But the US is known for it's evilness and it's desire to kill as many people as possible. It can't possibly be true that they did anything that probably saved countless lives.</sarcasm>
I tried to use version 3, but it sucked the llamas ass sooo badly that I just couldn't stand to use it anymore. I actually started using Windows Media Player for a while, for god's sake!! Windows Media Player!!! That speaks volumes for how bad version 3 was.
After that, I never went back to WinAmp, so I can't speak about version 5.
For a while, I stopped listening to MP3s on my computer altogether (still listened to them in my car though -- thank you Kenwood!). Now I have iTunes running all the time. Thank you Apple -- 'tis a godsend.
I don't like nor need playlists, I just want to play an album the files of which are in this folder, please.
You can do exactly what you want, right in iTunes, without playlists. Use the "Browse" button at the top-right corner.
I've found that the best way to make iTunes organize your music the way you want is to trust iTunes. It took a giant leap of faith for me (having always been a launch-winamp-from-windows-explorer kind of guy). But if you let iTunes handle the music organization, you'll find that it gives you the flexibility to do more than any other method out there.
I've now stopped organizing my music by hand (creating a folder for each artists, and album, and blah blah blah) and just let iTunes keep everything organized. It works much better since it synchronizes folder and file names with changes you make in the ID3 tags (and whatever the tags for AAC files are called). I also (usually) no longer browse my music collection from Windows Explorer, but just browse with iTunes. Even without playlists you'll find it's just as efficient (if not more so) than browsing files directly.
Pay a hundred-million bucks for a company with a killer app and a helluva group of innovative engineers. Now that you own the company, make sure all those engineers know you are in charge by stifling the creative process. Strangle that som'bitch til' it's dead; I mean, until there is virtually NO innovation left. Revoke all of the "Next Big Things" that the engineers create. Casually compel the founder and creative genius to leave the company while you're at it. Persevere until all development -- whether it's creative development, or even just suck-ass development -- has all but ceased.
Voila! You've just shown the world, in textbook fashion, how to flush $100m down the toilet. Not to mention the fumbling of a precious opportunity.
In a simplistic world, this might be a very insightful argument. However, in the real world, people don't like being governed by others who are geographically distant. That is why the USA is called the "United States of America". If geography was of no concern, then we wouldn't need individual states. We could all live in one big happy state, with one big happy government.
People who live in Montana, for example, don't want people in New York City telling them how to live their lives (and for good reason, considering that life in Montana is quite different than life in New York City). Likewise, people in upstate New York may not like having New York City make every decision for the rest of the state. After all, most people in New York City don't get up at 4am to milk cows, feed pigs, or plow fields.
In short, geography does matter, and if there's one thing wrong with the way our government is operating these days, its that government is becoming less localized, and more centralized. More and more decisions that probably ought to be decided locally, are being made at the state or federal level and then new laws and ordinances are being forced upon people who live far away from where the decisions are being made.
No, if that were the case, then many suburban and rural counties would be shown sky high. For example, most suburban counties in northern Utah voted for upwards of 90% for Bush, but they are shown way down low. Most likely, the height correlates to population.
If, after all the votes are counted, Kerry comes out on top in Ohio, then obviously Bush would have to step down. The law is clear in that area.
However, it just ain't gonna happen. It would require a statistical miracle for Kerry to overtake Bush in Ohio. He'd need virtually 100% of the provisional and abstentee votes. Given that 99% of Ohio has already been counted and that it is nearly a 50-50 split, it is highly improbable that somehow those remaining votes would be 100% for Kerry.
So it doesn't really matter that the votes haven't been completely counted. The election can be safely called for Bush at this point (actually it could have been safely called around midnight last night, as Fox and MSNBC pretty much both did). For anyone to hope otherwise is simply pie-in-the-sky.
The results of this election reveal that most Americans still understand the truth about the state of the world today, despite what the mass media would like them to think. If the remainder of the populace (i.e. the Democrats) would stop and think about the reality of the situation, then all of the hysterical reactions to the outcome of this election could come to a stop.
Most Americans see the truth about the "War On Terror": coalition forces gave al-Qaeda the thrashing of their lives in Afghanistan -- and in only about 30 days, not the 10 year protracted USSR-style Afghanistan fiasco that some had predicted. Al-Qaeda still remains severely crippled from this shellacking in 2001.
