As a mental health professional (PhD in Clinical Psychology), who has worked with dangerous populations
OK, credit where credit is due. However, this does not change the fact that someone was killed. I'm sure there are plenty of examples of people being trained to kill others in certain situations that you do NOT approve of. I can only assume that your argument is based on the assumption that there are lots of people with bombs on airplanes and that therefore there is a need to give carte blanche to air marshals. The only problem with this argument is that planes are not blowing up all the time nor are there lots of thwarted plots.
He was traveling from Medellin, Columbia, a place not well-known for security and cooperation with law-enforcement.
So what? Do all people travelling from there get shot? No, apparently only people acting crazy. So, again, behave on the airplane or you are dead. If you want to detonate a bomb, do it without the antics and you'll be fine.
If he had a bomb, wounding him may have prompted him to try and detonate it.
A bomb small enough to go undetected would not do a lot of damage on the ground. It might have killed the agents, however, depending on how close they were. Even if he had some really evil explosives, more than a few pounds would be very hard to conceal. But there was no bomb. There _could_ be a bomb on lots flights, quick, call the cops! Somebody fucked up big time.
They were people doing their job, in a way consistent with their training, in a manner that would be upheld by the court. Given their limited available information, they took steps to protect the greatest number of people.
And I'm saying the job sucks and the US is the only country I've heard of that has armed guards on commercial flights. It's insane to have firearms on an airplane, you cannot start punching holes in the airplane hull at 10 km. The air marshal program is nothing but a dog-and-pony show to give people a sense of security.
But, there could have been a bomb, and it could have taken out the whole plane in the air without the marshals having time to even blink. Because Mr. Alpizar acted up on the ground he got killed by mistake. Tell me again how these agents were doing their part to make air travel safer?
Most countries do not allow weapons of any kind on aircraft. I have not heard of any case where armed air marshalls have saved lives, only taken lives.
They're not mental health professionals.
They should be, since they apparently are allowed to shoot people for things they say.
They don't have x-ray vision, and they don't have any knowledge about what was in his backpack
That backpack had been x-rayed before it got on the plane.
The only reason I can see that this kind of behavior is tolerated is that a great many in the US are in a state of complete paranoia. I mean, come on, they _killed_ him! They didn't shoot him in the leg to stop him, they shot him dead!
It is unfortunate, but I wouldn't hold that example up as a violation of "due process."
You see no problem with the fact that plain-clothes officers shoot unarmed people to death because they will not follow orders yelled at them? No problem in the fact that these officers are not prosecuted, rather touted as heroes? Too bad for Mr. Alpizar he didn't get a trial, but hey, he had dark skin and said 'bomb', he should have known better, he deserved to die. Right?
If they are approaching this as a criminal matter with intent to prosecute, they have a warrant because the evidence would otherwise be inadmissible. So you can bet your bottom dollar that they have a warrant.
Who needs to prosecute when you have 'anomalies' like Gitmo? Or how about the deranged man who was shot to death last year by an air marshall _after_ leaving the plane, an act which in most countries would be gross man-slaughter if not murder, an act which most politicians in the US championed as proof that the 'system works'. The system works because because an innocent and unarmed man was shot to death by government agents. It would seem to me that your belief that due process will never be side-stepped by the US government is a bit naive.
Also, it's probably very naive for me to post comments like this on an American sever. Maybe I'll be extradited in 15 years for 'spreading subersive propaganda'.
Ah, yes, that old stereotype. Seen much of that have you? Goddamn media misrepresentation. FYI helicopter support is rarely used for such targets.
Some, but also camera footage from gunships blowing people to smithereens. But I admit I am dependent on others accounts in this matter.
Will the type of violence which the insurgency can employ harm the Americans more, or the Iraqi people more.
This is a valid point, but the rebels cannot (I assume) get close to Coallition forces except when they are in areas with many civilians.
Does that same violence have any hope in defeating the US forces.
No, not 'as such'. However, a prolonged occupation and climbing casualities can sway public opinion in Coallition countries and force a withdrawal.
