Except the former Afghan Government supported an individual who slaughtered 3,000 Americans in cold blood and refused to hand him over.
Was there a formal extradition treaty with the former government of Afghanistan? If not, should they be under any legal obligation to oblige?
They ought to consider themselves lucky that Kabul didn't disappear in a blinding flash and a mushroom cloud. That's what can happen when you attack a nuclear armed state.
Do you realize that attitude is precisely why Iran is trying to build a nuclear arsenal? Let's hope the Mullah's develop a more mature outlook than you have.
I hope you were exaggerating about the nuclear attack. I (for one) fail to see how committing crimes against humanity would make your nation any safer.
Your comparing the French Resistance to Nazi Germany to the Taliban insurgency? WTF is wrong with this picture?
Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Whoever wins and writes the history books gets to determine which was which. For a variety of reasons, many people around the world view the Americans as the villains, not the guys wearing the white hats.
Up until recently, you could get a pretty functional PC up here in Canada for around $1000. Back in 1988 it was $2000, and now its probably $600, but the principle (despite the slowly sliding average price) is pretty much the same,
It depends. It seems to me that the PC I want has always been worth ~$4K. The one I want now it about that price. The one I wanted 5 years ago was about $4K. The one I wanted 5 years before that was about $4K, and so on.
Low-end computer systems seem to have gotten less expensive, but the systems I really want to have have always been in the region of $4K.
By saying you'll get 80 cores in 5 years makes people start thinking that they should start using 2 or 4 cores now.
Do we have compilers optimized for this sort of architecture today?
I expect that lots of work has been done so that multiple instances of Oracle-RAC run properly on an E25K, but that seems like a fairly specific scenario. Does Intel have a C compiler that was designed for miiltiple CPU systems? What about GCC?
If all they did was increase clock speeds, we wouldn't need as many major advancements in compiler theory. When you want the whole world to be multi-core, everything changes, unless each process has it's own CPU.
The thing that gets me is that I cannot see an endgame to the Neocon strategy as it is based on a continued fear and principals of isolationism. What are they getting out of the deal by giving away our rights?
Power.
I believe that Hermann Goering is credited with the following statement:
It is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers and pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in every country.
I think the neocons are deliberately using fear to manipulate the American public. The frightened populace are demanding that the government do something to protect them, and this is the result. There is no need to worry though - as long as you are not a terrorist, you have nothing to fear.
Unfortunately, future leaders may not be as trustworthy (?!) as the current bunch. I wonder if the most die-hard Bush supporters would want someone like Hillary Clinton to have access to the same unchecked powers? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander after all...
I think that by the time the PS3's price drops enough to be considered reasonable by the average gamer, it will be far, far too late for it to do well in the marketplace
It depends on what you consider to be "reasonable" and "average". Like lots of/.ers, I could afford a PS3 on day one, assuming I could find one. I'm certain that it will sell out in the beginning due to a combination of actual shortages and fanbois. The question for me, and most other folks is whether it is worth the price Sony is willing to sell it for.
I suspect it won't be worth it at first, but then I haven't seen what it is capable of doing, or what titles are shipping for it. Not many first-gen titles are must-haves though, so I expect to wait. For me, cost will not be the barrier as much as perceived value. What do I get for my money? I imagine that a $600 console will have a longer, and more useful life to me than an equivalently priced PC. But, if there are no really interesting games out there to justify the OTC of the hardware, I will wait until something comes along that does.
It is possible that the PS3 will crash and burn, but I think that is unlikely. They are the biggest name in consoles, and have sold some 200 million PS2s. That kind of brainshare and marketshare does not evaporate overnight. I would hazard a guess that most of those 200 million PS2 users are not/. nerds and are unaware of the rootkit fiasco or any of Sony's other mistakes. I look at it this way: microsoft is the king of corporate ruthlessness and greed, but it hasn't hurt them in the marketplace...
it will be much longer than a year before the PS3 drops down to a reasonable (IE sub-$200) or even only-moderately-expensive (~$300) price range.
If that is your pricepoint, you will be waiting years! Taking inflation into account, the PS3 is pricy, but not radically expensive compared to other console launch prices. If the PS3 offers functionality above and beyond a game console, it might look like a relative bargain at $500. It will all hinge on the games I think. If it has fun and interesting games, it will do fine. If it does not, there's always Nintendo.