Most Americans see the truth about the situation in Iraq: coalition forces continue to be overwhelmingly successful and are achieving their objectives at a steady pace, with unprecedentedly low casualties. To have achieved such a high level of success, with casualties in the low 1,000's is simply amazing. The truth is that in 2003 no one, not Republican or Democrat, could have hoped for such a positive outcome.
Most Americans see the truth about the economy at home: unemployment is now lower than it ever was under the Clinton administration. Homeownership is now at an all-time high. The country has now seen a net gain in jobs. The previous recession and loss of jobs began under the Clinton administration, not under the Bush administration. The Bush administration's economic policies successfully reversed the economic slide that the Clinton administration left behind, despite the difficulties imposed by the 9/11 attacks. This too is unprecedted and something for all Americans to be proud of.
I don't understand the media's motivation for attempting to decieve the American population with regard to these three major issues, but it is refreshing to see that the majority of American's are not buying into it.
The Republicans are doing a commendable job steering this country down the right path, and, with the outcome of this election, it is now apparent that most Americans recognize this fact. As soon as Iraq is set completely free and begins to rebuild and prosper, the rest of the world will see just how wrong they were about the Bush Administration.
Probably not. According to the newcingular.com website, the terms of AT&T customers' service contracts are not changing. If they don't change, you don't have an "out" unless Cingular decides to be nice and just give you the option (doubtful).
Of course, if they DO try to change the terms of service in the near future, you'd clearly have a way out.
It's important to note that the case is not even close to finished... The case will proceed and in the end, either side may win.
I have to disagree with that sentiment. From what one of the judges opined:
On remand the first question should be whether Lexmark can show the requisite "primary purpose" to pirate a copyrighted work rather than to ensure that their own cartridges work with Lexmark's printer. If not, its case against SCC should be dismissed.
It sounds to me like the case is over for Lexmark. It is totally implausible that Lexmark will be able to convince any semi-sensible judge (especially one that just got virtually bitch-slapped by a superior court) that SCC's primary purpose was to disseminate pirated copies of Lexmark's copyrighted works, rather than to manufacture compatible printer cartridges.
I don't, because I've talked to too many people who use the GPL simply because they see it as the default license for free software... [ad nauseum]
There's no point in arguing with someone who's going to throw all analytical reasoning out the window because of personal anecdote that doesn't even apply to the subject at hand. You just don't get it. You can keep bringing up examples like this all day long. They have nothing to do with Linus' own views.
That's right. I was responding to the claim that Linux use of the GPL implied that he believed GNU's founding principle. It doesn't.
It doesn't? I'm baffled at how you've come to that conclusion. I think there is a strong implication. No, it isn't proof, but the implication is definitely there. His mere use of GNU's license alone demonstrates at least a minimal level of belief in the principles at the heart of said license. Any reasonable person can see that.
GNU's founding principle is opposition to the incorporation of free software in proprietary systems.
You can spin it that way, and it almost sounds true. Though GNU has had to fight against the incorporation of Free Software in proprietary systems in order to advance the cause, it's not the founding principle. The founding principle is the Free Software itself. The other stuff just helps keep the Free Software free, unlike the BSD license where proprietary versions of Free Software are no longer free.
If the topic is GPL versus BSD, and you say that Linus used the GPL because he believed in "Free Software", then are you saying that the BSD license implies a lack of belief in "Free Software"? ... If you [aren't saying that], then what was the point you were trying to make? Because I'm damned if I can see what it has to do with the subject.
First of all, the topic is not GPL vs. BSD. This was never intended to be a discussion of the merits of the two licenses. That may be the title of the thread, but the topic is, " If there was ONE linux fork that could be under the BSD tree and one under the GPL tree, how does that hurt anything?" See the original post.
Second, no I'm not saying that about the BSD license. The BSD license supports a type of Free Software as well. However, given that Linus chose the GPL there's an implication that he believes in the GNU form of Free Software (i.e. software that stays completely free). I've also provided other pieces of evidence that further support this position, and create an even stronger implication: Linux was initially licensed even more restrictively than the GPL (i.e. "nobody can make money off of this software"); Linus said that he wanted help building Linux (i.e. he needed people to give back their modifications). I've supported my argument with evidence, not just personal anecdote. The only "evidence" I hear from you is that, "I'm okay with using the BSD license, and having my Free Software converted into proprietary software, so Linus must be okay with that idea too." Look, I share some of your views with regard to Free Software. I'm okay with the software that I write being included in proprietary systems; partly because I've taken BSD licensed software and incorporated it into my own proprietary systems and profited as a result. But, this by no means that Linus shares my view. In fact, the evidence seems to indicate quite the opposite.
