Afghanistan people, but I do think it is important for the Afghan people to have their own security force in order to protect their own elections from groups like the Taliban. Training is easy and does not have to cost lives, nor does it imply that there is undue influence by NATO in the Afghanistan election. Those are different issues.
But back to the original question: Why did the UN Security Council approve military missions to respond to 9/11, but not Iraq? Why was the Al Quada and the Taliban regime of Afghanistan the first (and only) two groups added to the sanctions list after UN Security Council Resolution 1373, even when the term "terrorism" wasn't properly defined in the eyes of most? Is it maybe because there were legitimate reasons to do so? Is this maybe
No, that is not capitalism.
Care to elaborate, or was my initial sentence entirely too close to what is listed on Wikipedia? What is your view on Capitalism/Communism? Allow me to quote my statement regarding Capitalism:
In Capitalism each agent within the system maintains private ownership over its belongings, and has the freedom to choose its activities within the system.
Now allow me to quote Wikipedia:
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of capital goods and the means of production, with the creation of goods and services for profit.[1][2] Elements central to capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, and a price system.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
Yeah, sorry for being TOTALLY off base with a sentence that took me less than 5 seconds to write (sarcasm).
But in all fairness to your incorrect statement, perhaps the second part of my original statement was off-base, simply due to semantics. After all, Capitalism does not imply freedom: It merely provides each agent within the system private ownership (as I already stated), and capital accumulation (as per the wiki def).
Now, regarding those semantics: Perfectly competitive markets imply that each agent within said market is free to act as the agent chooses (as there are no market conditions reducing the number of infinite agents, there are no entry and exit barriers, private property is honoured, etc, etc,) it does not imply that an agent CAN engage in the market, nor that the agent WANTS to engage in the market. True Capitalism does not exist without perfectly competitive markets, hence why true Capitalism does not exist (much like pure Communism generally cannot exist on any scale). Obviously there are other theoretical forms of Capitalism like the ones listed on Wikipedia that suggest a movement away from pure Capitalism, much like there are many theoretical forms of Communism.
The closest thing to pure capitalism as a result of it being a scaleable perfectly competitive market is the Internet. Do you consider the internet to be a bad thing? Do you fight against agents on the internet market that attempt to take away your freedoms? Or do you not have any freedoms within the Capitalistic Internet market?
Yes, I understand Capitalism fairly well.
If you understood capitalism fairly well, you would not have stated:
In Capitalism, the means of production belongs to financiers and say what you will and won't do with it.
But realistically, based on your follow up comment, this comment was meant to troll the likes of someone like me in order to engage in some decent online banter. Damn you human nature, and your need to constantly seek competition at every corner!!!!
But allow me to continue to entertain your most recent comment, starting with the second sentence:
Communism, in its truest sense, is the utopia form of society, being very inclusive.
At no point does Communism imply utopia. This would seemingly imply that Communism itself is perfect, which it is not, and this is before getting into your comments regarding human nature below. I can just as easily argue that anarchy is the utopia form of society, but it is not.
It may surprise you to learn that Democracies and Republics, or democratic-republics even, are generally considered to be very inclusive. Even a fascist system can be inclusive.
The biggest problem with it is human nature, which pretty much ensures that it'll be subverted and exploited. It's what we should be working towards as a species (until something better can be formulated, which it probably will at some point).
No the biggest problem with Communism is the fact that not all humans are created equally (regardless of that person's nature), the scale of the system (as you fairly mention below), and the inevitable rise of the ruling class. If all humans were not created equally, why would a system of governance that treats everyone equally seem optimal? Even if every human was concious and educated to the point that we were all aware and practiced enough not to subvert and exploit the system, there will always be disparities in active intelligence and knowledge capital from person to person, as well as genetic mutations not capable of being conscious/educated enough. Anyhow, the system itself needs to be managed, and by default that group of people has more power than everyone else. An amalgamation of a variety of other systems mitigates the government class check/balance problem.
If Communism was truly the best system we have currently formulated, certain Communist communes in places like British Columbia and California would not struggle to provide their inhabitants with basic human rights and security. And much like every instance in history where order rises out anarchy, a system management class will rise out of communism. Likely those that manage the system are the same Darwinian winners you fear from the Capitalist system, below:
Capitalism is confrontational and warlike, and very exclusive.