Not that this change will really sway anyone here to get a PS3 after all. Holes that deep are not easy to dig out of...
You're kidding, right?
There are lots of/.'ers who will line up to get the first PS3s. When the price drops and availability is no longer an issue, TONS of people here will get one, especially when the big PS3-only titles (Final Fantasy, GTA) roll out the door.
The 360 has had the marketplace to itself for a year and in that time, the PS2 has outsold the 360. I don't think Sony is that worried. Lots of/.'ers bitch about Sony, but they will get their wallet out and score a PS3 eventually.
I hope the Wii lives up to it's billing too. I do not want to pay for the privilege of being an early adopter, but I might take the plunge on a Wii and wait for PS3 prices to fall to something a bit more reasonable.
Remove that lack of liability and you'll start to see problems get fixed very very quickly.
I agree, but what about the impact of EULAs? Current ones absolve the vendor of any and all responsibility. If the laws were changed as per your suggestion, all the software vendors would do is beef up their EULAs a bit more.
The average user does not read EULAs anyhow. They would be none the wiser if they ended up waiving a few more rights the next time they click "OK" to continue with the install.
It seems to me that changing the boilerplate text of the license would be an easy work-around, from the vendor's point of view.
While technically true; It is misleading. The Canadians just foiled a plot to assassinate the Prime Minister of Canada. So while the attack didn't happen, it was attempted.
So we have been told anyways. Why not wait until after the trial and see whether any of the accused (who are presumed innocent until proven guilty) are convicted?
The problem lies in that no one has the stomach for really turning them loose to do just that, and thanks to the speed of modern news networks, no one can get away with Dresdens or Hiroshimas anymore
Well, if you think not having the "guts" to commit war crimes" or crimes against humanity" is a problem, I fear that your own humanity may already be lost.
However, if you are capable of rational thought, you might consider whether committing additional atrocities is more likely to gain you enemies or allies? Machiavelli counselled the Price that it is better for rulers to be feared than it is to be loved, but rulers should avoid becoming the objects of hatred.
Current (and past) US foreign policy has lead to hatred, and you would propose pouring gasoline on a fire that is already burning?
does that give Iran a free pass to pay people to kidnap soldiers or give them missles to launch at innocent civilians? Does that give them a free pass to blow up our marine baracks? Does that give them a free pass to disobey UN resolutions and build a nuclear program while at the same time stating that their goal is to wipe Israel off the map? Does that give them a right to kill their own citizens because they have a disagreement with the government officials? Does that give them a pass on all human rights abuses that they engage in?
No. However, pointing fingers doesn't do any good. Was it right for the US to overthrow the last democratically elected leader in Iran and install a puppet dictator? Was it right for the British to partition up the nations of the middle east to suit their own interests? The British publicly promised that the rights of Palestinians would not be compromised when Israel was created. If we want to go back a few thousand years, there are even more examples of bad behaviour on all sides.
I do not know what the solution is, but childish behaviour like saying "he started it" isn't going to work. Giving the extremists on both sides of the problem more ammunition will drown out the voice of the moderate voices that comprise the majority of the people living in the region.
The difference is that Iran is funding Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations, building nuclear capabilities, and their rhetoric is the most vitriolic.
As some other posters have said, maybe having nuclear weapons would make the Mullahs grow up. India and Pakistan have matured a great deal since they both acquired nuclear weapons, because however much you hate the other side, the prospect of mutually assured destruction is a sobering one. Sure, they preach the virtues of suicide bombing, but you don't see the Mullahs killing themselves off. They encourage others to die, but they are content to live on and enjoy their power.
Why is it OK for some nations to have nuclear weapons, and not okay for others? Isn't that a pretty obvious double standard? Don't throw the non-proliferation treaty at me either. The nuclear powers agreed to eliminate their nuclear arsenals if everyone else agreed not to build them, and the nuclear powers have yet to make good on their word many years later.