Third, and finally, my argument directly addressed the original question, and is thus directly related to the subject. The question was asked, "How does converting Linux's license to a BSD license hurt anything?" My argument has been this: It could do so by potentially defeating the original intent of the creator of Linux, by not keeping the Free Software that he created free, but by allowing others to modify his work, profit from it, and never give anything back. I'm sorry if my argument wasn't clear enough, or wasn't detailed enough, or didn't contain sufficient evidence for you to follow.
Buddy, I'm one of the guys who was working on Net/2 and 386BSD at the time, and I still use the BSD license by choice, and I sure as hell believe in Free Software. I believed in Free Software before Stallman wrote the GNU Manifesto. I believed in Free Software back when the only free C compiler was a subset and the Beagle Brothers were the voice of reason in the hobbyist world. I believed in Free Software when Microsoft was a bunch of overcapitalised geeks (would that they'd stayed that small).
There's a lot of, "I" this, and "I" that in your response. This was never a discussion about you. This was a discussion about Linus' motivation for licensing Linux under the GPL. You have you're motivations for choosing to use the BSD license and Linus has his own reasons for choosing to use the GPL. Not that I'm saying I know what Linus' motivations were. I merely offered my opinion based on reasoned observation.
You don't have to believe in GNU's founding principles to believe in Free Software...
Actually you do considering that they are one and the same. Notice that I never said I thought Linus believed in GNU. I said I thought he believed GNU's founding principle. GNU's founding principle is the notion of Free Software. If I'm wrong about this, then please tell me what GNU's founding principle actually is.
You don't have to believe in GNU's founding principles to find the GPL useful. If you stop and think about it you'll see that nothing in your quotes and commentary contradicts that.
You're completely right. I could find the GPL useful for a lot of things: a coaster, toilet paper, or, with lots of lunchmeat, maybe even a good sandwich. None of those uses would signify a belief in Free Software. But if I choose to put the GPL to use as a software license, there's a pretty darn good indication that I made that choice because I believe in Free Software.
Linus has written that if the BSD effort had been ready a year sooner he probably wouldn't have developed Linux.
Sure he wouldn't have started Linux if BSD had been released a year earlier. Why bother creating a Unix-clone when someone else has already done it, and you can freely obtain the source code? But that doesn't mean that he didn't believe in Free Software.
I suspect he chose the GPL because he needed something and it was already worked out and he was smart enough to realise that a working license in the hand beats wasting time trying to be a lawyer.
Actually, at first he didn't release it under the GPL. It wasn't until later that he switched his license to the less restrictive GPL. So, he was doing the lawyer thing himself for a while.
Linus once said, "My reasons for putting Linux out there were pretty selfish. I didn't want the headache of trying to deal with parts of the operating system that I saw as the crap work. I wanted help." The only way he could ensure that he would get the help he was looking for, was to require that contributions made by others had to be free for him to use. The GPL exactly matched those requirements. It's pretty clear that it wasn't just any old license that happened to be ready when he needed one.
So why don't the GPL followers just continue development with the GPL and then the BSD believers could develop on the BSD tree. And we'll get to see which becomes the BEST linux in the end.
Because from the viewpoint of the GPL, any proprietary Linux would automatically be disqualified from being the "BEST" Linux since it would be lacking a crucial component: freedom.
The GNU project (and by extension the GPL) was not started to create the most technologically advanced operating system, it was started to create the most free operating system. Under that criterion, proprietary software automatically sucks ass!
Take a few minutes of your time to read about the history of GNU. Once you understand what the founding principle of the GNU project was (and still is), you'll see why having Linux licensed BSD-style is absolutely out of the question. GNU's and the GPL's sole purpose for existence is to counter proprietary software, and the barriers which proprietary software create.
Granted, Linux isn't actually part of the GNU project, but Linus, I think, chose to license the Linux kernel under the GPL because he believed in GNU's basic founding principles.
To expect Linus and the other contributors to suddenly do a complete 180 and allow Linux to become a proprietary product is absurd.