Getting back to iraq, the insurgency has a snowballs chance in hell of defeating the US. That should be quite clear to anyone not completely brainwashed by the anti-American propaganda.
True, if you are speaking of a military defeat. However, if the US was to withdraw a large amount of troops from a turbulent Iraq, most people would see that as defeat.
Meanwhile, the Americans have repeatedly stated quite clearly what their goals are in Iraq, and have stated that once those goals are met, they will depart.
And those goals are what, world peace? Stability in the Middle East? Germany is still has US troops and bases, the war ended in 1945. Ditto for Japan.
How can anyone have any respect for the "insurgency" when compared to such heroic individuals? There's just no comparison.
I don't respect the insurgency, but I also don't respect the "liberators of Iraq" (illegal occupiers) or the "police of Iraq" (a de facto sectarian milita). Iraq is going down the same road as Yugoslavia did and it's time the US & the UK started eating that big serving of international "I told you so" they have waiting.
The alternative is for them not fight at all, since Coalition firepower is completely superior. Interresting that many people see Coalition forces as heroic as they shoot missiles from helicopters at people armed with AK-47s and RPGs, while someone willing to take his own life by blowing himself up to get at the enemy (whoever that may be) is seen as a coward.
Let us, for the sake of argument, say that the occupation of Iraq is categorically wrong. How exactly should Iraqis resist this occupation when conventional tactics againts Coallition forces are sure to fail due to inferior firepower?
Wars are about killing people that want to stop you from doing things that are against their will. Iraq is not liberated, it is occupied and on the brink of civil war. Iraq is doomed and the coalition is going to go home Vietnam-style.
Having big guns means you can beat the shit out of anyone you want, look at the blitzkrieg in 1939-40 in Europe.
Who are you defending? Who lives in the Green Zone? Are you liberating people in China? Are you liberating people in Africa? How about Pakistan, are they going to be liberated?
WWII was modern, and a lot of people got killed. Iraq is a puny little skirmish, that's why body counts are 'low', not because of 'modern warfare'.
Saying that warfare reduces body counts saves lives is pure Orwell. War is Peace.
The reason that terrorist can kill people in Iraq is that the Iraqi army was dismantled. Now all of Iraq is dependent on 140000 U.S. troops, which is maybe a fifth of what is needed.
The U.S. used it's supreme military might to slaughter the Iraqi army, in two different wars, both of which were completely political. Iraq has never been a threat to U.S. sovereignity, but it has been a threat to western (note I didn't say U.S.) control over oil resources. With Iraq occupied and Saudi-Arabia as a lap-dog both China and India are now in a choke-hold, held by the coalition.
This is about using war-machines to kill people who don't have a chance. I'm not talking about terrorists, I'm talking about civillians, rebels (not terrorists) and the regular army (when there was one).
The coalition attacked and occupied a sovereign country against all internation law. The coalition, as occupeirs, is responsible for every violent death in occupied Iraq.
Right, so when I pick a fight at the bar, no-one can win because we both use fists, someone has to have a knife or a gun to beat me. You are talking out of your ass.
Using modern weapons to kill defenseless people is nothing but murder.
But you're not allowed to, it's illegal unless sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council.
A good example of carpet bombing that wasn't used to just push people around was the bombing we performed on Japan.
No, that was forcing your will on Japan. In part, it was retribution for Pearl Harbor, but also a way to stop Japanese expansionism. War would have come with Japan without Pearl Harbor, the U.S. would have deployed it's Pacific fleet to stop the Japanese conquest of south-east Asia, and that's why Japan decided to sink your fleet pre-emptively. It was a gutsy move, but it didn't pay off in the end.
But the bombings of Vietnam, Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq (recently) would be better examples of the U.S. imposing it's will on others through the use of ludicrous force, since they are recent and history has not in these cases (yet) been rewritten.
But they also protect us by moving the fight away from the citizens.