No one else in the region is doing all of this,
<cough>saudi arabia<cough>
What difference does it make if they wear uniforms? Hezbollah has killed hundreds of our marines based in Lebanon. They are funded, and continue to be funded by Iran. Do you not consider that an attack? They also started a war with a key ally (through Hezbollah) by kidnapping Israli soldiers. Iran calls the US "the great Satan" and they are defying UN resolutions with regards to nuclear capabilities. Should we wait until they have nuclear weapons or should we promote democracy there now?
Fine - attack Hezbollah, but why attack an entire nation based on the actions of a private militia? It's terribly self-defeating. Most people in Lebanon were not Hezbollah supporters before the war, but they may well be now. Attacking civilian infrastructure to get the bad guys is a strange way of promoting democracy and winning hearts and minds...
We in the West only pay attention to UN resolutions when it suits our purposes. We completely ignore them the rest of the time.
Why do you think that democracy will solve the region's problems anyways? The only places in the middle east that have had even remotely democratic elections are Afghanistan, Iraq, the Palestinian territories, and Lebannon. The first two are suffering through civil wars, Lebannon was just attacked by it's neighbour and the international community refuses to recognize the Palestinian government. Call me cynical, but how is democracy helping to improve anyone's life in the region?
On the assumption that they would be used to defend Iraq against any attackers. But, Saddam used them on his own people and, along with other more brutal methods like plastic shredders, killed upwards of 300,000 of them.
So what? It does not matter who chemical weapons are deployed against, or under what circumstances - it is an act of evil to use such things.
FWIW, Saddam Hussein was an ally at the time these atrocities were committed. Where were the howls of outrage then? Why does it only matter now? It is not like we have only recently learned about what happened to the Kurds.
Seriously, do you REALLY hold the opinion that this was our plan? Or, do you think that maybe there's a possibility that Saddam decided to kill his own people without us telling him to do it?
I do not believe that the Reagan administration asked him to gas the Kurds. However, I do believe that they sold him chemical weapons with the knowledge that those weapons would be deployed against human beings at some point in the not-too-distant future. I also believe that one of the conditions of the sale was that American military observers would be present when the weapons were used to evaluate their effectiveness.
I believe that the chemical weapons attack against the Kurds was a crime against humanity, and the US government was partly responsible for what happened.
Actually, investigations into the dealing of Kofi Annan's son, as well as the French and Russian governments revealed that they and a few other key UN players were the only ones intersted in oil.
The oil-for-food program was overseen by US officials. If the corruption was on as widespread as you suggest, it was done so with the tacit approval of representatives of the US government.
I could provide a link, but then you'd just dismiss it as conservative lies (eg. Fox News). So, just go ahead and google "kojo annan" to see for yourself.
So, what crimes was Kojo Annan ever convicted of? None, as far as I can tell. Given the outright lies that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and Rice have told about the invasion of Iraq, I find it difficult to believe you claim that only the French and Russians were interested in Iraqi oil. Did you do know that the first building the US military secured once they reached Baghdad was the Oil Ministry?
less people have died in the ACTUAL WAR than did under the reign of Saddam and his lunatic sons -- the math alone yields the better situation.
While that is true, it is also true that Saddam Hussein was in power for ~25 years, while the US has only been in power there for about 3.5 years. Naturally the numbers favour the new regime. One difference is that most Iraqi people could walk safely down the street in pre-invasion Iraq. Now, it is in the middle of a civil war and there is anarchy everywhere. Claiming it is less bad does not mean that the current situation is any good.
Under Saddam's rule, there was NO HOPE of any improvement. One of his sons would have succeeded his madness.
Saddam Hussein is a sociopath, but I do not know if he qualifies as bein insane. It is much easier to demonize him by calling him a madman though.
But, under the current situaion, where the UN (yeah, they're there now)
The UN officially left Iraq on August 19, 2003, after their headquarters were bombed. The UN has not returned. Perhaps you are thinking of Afghanistan?
are helping to get a fledgling government installed (not a US-subservient one, mind you) there IS HOPE for the Iraqis.
Do you honestly believe that Bush would permit the Iraqis to install a government what was opposed to US interests?
The two provisional governments they have had are impotent and completely dependant on the US government for s
I think there is a good chance that the Wiki is wrong - particularly as the footnote for Hamas support is a dead link. The Sunnis and Shiites openly hate each other. I think we can both agree that they hate Israel more though.