This might have actually been an interesting development, if the newspaper that ran the editorial had a circulation of at least 100,000. But, unfortunately for Michael, it so happens that we are talking about a paper in Crawford, Texas (population 705). The town paper in question, The Lonestar Iconoclast, has a reported circulation of 425.
In other news, the Po Dunk Junior High Tribune in Dustville, Nebraska has endorsed Donkey Kong for President. According to the editors of the school paper, "We believe that Donkey Kong is the best candidate for president this year. I mean, after all, he's a video game ape. How many other candidates can put that on their resume?" Interestingly, the junior high's recommended candidate for Vice President? Michael, from Slashdot.
If you think the word "fiduciary" applies only to money, financial instruments, property, or other such things you're wrong. It applies to any case in which trust has been placed in a person in a position of responsibility or authority. The readers' trust is placed in the editors to not intentionally misrepresent the truth. As in stating one's own opinions as fact. Maybe you ought to look it up.
No, I never said that. I don't care if the Democrats (I don't know why that suddenly became the press) bash Bush. They have every right to. But if they're going to do it they ought to do it:
a) for a good reason, and;
b) without being hypocritical.
And you still don't seem to understand how to properly use that figure of speech. My suggestion: don't use it until you learn what it means.
The first Gulf War had ended twelve years earlier...
Wrong!
Iraq never came into full compliance with regard to their obligations after the Gulf War. The end of that war was contigent upon Iraq complying with the treaty they signed.
For twelve years Saddam had the opportunity to choose to come into compliance. For twelve years, the US administration chose diplomacy. In truth, the current action in Iraq is really an extension of the Gulf War. It never ended.
Slashdot Mirror
But the US is known for it's evilness and it's desire to kill as many people as possible. It can't possibly be true that they did anything that probably saved countless lives.</sarcasm>
Yes, but now he can no longer claim to hold the record. Now he'll have to spend weeks making a 10 gigapixel image :)
I guess this guy is going to be somewhat disappointed when he hears about this.
In my opinion? Version 2.x.
I tried to use version 3, but it sucked the llamas ass sooo badly that I just couldn't stand to use it anymore. I actually started using Windows Media Player for a while, for god's sake!! Windows Media Player!!! That speaks volumes for how bad version 3 was.
After that, I never went back to WinAmp, so I can't speak about version 5.
For a while, I stopped listening to MP3s on my computer altogether (still listened to them in my car though -- thank you Kenwood!). Now I have iTunes running all the time. Thank you Apple -- 'tis a godsend.
I've found that the best way to make iTunes organize your music the way you want is to trust iTunes. It took a giant leap of faith for me (having always been a launch-winamp-from-windows-explorer kind of guy). But if you let iTunes handle the music organization, you'll find that it gives you the flexibility to do more than any other method out there.
I've now stopped organizing my music by hand (creating a folder for each artists, and album, and blah blah blah) and just let iTunes keep everything organized. It works much better since it synchronizes folder and file names with changes you make in the ID3 tags (and whatever the tags for AAC files are called). I also (usually) no longer browse my music collection from Windows Explorer, but just browse with iTunes. Even without playlists you'll find it's just as efficient (if not more so) than browsing files directly.
Pay a hundred-million bucks for a company with a killer app and a helluva group of innovative engineers. Now that you own the company, make sure all those engineers know you are in charge by stifling the creative process. Strangle that som'bitch til' it's dead; I mean, until there is virtually NO innovation left. Revoke all of the "Next Big Things" that the engineers create. Casually compel the founder and creative genius to leave the company while you're at it. Persevere until all development -- whether it's creative development, or even just suck-ass development -- has all but ceased.
Voila! You've just shown the world, in textbook fashion, how to flush $100m down the toilet. Not to mention the fumbling of a precious opportunity.
People who live in Montana, for example, don't want people in New York City telling them how to live their lives (and for good reason, considering that life in Montana is quite different than life in New York City). Likewise, people in upstate New York may not like having New York City make every decision for the rest of the state. After all, most people in New York City don't get up at 4am to milk cows, feed pigs, or plow fields.
In short, geography does matter, and if there's one thing wrong with the way our government is operating these days, its that government is becoming less localized, and more centralized. More and more decisions that probably ought to be decided locally, are being made at the state or federal level and then new laws and ordinances are being forced upon people who live far away from where the decisions are being made.