In my opinion, long-range weapons do _not_ protect U.S. citizens, rather, they allow the U.S. to use force without the fear of _immediate_ retalation. As the repeated terrorist and non-terrorist (no civilians targeted, for example U.S.S. Cole) attacks on U.S. interests, both in the U.S. and elsewhere show, retribution can come much later. Perhaps Usama bin Laden wouldn't have attacked the U.S. if he had not lost his mind in the proxy-war in Afghanistan in the 1980s. God help you when the children of the last ten years in Iraq grow up. But then again, Iraq will be occupied for longer than you and I shall live.
Recent U.S. military engagements have been ones of unprovoked aggression (Vietnam, Desert Storm, Kosovo, Somalia, Iraqi Freedom) and I really believe this has to do with the introduction of ever more sophisticated warfare machinery that allows the U.S. casualities to stay low and the enemy casualty to be high. Most would argue that this is a good thing, and for the U.S. forces it is. But if, for example, Iraq would have had nuclear weapons, I'm pretty sure there would not have been an invasion. So weapons can be a deterrent, but, paradoxically, only if they aren't used. If the use of sophisticated, long-range weapons on sovereign states are O.K. by you, then I assume you would have seen a massive nuclear strike on the U.S. from Iraq in March 2003 as expected and as a way to "take the fight to you", from an Iraqi point of view? I mean, you _were_ bombing and invading Iraq.
Chances are you think my point of view is typical Euro-trash pacifist naïveté or just plain-old America-bashing, but Americans have not had their homeland reduced to smoking ruble and then occupied by 'liberators' for 60 years and all the while knowing that the 'liberator's' nuclear weapons are pointed at you.
They are defending our freedom in the sense that they exist and are a very good deterrant.
Isn't that what the National Guard is for? Marines are trained to kill people in other countries, right? B-52 aren't built to carpet-bomb insurgents in American suburbs, are they now?
The US military is designed to make other countries do what the US wants, or else. If that's the new American definition of freedom, then I guess you would be right.
Old like, what, 50 - 60 years? Doesn't sound very axiomatic to me. Before WWII the US was a pathetic nation of imigrants that no-one took seriously.
If other countries tried to fuck the US with sanctions, the US would be on it's knees in a month (or declare nuclear war).
The US is the worlds biggest, richest market for just a little while longer. There are over 2 billion Chinese and Indians that haven't bought cell-phones, SUVs, big screen TVs, etc., yet. Which market do you think looks more promising?
The problems with these types of laws is that you don't always know if what you are downloading off the internet is something that is copyright'd
Exactly. That is why only software made by the media industry will be allowed, because they can guarantee that only stuff that is not freely distributable will be available.
The true enemy of the music/movie/software industry is not piracy, but availibility of free alternatives. This law would kill distribution of free stuff, which is exactly what is intended.
You are also free not to buy any of it.
Right, but you pay when the radio is on in a cab or in a barber shop (at least in some countries). Ditto when you walk into a store and hear music, royalties are being paid. Music is to be everywhere and paid for over and over and over again.
Imagine 15 years down the road when biometrics are everywhere and the algorithm for storing the data on your identitycard gets broken or the database containing the match patterns gets hacked. How are you going to change your 'password'? How, exactly, are you goint to prove are 'you' when the somebody elses ID-card says that they are 'you'?
This is complete hearsay, but I heard some VMS dudes worked on the NT kernel, so they incremented the letters by one, hence WNT, and thus Windows NT (like HAL is an decrement of IBM).
Not a bad thing, but I think actual fraud or clear intent should have to be proven. Opportunity and unproven intent should not be weigh beyond a reasonable doubt.
Just by reading an EULA doesn't mean you agree to it.
Maybe, _maybe_, if you click 'I agree' you are bound to some parts.
Anyway, if they want to be a little island in cyberspace, then fine by me. If they really want to protect their IP they can pull out the ethernet cable from their webserver's NIC.
The only thing I care about is that we put our boot on the throat of the Muslim world and ruthlessly slaughter every Muslim who thinks this way.