This is totally not true of the system itself. This is merely a representation of what you think of Capitalist systems. Capitalism is as inclusive as any system as it allows every single agent within the system the freedom to access private property and markets within that agent's scope of information. Governments typically put restrictions on freedoms (as to not infringe on the freedoms of others), and as such perfectly competitive markets are destroyed, and true Capitalism ceases to exist. Much like true Communism can never really exist, because, you know, human beings and all.
It's an evolution of the strongest (not necessarily the optimum) under certain constraints, many of which are part of the system itself. It's quite destructive in many ways, doesn't often hit the optimum strategies for the species wide constraints, but is very much in tune with current human behaviour (we're still a pretty primitive, warlike species).
A better argument would be that Capitalism is an evolution of the smartest, but neither of those arguments would go very far.
There is a big difference between belonings and means of production.
My statement clearly marked the differences between the two. Allow me to repeat, word for word.
First, regarding personal belongings:
In Capitalism each agent within the system maintains private ownership over its belongings.
Second, regarding means of production:
In Capitalism each agent within the system....has the freedom to choose its activities within the system
The first paragraph of the wikipedia entry for capitalism more or less says the exact same thing, in different words.
Regarding the rest of your comment:
Under capitalism, very few people own means of production (factories, businesses, etc.) and those who are concentrated in large corporations.
This may be true of your capitalist system or the industries within your capitalist system that you are familiar with, but this is not implicit within capitalism. Strong legislative governments within a pseudo capitalist system can work to contain privately owned monopolies or oligopolies. In fact, most "western" capitalist countries have many industries where it is illegal to have these types of market structures as to make the people better off. In 2013 in the real world that I live in most large corporations are publicly traded and the common joe has very little barrier to ownership within that joe's means.
And if you think of your computer as a tiny means of production, look how much ownership is slowly being taking away by being locked into platforms and walled gardens. If you have a Chromebook, who owns your data? You or Google?
Uhhhhhhhh. I'm not sure what this has to do with the previous commenter not understanding the basic notions of Communism and Capitalism, and why I had to call that commenter out.
Osama was not the architect of 9/11. Our own government told you that it was Khalid Sheik Mohammed. Bin Ladin expressed surprise (and delight) when the 9/11 attacks happened. Khalid Sheik Mohammed was captured in Pakistan. Afghanistan as a nation did not attack us.
I can agree with many of these statements while considering semantics, and believe them to be mostly factually true - though not with your connotation. That being said, it is very difficult to say Khalid Sheik Mohammed conducted no business under Taliban sovereignty, as he very factually did conduct business in Afghanistan many times across his "Terrorism Career" in order to plot against the USA. Northern Pakistan also kind of shares a border with Afghanistan and people travel between with ease. I'm sure you are aware of the many recent sovereignty problems there.
Also, while the people of Afghanistan may not have chosen the Taliban to speak for them, this was the situation at the time. Thus, the UN approved the NATO military mission within the sovereign borders of Afghanistan. They did not do this for Iraq, and you are clearly confused about the differences between the two wars.
And technically, Osama took credit for the attacks though that does not necessarily imply that he was directly involved.
A small group of terrorists did, and they were taken care of pretty quickly.
I disagree with your assessment of how quickly all those involved were taken care of, and how small the group is. That being said, I consider every member of Al Quada and the Taliban to be complicit in this issue, or for fighting against it in the aftermath.
Those terrorists, in fact, were almost entirely Saudi Arabian, with a few exceptions, none of whom were Afghan (or Iraqi.)
I 100% agree with this and believe it to be factually correct.
The funding for the operation was also traced to Saudi Arabia.
I do not agree with this. Please provide me with your sources, as from what I can tell on Wikipedia via the 9/11 Commission about 500k for this exercise was amalgamated from multiple sources, from multiple countries.
Afghanistan no more attacked us than Carl Panzram's acts in Europe, South America and so forth were acts of the American nation.
WTF ???
This is where we start to seriously diverge. I also enjoy how thus far you have conveniently left out the fact that Mohammed Atef (the organizer of the hijackers themselves) was killed in Kabul by CIA drone strikes after 9/11. In your defense on this point, Atef's connection to the event may have been discovered after he was killed. But he was killed in a marked Al Queda location by CIA Drones. And why at no point have you mentioned the Taliban and their involvement here, and their sovereignty over the nation of Afghanistan?