No, if that were the case, then many suburban and rural counties would be shown sky high. For example, most suburban counties in northern Utah voted for upwards of 90% for Bush, but they are shown way down low. Most likely, the height correlates to population.
If, after all the votes are counted, Kerry comes out on top in Ohio, then obviously Bush would have to step down. The law is clear in that area.
However, it just ain't gonna happen. It would require a statistical miracle for Kerry to overtake Bush in Ohio. He'd need virtually 100% of the provisional and abstentee votes. Given that 99% of Ohio has already been counted and that it is nearly a 50-50 split, it is highly improbable that somehow those remaining votes would be 100% for Kerry.
So it doesn't really matter that the votes haven't been completely counted. The election can be safely called for Bush at this point (actually it could have been safely called around midnight last night, as Fox and MSNBC pretty much both did). For anyone to hope otherwise is simply pie-in-the-sky.
The results of this election reveal that most Americans still understand the truth about the state of the world today, despite what the mass media would like them to think. If the remainder of the populace (i.e. the Democrats) would stop and think about the reality of the situation, then all of the hysterical reactions to the outcome of this election could come to a stop.
Most Americans see the truth about the "War On Terror": coalition forces gave al-Qaeda the thrashing of their lives in Afghanistan -- and in only about 30 days, not the 10 year protracted USSR-style Afghanistan fiasco that some had predicted. Al-Qaeda still remains severely crippled from this shellacking in 2001.
Most Americans see the truth about the situation in Iraq: coalition forces continue to be overwhelmingly successful and are achieving their objectives at a steady pace, with unprecedentedly low casualties. To have achieved such a high level of success, with casualties in the low 1,000's is simply amazing. The truth is that in 2003 no one, not Republican or Democrat, could have hoped for such a positive outcome.
Most Americans see the truth about the economy at home: unemployment is now lower than it ever was under the Clinton administration. Homeownership is now at an all-time high. The country has now seen a net gain in jobs. The previous recession and loss of jobs began under the Clinton administration, not under the Bush administration. The Bush administration's economic policies successfully reversed the economic slide that the Clinton administration left behind, despite the difficulties imposed by the 9/11 attacks. This too is unprecedted and something for all Americans to be proud of.
I don't understand the media's motivation for attempting to decieve the American population with regard to these three major issues, but it is refreshing to see that the majority of American's are not buying into it.
The Republicans are doing a commendable job steering this country down the right path, and, with the outcome of this election, it is now apparent that most Americans recognize this fact. As soon as Iraq is set completely free and begins to rebuild and prosper, the rest of the world will see just how wrong they were about the Bush Administration.
God bless America!
Probably not. According to the newcingular.com website, the terms of AT&T customers' service contracts are not changing. If they don't change, you don't have an "out" unless Cingular decides to be nice and just give you the option (doubtful).
Of course, if they DO try to change the terms of service in the near future, you'd clearly have a way out.
It sounds to me like the case is over for Lexmark. It is totally implausible that Lexmark will be able to convince any semi-sensible judge (especially one that just got virtually bitch-slapped by a superior court) that SCC's primary purpose was to disseminate pirated copies of Lexmark's copyrighted works, rather than to manufacture compatible printer cartridges.
You can spin it that way, and it almost sounds true. Though GNU has had to fight against the incorporation of Free Software in proprietary systems in order to advance the cause, it's not the founding principle. The founding principle is the Free Software itself. The other stuff just helps keep the Free Software free, unlike the BSD license where proprietary versions of Free Software are no longer free.
First of all, the topic is not GPL vs. BSD. This was never intended to be a discussion of the merits of the two licenses. That may be the title of the thread, but the topic is, " If there was ONE linux fork that could be under the BSD tree and one under the GPL tree, how does that hurt anything?" See the original post.
Second, no I'm not saying that about the BSD license. The BSD license supports a type of Free Software as well. However, given that Linus chose the GPL there's an implication that he believes in the GNU form of Free Software (i.e. software that stays completely free). I've also provided other pieces of evidence that further support this position, and create an even stronger implication: Linux was initially licensed even more restrictively than the GPL (i.e. "nobody can make money off of this software"); Linus said that he wanted help building Linux (i.e. he needed people to give back their modifications). I've supported my argument with evidence, not just personal anecdote. The only "evidence" I hear from you is that, "I'm okay with using the BSD license, and having my Free Software converted into proprietary software, so Linus must be okay with that idea too." Look, I share some of your views with regard to Free Software. I'm okay with the software that I write being included in proprietary systems; partly because I've taken BSD licensed software and incorporated it into my own proprietary systems and profited as a result. But, this by no means that Linus shares my view. In fact, the evidence seems to indicate quite the opposite.