Wow. You said muslims instead of terrorists. And people wonder why Muslims are upset by American attitudes against them. You are proposing to kill people solely for their beliefs. In what way do you differ from the people you think should be killed?
About 6 million Jews were exterminated because of ignorant people like yourself who will believe generalizations of whole peoples.
At the University where i work we cut spam to about 10% of former bulk with Evan Harris' greylisting software 'relaydelay' (thanks Evan!). It let's through all legit mail as long as the sending server follows SMTP-standards and allows for a temporary failure.
Some problems with mailinglistsoftware that uses different envelope senders for each mail, but you can whitelist those servers.
Yes, I have found evidence enough to confirm everything said about god in the bible.
Oh, so you have confirmed that God's name is JHVH and that He was a lot better god than the Moabite god Chemosh, which is why the Israelites carried around JHVH in a golden box?
You believe that the Creator of the Universe was carried around in a box by Jews 3000 years ago?
How about a (serious and objective) study proving a link between watching porno and some unhealthy effect on the watcher? Yeah, yeah, yeah, the porno industry is shitty and full of drugs, yadda, yadda, but hey, mining for coal is a lot more dangerous.
Do these puritans think 6+ billion people grew from spores? People have been fucking since the dawn of man. And yes, in the butt too! OMG!! *clutches <INSERT NAME OF PREFERRED HOLY BOOK OF FAIRY-TALES HERE>*
Second, it states that data should be kept only as long as needed for billing and such, unless there is a specific request from the authorities to keep other data (and only data from the date of the request onwards). The text lists valid reasons for retention as investigations and prosecutions, so a lot hangs on the fairness of the legal process.
This is not necessarily a bad thing, the authorities should be allowed to look for evidence in a criminal case. However, they should have to get a warrant to do it.
Encrypt if you are paranoid. Scratch that, always encrypt so it becomes commonplace before some moron calls for its criminalization.
I can understand the idea that things being as thet are, the International Community should support the Coallition of the Willing in creating a free Iraq. It is tempting. It sounds like a very good hearted thing to do.
I hope everybody will refuse. It is apparent that the US cannot be trusted, be that due to willful deceit or astronomic incompetence. The US tried to drag everyone into Iraq while most of the world in vain shouted 'Stop! Don't! It won't be what you want it to be!'. Some gullible countries followed, and most are pulling out because of the absolute catasrophe Iraq turned out to be (duh). This is not 20/20 hindsight, believe you me.
I don't see how the US can gain any support for it's foreign policies under the current administration. War of aggression doesn't sell well in the West, save the US, as many Americans may have noticed.
You can pray and wish for a peaceful Iraq all you want, but I regretfully believe that the bloodshed will only worsen, and when too many troops have been killed, the US will pull out and tyranny, perhaps even civil war, will soon follow.
Perhaps we will remember this discussion in three years when the next presidential campaigns starts. I predict an immediate withdrawal from Iraq will be the campaign promise of the winner in 2008, whomever that may be.
would you not agree now that the people of Iraq are better off because they no longer have to suffer?
The people of Iraq are suffering like never before. Yes, it's true that Saddam Hussein was tyrant and committed atrocities, but daily shellings, suicide bombings and looting did not happen. Iraq was a secular state, ruled with an iron fist. Now it is an annexed warzone with pockets of theocratic rebels just waiting for the US to pull out so that they can become the next Taleban.
This is the true legacy of the US invasion: never-ending occupation or civil war. Considering these options, anyone would choose the former.
Perhaps your, and the current adminstration's, arguments would be more appealing to non-believers of the New World Order if democracy acutally followed American military invention, and not anarchy.
Earlier you made the point that the US should not be influenced by outside nations. Why do you feel that America has the right to influence other nations at will, even with military force? If you feel might is right, then you should say so and not hide behind clichés like 'all is well that ends well'.
but it is important to understand that it was a long held belief by Presidents and administrations before Bush that WMDs existed in Iraq and that Saddam had the intent to develop and use them
Fair enough, I can accept that the administration was actually incompetent enough not to get good intelligence for 10 years and also 'forget' what the UN inspectors kept telling them (that there were no WMDs). But invading a nation that you are sure has stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons with an armor blitz? How absolutely insane would that be? A few nukes could have wiped out the entire American force! I'm no fan of Bush, but I cannot believe he is that asenine.