The difference lies in the fact that Iran is the aggressor here. They have attacked us and our allies first through terrorist organizations.
If you read your history books, it becomes clear that current events are derived from past events. There are multiple causes of the current impasse, and it is more than a little naive to simply claim that Iran started it.
Yes, Iran has done some bad things. It is important to note that we and our allies have also done some very bad things in the region. The Mid-East is remarkable insofar that hate is it's primary export, and not oil as is so commonly thought. We can criticize Iran, but we have done all of the things they have done, and possibly more. The hate in the region has a lot of history behind it, and simple Bush-esque solutions are not going to work.
They have also stated that their goal is to destroy Israel (a key ally in the region).
True, but most of the Arab states in the region openly claim to have the same goal. Even the ones who have made peace with Israel are very unfriendly neighbours. It is strange that we do not criticize the Saudis for having similar views...
When Japan attacked us in WWII did were we hypocrits for fighting back?
When soldiers wearing Iranian military uniforms attack the United States, you will be entirely justified in launching your counter-attack.
You are the one who suggested that we support terrorists in Iran to destabilize the government there, not me. How can you do that and claim the moral high ground against Iran?
I wouldn't be surprized if the US military observed the action. But, if you think they recommended, approved or condoned the action I would vehemently disagree.
Are you suggesting that chemical weapons were sold to Iraq on the assumption that they would never be used period, or that they were only intended to be used against Iran?
The first option is just plain dumb, and the second is quite evil.
What possible purpose would it serve?
Well, if you were interested in how well your chemical weapons actually performed, why not try them out on real people in real-world conditions?
This is the same mentality that still holds to the tired, old argument that we went to Iraq for oil
Of course oil was a primary consideration, of not the most important one. Sheer incompetance and non-existant planning lead Bush et. al. to believe it would be child's play to remove the existing government, and replace it with a subservient one. Reality turned out to be rather different however.
But, if you said, "Do you want the US military forces to leave Iraq at once?" I'm confident that most, overwhelmingly, would answer NO.
Agreed. What do you think the answer would be if they were asked whether they preferred life under the previous regime (which offered security at the cost of freedom) to the anarchy and civil war they are now forced to endure?
The ongoing insurgent force from Al Qaeda makes it apparent that immediate withdrawl would result in an immediate influx of terrorism, an overthrow of the Iraqi government and the installation of another dictatorship -- from the new Al Qaeda leader Abu Hamza al-Muhajer (an Egyptian)
Dude, get your news from somewhere other than Fox. Most of the violence in Iraq today is sectarian. The Sunnis and the Shiites each have militias and death squads, and they are at each other's throats. Yes, there are foreigners involved too, but not to the degree that you seem to want to believe.
According to what I have read, Al Queda is more of a label than an organization. Anything western government consider to be remotely terror related is automatically branded as Al Queda, regardless of whether it is or not. Al Queda is the boogeyman of our times, and once you stop being so afraid of them, you take away most of their power over you.
My admitted conjecture is supported by the fact that the insurgency is not lead by Iraqis (Iraqi people aren't attacking the Iraqi government and US forces.)
Fact? How do you figure that?
The Iraqis are fighting each other, and they are certainly fighting the US military. The Sunnis consider the Shiites worse than infidels, and the Shiites think the same about the Sunnis. Both groups view the members of the US-backed police and security forces as traitors. They view the Americans as heathen invaders, given the military's less than exemplary conduct. The majority of the violence in Iraq is not due to foreign insurgents.
Face it, the Iraqi people were in a miserable sitation before the invasion, and things have only gotten worse. It is too easy to blame phantom Al Queda plots for fouling things up, because that relieves us of our responsibility as the occupying powers.
We in the West have failed in Afghanistan, and we have failed in Iraq. All that is left is to find a convenient exit strategy, because we have neither the stomach nor the resources to stick it out for the next four or five generations.
This is irrelevant to the point I was making. My point was that Iran funded these groups.
It is entirely relevant. You claimed that Iran has funded Hamas, and that simply is not the case. Please get your facts straight.
There's not a significant difference. My point is that if Iran is funding organizations that kill our millitary and other foriegn interests in the region, they have chosen to be the aggressor. We then have the right to defend ourselves.