Third, and finally, my argument directly addressed the original question, and is thus directly related to the subject. The question was asked, "How does converting Linux's license to a BSD license hurt anything?" My argument has been this: It could do so by potentially defeating the original intent of the creator of Linux, by not keeping the Free Software that he created free, but by allowing others to modify his work, profit from it, and never give anything back. I'm sorry if my argument wasn't clear enough, or wasn't detailed enough, or didn't contain sufficient evidence for you to follow.
Actually you do considering that they are one and the same. Notice that I never said I thought Linus believed in GNU. I said I thought he believed GNU's founding principle. GNU's founding principle is the notion of Free Software. If I'm wrong about this, then please tell me what GNU's founding principle actually is.
You're completely right. I could find the GPL useful for a lot of things: a coaster, toilet paper, or, with lots of lunchmeat, maybe even a good sandwich. None of those uses would signify a belief in Free Software. But if I choose to put the GPL to use as a software license, there's a pretty darn good indication that I made that choice because I believe in Free Software.
Actually, at first he didn't release it under the GPL. It wasn't until later that he switched his license to the less restrictive GPL. So, he was doing the lawyer thing himself for a while.
Linus once said, "My reasons for putting Linux out there were pretty selfish. I didn't want the headache of trying to deal with parts of the operating system that I saw as the crap work. I wanted help." The only way he could ensure that he would get the help he was looking for, was to require that contributions made by others had to be free for him to use. The GPL exactly matched those requirements. It's pretty clear that it wasn't just any old license that happened to be ready when he needed one.
The GNU project (and by extension the GPL) was not started to create the most technologically advanced operating system, it was started to create the most free operating system. Under that criterion, proprietary software automatically sucks ass!
Take a few minutes of your time to read about the history of GNU. Once you understand what the founding principle of the GNU project was (and still is), you'll see why having Linux licensed BSD-style is absolutely out of the question. GNU's and the GPL's sole purpose for existence is to counter proprietary software, and the barriers which proprietary software create.
Granted, Linux isn't actually part of the GNU project, but Linus, I think, chose to license the Linux kernel under the GPL because he believed in GNU's basic founding principles.
To expect Linus and the other contributors to suddenly do a complete 180 and allow Linux to become a proprietary product is absurd.
If this is free, like the website and the Creative Commons license says it's supposed to be, then why is Handango charging $5.37 to download it?
This might have actually been an interesting development, if the newspaper that ran the editorial had a circulation of at least 100,000. But, unfortunately for Michael, it so happens that we are talking about a paper in Crawford, Texas (population 705). The town paper in question, The Lonestar Iconoclast, has a reported circulation of 425.
In other news, the Po Dunk Junior High Tribune in Dustville, Nebraska has endorsed Donkey Kong for President. According to the editors of the school paper, "We believe that Donkey Kong is the best candidate for president this year. I mean, after all, he's a video game ape. How many other candidates can put that on their resume?" Interestingly, the junior high's recommended candidate for Vice President? Michael, from Slashdot.
And of course you would know what I believe better than myself. Tell Johnny I said, "Hi".
If you think the word "fiduciary" applies only to money, financial instruments, property, or other such things you're wrong. It applies to any case in which trust has been placed in a person in a position of responsibility or authority. The readers' trust is placed in the editors to not intentionally misrepresent the truth. As in stating one's own opinions as fact. Maybe you ought to look it up.
a) for a good reason, and;
b) without being hypocritical.
And you still don't seem to understand how to properly use that figure of speech. My suggestion: don't use it until you learn what it means.
Thanks for the laugh. I can't believe you considered my sarcasm so seriously. Very, very funny.
Iraq never came into full compliance with regard to their obligations after the Gulf War. The end of that war was contigent upon Iraq complying with the treaty they signed.
For twelve years Saddam had the opportunity to choose to come into compliance. For twelve years, the US administration chose diplomacy. In truth, the current action in Iraq is really an extension of the Gulf War. It never ended.