If nonpreliferation and security in the Middle East actually was an issue, Israel and Saudi Arabia should have been invaded first, in that order. Israel has somewhere around 100 nukes and Saudi Arabia is the homebase for militant Islam.
Obviously, WMDs were not the true motive.
I, for one, find it shocking that anybody would feel that 100 000 dead civilians, and who knows how many Iraqi soldiers, in Iraq is a price worth paying for a foggy promise of future sovereignity, especially since the Iraqis did not ask to be liberated. The armies your military crushed with your gunships, bombers and armor were conscripts, defending their nation from invasion.
How Americans sleep at night is a complete mystery to me.
Slashdot Mirror
As a mental health professional (PhD in Clinical Psychology), who has worked with dangerous populations
OK, credit where credit is due. However, this does not change the fact that someone was killed. I'm sure there are plenty of examples of people being trained to kill others in certain situations that you do NOT approve of. I can only assume that your argument is based on the assumption that there are lots of people with bombs on airplanes and that therefore there is a need to give carte blanche to air marshals. The only problem with this argument is that planes are not blowing up all the time nor are there lots of thwarted plots.
He was traveling from Medellin, Columbia, a place not well-known for security and cooperation with law-enforcement.
So what? Do all people travelling from there get shot? No, apparently only people acting crazy. So, again, behave on the airplane or you are dead. If you want to detonate a bomb, do it without the antics and you'll be fine.
If he had a bomb, wounding him may have prompted him to try and detonate it.
A bomb small enough to go undetected would not do a lot of damage on the ground. It might have killed the agents, however, depending on how close they were. Even if he had some really evil explosives, more than a few pounds would be very hard to conceal. But there was no bomb. There _could_ be a bomb on lots flights, quick, call the cops! Somebody fucked up big time.
They were people doing their job, in a way consistent with their training, in a manner that would be upheld by the court. Given their limited available information, they took steps to protect the greatest number of people.
And I'm saying the job sucks and the US is the only country I've heard of that has armed guards on commercial flights. It's insane to have firearms on an airplane, you cannot start punching holes in the airplane hull at 10 km. The air marshal program is nothing but a dog-and-pony show to give people a sense of security.
But, there could have been a bomb, and it could have taken out the whole plane in the air without the marshals having time to even blink. Because Mr. Alpizar acted up on the ground he got killed by mistake. Tell me again how these agents were doing their part to make air travel safer?
Most countries do not allow weapons of any kind on aircraft. I have not heard of any case where armed air marshalls have saved lives, only taken lives.
They're not mental health professionals.
They should be, since they apparently are allowed to shoot people for things they say.
They don't have x-ray vision, and they don't have any knowledge about what was in his backpack
That backpack had been x-rayed before it got on the plane.
The only reason I can see that this kind of behavior is tolerated is that a great many in the US are in a state of complete paranoia. I mean, come on, they _killed_ him! They didn't shoot him in the leg to stop him, they shot him dead!
It is unfortunate, but I wouldn't hold that example up as a violation of "due process."
You see no problem with the fact that plain-clothes officers shoot unarmed people to death because they will not follow orders yelled at them? No problem in the fact that these officers are not prosecuted, rather touted as heroes? Too bad for Mr. Alpizar he didn't get a trial, but hey, he had dark skin and said 'bomb', he should have known better, he deserved to die. Right?
If they are approaching this as a criminal matter with intent to prosecute, they have a warrant because the evidence would otherwise be inadmissible. So you can bet your bottom dollar that they have a warrant.
Who needs to prosecute when you have 'anomalies' like Gitmo? Or how about the deranged man who was shot to death last year by an air marshall _after_ leaving the plane, an act which in most countries would be gross man-slaughter if not murder, an act which most politicians in the US championed as proof that the 'system works'. The system works because because an innocent and unarmed man was shot to death by government agents. It would seem to me that your belief that due process will never be side-stepped by the US government is a bit naive.