Would it not be considered hypocracy for us to condemn Iran for supporting terrorists in another country, yet advocate supporting terrorists in Iran to overthrow the government there?
Iran has consistantly supported terrorists including Hezbollah and Hamas,
Dude, you need to get a handle on this. Saudi Arabia support Hamas (Sunni) and Iran supports Hezbollah (Shiite). If you dropped both groups into downtown Baghdad, they would be at each other's throats.
Just because they are both Islamic does not imply that they share the same goals and principles.
We could very easily fund these groups and support their efforts to overthrow the government.
Could you explain the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters?
Say what you will about current US foreign policy, but we go out of our way to minimize civilian casualties and avoid use of excessive force.
Civilian lives are considered so valuable that the US military does not even bother to track their losses...
Israel acted with extreme restraint in the face of continuing Hezbollah attacks launched from Lebanon.
Israel destroyed virtually all of the civilian infrastructure in Lebanon. If you consider that restraint, I would hate to see what you consider extreme.
When terrorist attacks increased, Israel did what any sovereign nation has a right to do - retaliate and disarm.
Retaliate against whom? Disarm whom? I support Israel's unconditional right to exist and to defend itself, but Ohlmert and his generals have screwed up royally. Hezbollah has not been disarmed, and civilians have borne the brunt of the retaliation. Lebanon is in ruins, many civilians have been killed and popular support for Hezbollah is at an all time high. The whole operation has been a complete and utter shambles!
Were civilians killed? Yes. Were Israeli civilians killed by Hezbollah attacks? Yes. The difference is that Israel wasn't targeting those civilians.
Does that mean it is acceptable to do evil, provided that one is less evil than the opposition?
The highest year for Cuba was 87% abortion rate, compared to the highest year for the U.S. which was about 27%.
Perhaps you should try reading a paper before you cite statistics you clearly do not understand?
Let me explain it in simple terms for you: according to the paper you cited, there were approximately 87 abortions performed in Cuba in 1990 for every 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44. The paper does not claim (as you did) that 87% of all pregnancies in Cuba were terminated by abortion.
Feel free to go and verify this for yourself. The Methods section in the second paragraph clearly state how to interpret the data in the table.
Now, next time do a basic google search yourself, OK?
Since you made the claim, you need to provide the source. It would be nice if you actually understood it before you hit the submit button, but this is/. after all...
Slashdot Mirror
Was Osama Bin Laden acting in the name of, or on behalf of the Afghani government at the time?
I thought not...
Was there a formal extradition treaty with the former government of Afghanistan? If not, should they be under any legal obligation to oblige?
Do you realize that attitude is precisely why Iran is trying to build a nuclear arsenal? Let's hope the Mullah's develop a more mature outlook than you have.
I hope you were exaggerating about the nuclear attack. I (for one) fail to see how committing crimes against humanity would make your nation any safer.
Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Whoever wins and writes the history books gets to determine which was which. For a variety of reasons, many people around the world view the Americans as the villains, not the guys wearing the white hats.
Have you ever wondered why?
It depends. It seems to me that the PC I want has always been worth ~$4K. The one I want now it about that price. The one I wanted 5 years ago was about $4K. The one I wanted 5 years before that was about $4K, and so on.
Low-end computer systems seem to have gotten less expensive, but the systems I really want to have have always been in the region of $4K.
Do we have compilers optimized for this sort of architecture today?
I expect that lots of work has been done so that multiple instances of Oracle-RAC run properly on an E25K, but that seems like a fairly specific scenario. Does Intel have a C compiler that was designed for miiltiple CPU systems? What about GCC?
If all they did was increase clock speeds, we wouldn't need as many major advancements in compiler theory. When you want the whole world to be multi-core, everything changes, unless each process has it's own CPU.
Exactly! It's like nobody here has heard of the Napoleonic Code before. Nothing to see here, move along.
Actually, I would say that over-reacting and ignoring probability is pretty damned stupid. For example, did you know that more people were killed by law enforcement officials than terrorists in the US over the past 10 years?
Terror attacks are not the most pressing danger you or I face on a daily basis.
Power.
I believe that Hermann Goering is credited with the following statement:
I think the neocons are deliberately using fear to manipulate the American public. The frightened populace are demanding that the government do something to protect them, and this is the result. There is no need to worry though - as long as you are not a terrorist, you have nothing to fear.