It really does not matter that Osama "expressed surprise (and delight)" (your words) that America was attacked. He was the leader of Al Queda, and bore the responsibility of his group's actions (feel free to theoretically disagree with me on this point). His group was very much founded in Afghanistan, operated in Afghanistan, and was systematically protected within the Afghanistan borders by the Taliban, the group that operated the Afghanistan government at the time. The Taliban refused to hand over information leading to arrests, nor arrests themselves. It is quite unfortunate that the Afghani people did not vote the Taliban into office, as I would like to think elected officials would have done a better job.
Your analogy Between Al Queda/Taliban and Carl Panzram/USA is really poor. Panzram was a nomadic criminal with no factual allegiance to the operations of any particular government, nor the sovereignty of any nation. The 9/11 attacks were very factually related to Al Queda, which was factually protected by the Taliban, which was factually the sovereign ruler of Afghanistan of
Were the Taliban not harboring many Al Queda operations and people connected to the attack?
Even if true, that is still a law enforcement and diplomatic problem, not an excuse for invading a sovereign country.
I do not see how somebody blowing up your shit is a "law enforcement and diplomatic problem." Seems more like a "somebody just blew up my shit problem, heads are going to roll."
As a peace loving Canadian, I respectfully disagree with your entire sentiment. When somebody comes into your home, kills thousands of people, you go into their home and do the same. One should never initiate such an event, but one should take an eye for an eye. This is not a race to the bottom. An eye for an eye leaves one man with one eye, and I'd rather still be able to see. Neither the Taliban nor Al Queda had the ability to take the last eye, yet they decided to take the first.
The fact is, the US needed someone or something to hit after 9/11and the Taliban were foolish enough to provide them with a target.
Now, if this were true, why have two wars at the same time? Why not just line Cheney's pockets with money in Iraq? Why bother pretending like there was an actual issue in Afghanistan while totally fabricating one in Iraq?
But, yes, you are completely correct: The US needed someone to hit after 9/11. The Taliban were not going to hand over the people we wanted to bring to justice for the 9/11 events, thus the Taliban themselves were brought to justice.
Once again, a justified eye for an eye. Bush is a terrible person that belongs in jail for his Iraq war and other war crimes, but the government doesn't always lie to you. Like I posted to a previous commenter here, start with some Wikipedia before moving on to the next topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks
No more so than Florida, where the hijackers went to flight school.
I feel like this severely understates the relationship between the Taliban and Al Queda, but that you would not like to be convinced to the contrary.
The state of Florida was not complicit on many governmental levels in ensuring those hijackers were trained to fly planes. The buck stops at the licensing centre in Florida, or with the FAA (or whoever deals with that incredibly minor detail within the 9/11 event) in your incredibly imperfect analogy.
The Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laddin if we offered evidence that he was guilty of what we were accusing him of doing. So, Iraq wasn't Bush's first bogus war of choice.
Even the FBI, a group that does not directly connect Bin Ladin to 9/11, connects the hijackers to Al Queda, which Bin Ladin founded and maintained a position of seniority in. I think we can both agree that Bin Ladin's death was a symbol for the masses, and that he intentionally kept his involvement in the scheme to a minimum from the get go. Hence why many other organizers of the event, senior ranking members of Al Queda generally, were taken out as there was hard evidence to do so. Not fake Iraq war evidence, which was all debunked within 1 month. The Taliban (rulers of Afghanistan at the time) were very clearly supporting the activities of Osama and Al Queda (once again, there is hard evidence for this) and Afghanistan is where these groups all started and mostly called home.
I don't know why I am entertaining your fantasies and engaging in your argument, but when I see ignorance as blind as yours I must respond.
Start with a little wikipedia to shed some light on the issue for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks
You don't understand Communism..... [rant aout communism]......
In Capitalism, the means of production belongs to financiers and say what you will and won't do with it.
You don't understand Capitalism. In Capitalism each agent within the system maintains private ownership over its belongings, and has the freedom to choose its activities within the system.
Unlike Communism where nobody owns anything, as everybody owns everything. As an agent within such a system, your mobility and means of production are dictated by everyone else.
The poor IBM employees supporting the ThinkPad line are screwed.
As a general rule, IBM offers no support for ThinkPads (and for all intents and purposes are no longer affiliated in any way with the ThinkPad brand) unless some specific company has decided to purchase Lenovo ThinkPads but would prefer to have them serviced by IBM.
Basically, IBM does not actively sell or service the ThinkPad in any capacity.
Occasionally ThinkPad deals are tossed into large package deals with other IBM products and services, but IBM does not maintain any preference in this respect. IBM will gladly sell you an HP computer as long as you are buying it from IBM.