Also, it's probably very naive for me to post comments like this on an American sever. Maybe I'll be extradited in 15 years for 'spreading subersive propaganda'.
Ah, yes, that old stereotype. Seen much of that have you? Goddamn media misrepresentation. FYI helicopter support is rarely used for such targets.
Some, but also camera footage from gunships blowing people to smithereens. But I admit I am dependent on others accounts in this matter.
Will the type of violence which the insurgency can employ harm the Americans more, or the Iraqi people more.
This is a valid point, but the rebels cannot (I assume) get close to Coallition forces except when they are in areas with many civilians.
Does that same violence have any hope in defeating the US forces.
No, not 'as such'. However, a prolonged occupation and climbing casualities can sway public opinion in Coallition countries and force a withdrawal.
Getting back to iraq, the insurgency has a snowballs chance in hell of defeating the US. That should be quite clear to anyone not completely brainwashed by the anti-American propaganda.
True, if you are speaking of a military defeat. However, if the US was to withdraw a large amount of troops from a turbulent Iraq, most people would see that as defeat.
Meanwhile, the Americans have repeatedly stated quite clearly what their goals are in Iraq, and have stated that once those goals are met, they will depart.
And those goals are what, world peace? Stability in the Middle East? Germany is still has US troops and bases, the war ended in 1945. Ditto for Japan.
How can anyone have any respect for the "insurgency" when compared to such heroic individuals? There's just no comparison.
I don't respect the insurgency, but I also don't respect the "liberators of Iraq" (illegal occupiers) or the "police of Iraq" (a de facto sectarian milita). Iraq is going down the same road as Yugoslavia did and it's time the US & the UK started eating that big serving of international "I told you so" they have waiting.
The alternative is for them not fight at all, since Coalition firepower is completely superior. Interresting that many people see Coalition forces as heroic as they shoot missiles from helicopters at people armed with AK-47s and RPGs, while someone willing to take his own life by blowing himself up to get at the enemy (whoever that may be) is seen as a coward.
Let us, for the sake of argument, say that the occupation of Iraq is categorically wrong. How exactly should Iraqis resist this occupation when conventional tactics againts Coallition forces are sure to fail due to inferior firepower?
Don't talk to me like you know me.
Wars are about killing people that want to stop you from doing things that are against their will. Iraq is not liberated, it is occupied and on the brink of civil war. Iraq is doomed and the coalition is going to go home Vietnam-style.
Having big guns means you can beat the shit out of anyone you want, look at the blitzkrieg in 1939-40 in Europe.
Who are you defending? Who lives in the Green Zone? Are you liberating people in China? Are you liberating people in Africa? How about Pakistan, are they going to be liberated?
WWII was modern, and a lot of people got killed. Iraq is a puny little skirmish, that's why body counts are 'low', not because of 'modern warfare'.
Saying that warfare reduces body counts saves lives is pure Orwell. War is Peace.
The reason that terrorist can kill people in Iraq is that the Iraqi army was dismantled. Now all of Iraq is dependent on 140000 U.S. troops, which is maybe a fifth of what is needed.
The U.S. used it's supreme military might to slaughter the Iraqi army, in two different wars, both of which were completely political. Iraq has never been a threat to U.S. sovereignity, but it has been a threat to western (note I didn't say U.S.) control over oil resources. With Iraq occupied and Saudi-Arabia as a lap-dog both China and India are now in a choke-hold, held by the coalition.
This is about using war-machines to kill people who don't have a chance. I'm not talking about terrorists, I'm talking about civillians, rebels (not terrorists) and the regular army (when there was one).
The coalition attacked and occupied a sovereign country against all internation law. The coalition, as occupeirs, is responsible for every violent death in occupied Iraq.
Right, so when I pick a fight at the bar, no-one can win because we both use fists, someone has to have a knife or a gun to beat me. You are talking out of your ass.