Unfortunately, future leaders may not be as trustworthy (?!) as the current bunch. I wonder if the most die-hard Bush supporters would want someone like Hillary Clinton to have access to the same unchecked powers? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander after all...
Are you suggesting that lab rats are equivalent to non-americans?
It depends on what you consider to be "reasonable" and "average". Like lots of /.ers, I could afford a PS3 on day one, assuming I could find one. I'm certain that it will sell out in the beginning due to a combination of actual shortages and fanbois. The question for me, and most other folks is whether it is worth the price Sony is willing to sell it for.
I suspect it won't be worth it at first, but then I haven't seen what it is capable of doing, or what titles are shipping for it. Not many first-gen titles are must-haves though, so I expect to wait. For me, cost will not be the barrier as much as perceived value. What do I get for my money? I imagine that a $600 console will have a longer, and more useful life to me than an equivalently priced PC. But, if there are no really interesting games out there to justify the OTC of the hardware, I will wait until something comes along that does.
It is possible that the PS3 will crash and burn, but I think that is unlikely. They are the biggest name in consoles, and have sold some 200 million PS2s. That kind of brainshare and marketshare does not evaporate overnight. I would hazard a guess that most of those 200 million PS2 users are not /. nerds and are unaware of the rootkit fiasco or any of Sony's other mistakes. I look at it this way: microsoft is the king of corporate ruthlessness and greed, but it hasn't hurt them in the marketplace...
If that is your pricepoint, you will be waiting years! Taking inflation into account, the PS3 is pricy, but not radically expensive compared to other console launch prices. If the PS3 offers functionality above and beyond a game console, it might look like a relative bargain at $500. It will all hinge on the games I think. If it has fun and interesting games, it will do fine. If it does not, there's always Nintendo.
You're kidding, right?
There are lots of /.'ers who will line up to get the first PS3s. When the price drops and availability is no longer an issue, TONS of people here will get one, especially when the big PS3-only titles (Final Fantasy, GTA) roll out the door.
The 360 has had the marketplace to itself for a year and in that time, the PS2 has outsold the 360. I don't think Sony is that worried. Lots of /.'ers bitch about Sony, but they will get their wallet out and score a PS3 eventually.
I hope the Wii lives up to it's billing too. I do not want to pay for the privilege of being an early adopter, but I might take the plunge on a Wii and wait for PS3 prices to fall to something a bit more reasonable.
As were the Star Wars prequels...
Will Peter Jackson sell out like George Lucas did?
I agree, but what about the impact of EULAs? Current ones absolve the vendor of any and all responsibility. If the laws were changed as per your suggestion, all the software vendors would do is beef up their EULAs a bit more.
The average user does not read EULAs anyhow. They would be none the wiser if they ended up waiving a few more rights the next time they click "OK" to continue with the install.
It seems to me that changing the boilerplate text of the license would be an easy work-around, from the vendor's point of view.
So we have been told anyways. Why not wait until after the trial and see whether any of the accused (who are presumed innocent until proven guilty) are convicted?
Well, if you think not having the "guts" to commit war crimes" or crimes against humanity" is a problem, I fear that your own humanity may already be lost.
However, if you are capable of rational thought, you might consider whether committing additional atrocities is more likely to gain you enemies or allies? Machiavelli counselled the Price that it is better for rulers to be feared than it is to be loved, but rulers should avoid becoming the objects of hatred.
Current (and past) US foreign policy has lead to hatred, and you would propose pouring gasoline on a fire that is already burning?
No. However, pointing fingers doesn't do any good. Was it right for the US to overthrow the last democratically elected leader in Iran and install a puppet dictator? Was it right for the British to partition up the nations of the middle east to suit their own interests? The British publicly promised that the rights of Palestinians would not be compromised when Israel was created. If we want to go back a few thousand years, there are even more examples of bad behaviour on all sides.
I do not know what the solution is, but childish behaviour like saying "he started it" isn't going to work. Giving the extremists on both sides of the problem more ammunition will drown out the voice of the moderate voices that comprise the majority of the people living in the region.
As some other posters have said, maybe having nuclear weapons would make the Mullahs grow up. India and Pakistan have matured a great deal since they both acquired nuclear weapons, because however much you hate the other side, the prospect of mutually assured destruction is a sobering one. Sure, they preach the virtues of suicide bombing, but you don't see the Mullahs killing themselves off. They encourage others to die, but they are content to live on and enjoy their power.
Why is it OK for some nations to have nuclear weapons, and not okay for others? Isn't that a pretty obvious double standard? Don't throw the non-proliferation treaty at me either. The nuclear powers agreed to eliminate their nuclear arsenals if everyone else agreed not to build them, and the nuclear powers have yet to make good on their word many years later.
<cough>saudi arabia<cough>
Fine - attack Hezbollah, but why attack an entire nation based on the actions of a private militia? It's terribly self-defeating. Most people in Lebanon were not Hezbollah supporters before the war, but they may well be now. Attacking civilian infrastructure to get the bad guys is a strange way of promoting democracy and winning hearts and minds...
We in the West only pay attention to UN resolutions when it suits our purposes. We completely ignore them the rest of the time.
Why do you think that democracy will solve the region's problems anyways? The only places in the middle east that have had even remotely democratic elections are Afghanistan, Iraq, the Palestinian territories, and Lebannon. The first two are suffering through civil wars, Lebannon was just attacked by it's neighbour and the international community refuses to recognize the Palestinian government. Call me cynical, but how is democracy helping to improve anyone's life in the region?
So what? It does not matter who chemical weapons are deployed against, or under what circumstances - it is an act of evil to use such things.
FWIW, Saddam Hussein was an ally at the time these atrocities were committed. Where were the howls of outrage then? Why does it only matter now? It is not like we have only recently learned about what happened to the Kurds.
I do not believe that the Reagan administration asked him to gas the Kurds. However, I do believe that they sold him chemical weapons with the knowledge that those weapons would be deployed against human beings at some point in the not-too-distant future. I also believe that one of the conditions of the sale was that American military observers would be present when the weapons were used to evaluate their effectiveness.
I believe that the chemical weapons attack against the Kurds was a crime against humanity, and the US government was partly responsible for what happened.
The oil-for-food program was overseen by US officials. If the corruption was on as widespread as you suggest, it was done so with the tacit approval of representatives of the US government.
So, what crimes was Kojo Annan ever convicted of? None, as far as I can tell. Given the outright lies that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and Rice have told about the invasion of Iraq, I find it difficult to believe you claim that only the French and Russians were interested in Iraqi oil. Did you do know that the first building the US military secured once they reached Baghdad was the Oil Ministry?
While that is true, it is also true that Saddam Hussein was in power for ~25 years, while the US has only been in power there for about 3.5 years. Naturally the numbers favour the new regime. One difference is that most Iraqi people could walk safely down the street in pre-invasion Iraq. Now, it is in the middle of a civil war and there is anarchy everywhere. Claiming it is less bad does not mean that the current situation is any good.
Saddam Hussein is a sociopath, but I do not know if he qualifies as bein insane. It is much easier to demonize him by calling him a madman though.
The UN officially left Iraq on August 19, 2003, after their headquarters were bombed. The UN has not returned. Perhaps you are thinking of Afghanistan?
Do you honestly believe that Bush would permit the Iraqis to install a government what was opposed to US interests?
The two provisional governments they have had are impotent and completely dependant on the US government for s
I think there is a good chance that the Wiki is wrong - particularly as the footnote for Hamas support is a dead link. The Sunnis and Shiites openly hate each other. I think we can both agree that they hate Israel more though.
If you read your history books, it becomes clear that current events are derived from past events. There are multiple causes of the current impasse, and it is more than a little naive to simply claim that Iran started it.
Yes, Iran has done some bad things. It is important to note that we and our allies have also done some very bad things in the region. The Mid-East is remarkable insofar that hate is it's primary export, and not oil as is so commonly thought. We can criticize Iran, but we have done all of the things they have done, and possibly more. The hate in the region has a lot of history behind it, and simple Bush-esque solutions are not going to work.
True, but most of the Arab states in the region openly claim to have the same goal. Even the ones who have made peace with Israel are very unfriendly neighbours. It is strange that we do not criticize the Saudis for having similar views...