Using modern weapons to kill defenseless people is nothing but murder.
We can take the fight to you.
But you're not allowed to, it's illegal unless sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council.
A good example of carpet bombing that wasn't used to just push people around was the bombing we performed on Japan.
No, that was forcing your will on Japan. In part, it was retribution for Pearl Harbor, but also a way to stop Japanese expansionism. War would have come with Japan without Pearl Harbor, the U.S. would have deployed it's Pacific fleet to stop the Japanese conquest of south-east Asia, and that's why Japan decided to sink your fleet pre-emptively. It was a gutsy move, but it didn't pay off in the end.
But the bombings of Vietnam, Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq (recently) would be better examples of the U.S. imposing it's will on others through the use of ludicrous force, since they are recent and history has not in these cases (yet) been rewritten.
But they also protect us by moving the fight away from the citizens.
In my opinion, long-range weapons do _not_ protect U.S. citizens, rather, they allow the U.S. to use force without the fear of _immediate_ retalation. As the repeated terrorist and non-terrorist (no civilians targeted, for example U.S.S. Cole) attacks on U.S. interests, both in the U.S. and elsewhere show, retribution can come much later. Perhaps Usama bin Laden wouldn't have attacked the U.S. if he had not lost his mind in the proxy-war in Afghanistan in the 1980s. God help you when the children of the last ten years in Iraq grow up. But then again, Iraq will be occupied for longer than you and I shall live.
Recent U.S. military engagements have been ones of unprovoked aggression (Vietnam, Desert Storm, Kosovo, Somalia, Iraqi Freedom) and I really believe this has to do with the introduction of ever more sophisticated warfare machinery that allows the U.S. casualities to stay low and the enemy casualty to be high. Most would argue that this is a good thing, and for the U.S. forces it is. But if, for example, Iraq would have had nuclear weapons, I'm pretty sure there would not have been an invasion. So weapons can be a deterrent, but, paradoxically, only if they aren't used. If the use of sophisticated, long-range weapons on sovereign states are O.K. by you, then I assume you would have seen a massive nuclear strike on the U.S. from Iraq in March 2003 as expected and as a way to "take the fight to you", from an Iraqi point of view? I mean, you _were_ bombing and invading Iraq.
Chances are you think my point of view is typical Euro-trash pacifist naïveté or just plain-old America-bashing, but Americans have not had their homeland reduced to smoking ruble and then occupied by 'liberators' for 60 years and all the while knowing that the 'liberator's' nuclear weapons are pointed at you.
They are defending our freedom in the sense that they exist and are a very good deterrant.
Isn't that what the National Guard is for? Marines are trained to kill people in other countries, right? B-52 aren't built to carpet-bomb insurgents in American suburbs, are they now?
The US military is designed to make other countries do what the US wants, or else. If that's the new American definition of freedom, then I guess you would be right.
Old like, what, 50 - 60 years? Doesn't sound very axiomatic to me. Before WWII the US was a pathetic nation of imigrants that no-one took seriously.
If other countries tried to fuck the US with sanctions, the US would be on it's knees in a month (or declare nuclear war).
The US is the worlds biggest, richest market for just a little while longer. There are over 2 billion Chinese and Indians that haven't bought cell-phones, SUVs, big screen TVs, etc., yet. Which market do you think looks more promising?
The problems with these types of laws is that you don't always know if what you are downloading off the internet is something that is copyright'd
Exactly. That is why only software made by the media industry will be allowed, because they can guarantee that only stuff that is not freely distributable will be available.
The true enemy of the music/movie/software industry is not piracy, but availibility of free alternatives. This law would kill distribution of free stuff, which is exactly what is intended.
You are also free not to buy any of it.
Right, but you pay when the radio is on in a cab or in a barber shop (at least in some countries). Ditto when you walk into a store and hear music, royalties are being paid. Music is to be everywhere and paid for over and over and over again.
Biometrics are a great idea...
Why? Because they are convenient?