When soldiers wearing Iranian military uniforms attack the United States, you will be entirely justified in launching your counter-attack.
You are the one who suggested that we support terrorists in Iran to destabilize the government there, not me. How can you do that and claim the moral high ground against Iran?
Are you suggesting that chemical weapons were sold to Iraq on the assumption that they would never be used period, or that they were only intended to be used against Iran?
The first option is just plain dumb, and the second is quite evil.
Well, if you were interested in how well your chemical weapons actually performed, why not try them out on real people in real-world conditions?
Of course oil was a primary consideration, of not the most important one. Sheer incompetance and non-existant planning lead Bush et. al. to believe it would be child's play to remove the existing government, and replace it with a subservient one. Reality turned out to be rather different however.
Agreed. What do you think the answer would be if they were asked whether they preferred life under the previous regime (which offered security at the cost of freedom) to the anarchy and civil war they are now forced to endure?
Dude, get your news from somewhere other than Fox. Most of the violence in Iraq today is sectarian. The Sunnis and the Shiites each have militias and death squads, and they are at each other's throats. Yes, there are foreigners involved too, but not to the degree that you seem to want to believe.
According to what I have read, Al Queda is more of a label than an organization. Anything western government consider to be remotely terror related is automatically branded as Al Queda, regardless of whether it is or not. Al Queda is the boogeyman of our times, and once you stop being so afraid of them, you take away most of their power over you.
Fact? How do you figure that?
The Iraqis are fighting each other, and they are certainly fighting the US military. The Sunnis consider the Shiites worse than infidels, and the Shiites think the same about the Sunnis. Both groups view the members of the US-backed police and security forces as traitors. They view the Americans as heathen invaders, given the military's less than exemplary conduct. The majority of the violence in Iraq is not due to foreign insurgents.
Face it, the Iraqi people were in a miserable sitation before the invasion, and things have only gotten worse. It is too easy to blame phantom Al Queda plots for fouling things up, because that relieves us of our responsibility as the occupying powers.
We in the West have failed in Afghanistan, and we have failed in Iraq. All that is left is to find a convenient exit strategy, because we have neither the stomach nor the resources to stick it out for the next four or five generations.
It is entirely relevant. You claimed that Iran has funded Hamas, and that simply is not the case. Please get your facts straight.
Would it not be considered hypocracy for us to condemn Iran for supporting terrorists in another country, yet advocate supporting terrorists in Iran to overthrow the government there?
Do as we say, not as we do?
Dude, you need to get a handle on this. Saudi Arabia support Hamas (Sunni) and Iran supports Hezbollah (Shiite). If you dropped both groups into downtown Baghdad, they would be at each other's throats.
Just because they are both Islamic does not imply that they share the same goals and principles.
Could you explain the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters?
How can you possibly know that?
What would you say if I told you that observers from the US military were present when those same chemical weapons were deployed?
That is your opinion. I wonder what the average Iraqi would say?
It is even worse than that. Iran was armed by the US to fight Iraq too.
Civilian lives are considered so valuable that the US military does not even bother to track their losses...
Israel destroyed virtually all of the civilian infrastructure in Lebanon. If you consider that restraint, I would hate to see what you consider extreme.
Retaliate against whom? Disarm whom? I support Israel's unconditional right to exist and to defend itself, but Ohlmert and his generals have screwed up royally. Hezbollah has not been disarmed, and civilians have borne the brunt of the retaliation. Lebanon is in ruins, many civilians have been killed and popular support for Hezbollah is at an all time high. The whole operation has been a complete and utter shambles!
Does that mean it is acceptable to do evil, provided that one is less evil than the opposition?
Propaganda from people with a political axe to grind is worthless. Show me something from a reputable source, if you can.
Perhaps you should try reading a paper before you cite statistics you clearly do not understand?
Let me explain it in simple terms for you: according to the paper you cited, there were approximately 87 abortions performed in Cuba in 1990 for every 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44. The paper does not claim (as you did) that 87% of all pregnancies in Cuba were terminated by abortion.
Feel free to go and verify this for yourself. The Methods section in the second paragraph clearly state how to interpret the data in the table.
Since you made the claim, you need to provide the source. It would be nice if you actually understood it before you hit the submit button, but this is /. after all...