Imagine 15 years down the road when biometrics are everywhere and the algorithm for storing the data on your identitycard gets broken or the database containing the match patterns gets hacked. How are you going to change your 'password'? How, exactly, are you goint to prove are 'you' when the somebody elses ID-card says that they are 'you'?
This is complete hearsay, but I heard some VMS dudes worked on the NT kernel, so they incremented the letters by one, hence WNT, and thus Windows NT (like HAL is an decrement of IBM).
Like I said, hearsay.
Not a bad thing, but I think actual fraud or clear intent should have to be proven. Opportunity and unproven intent should not be weigh beyond a reasonable doubt.
Just by reading an EULA doesn't mean you agree to it.
Maybe, _maybe_, if you click 'I agree' you are bound to some parts.
Anyway, if they want to be a little island in cyberspace, then fine by me. If they really want to protect their IP they can pull out the ethernet cable from their webserver's NIC.
The only thing I care about is that we put our boot on the throat of the Muslim world and ruthlessly slaughter every Muslim who thinks this way.
Wow. You said muslims instead of terrorists. And people wonder why Muslims are upset by American attitudes against them. You are proposing to kill people solely for their beliefs. In what way do you differ from the people you think should be killed?
About 6 million Jews were exterminated because of ignorant people like yourself who will believe generalizations of whole peoples.
touché. Shuld should have been should, too. I was in a hurry.
They shuld greylist instead, that way at least SOME legit mail would get through.
http://projects.puremagic.com/greylisting/
At the University where i work we cut spam to about 10% of former bulk with Evan Harris' greylisting software 'relaydelay' (thanks Evan!). It let's through all legit mail as long as the sending server follows SMTP-standards and allows for a temporary failure.
Some problems with mailinglistsoftware that uses different envelope senders for each mail, but you can whitelist those servers.
Yes, I have found evidence enough to confirm everything said about god in the bible.
Oh, so you have confirmed that God's name is JHVH and that He was a lot better god than the Moabite god Chemosh, which is why the Israelites carried around JHVH in a golden box?
You believe that the Creator of the Universe was carried around in a box by Jews 3000 years ago?
How about a (serious and objective) study proving a link between watching porno and some unhealthy effect on the watcher? Yeah, yeah, yeah, the porno industry is shitty and full of drugs, yadda, yadda, but hey, mining for coal is a lot more dangerous.
Do these puritans think 6+ billion people grew from spores? People have been fucking since the dawn of man. And yes, in the butt too! OMG!! *clutches <INSERT NAME OF PREFERRED HOLY BOOK OF FAIRY-TALES HERE>*
First, this is an invitation to discussion.
Second, it states that data should be kept only as long as needed for billing and such, unless there is a specific request from the authorities to keep other data (and only data from the date of the request onwards). The text lists valid reasons for retention as investigations and prosecutions, so a lot hangs on the fairness of the legal process.
This is not necessarily a bad thing, the authorities should be allowed to look for evidence in a criminal case. However, they should have to get a warrant to do it.
Encrypt if you are paranoid. Scratch that, always encrypt so it becomes commonplace before some moron calls for its criminalization.
I can understand the idea that things being as thet are, the International Community should support the Coallition of the Willing in creating a free Iraq. It is tempting. It sounds like a very good hearted thing to do.
I hope everybody will refuse. It is apparent that the US cannot be trusted, be that due to willful deceit or astronomic incompetence. The US tried to drag everyone into Iraq while most of the world in vain shouted 'Stop! Don't! It won't be what you want it to be!'. Some gullible countries followed, and most are pulling out because of the absolute catasrophe Iraq turned out to be (duh). This is not 20/20 hindsight, believe you me.
I don't see how the US can gain any support for it's foreign policies under the current administration. War of aggression doesn't sell well in the West, save the US, as many Americans may have noticed.
You can pray and wish for a peaceful Iraq all you want, but I regretfully believe that the bloodshed will only worsen, and when too many troops have been killed, the US will pull out and tyranny, perhaps even civil war, will soon follow.
Perhaps we will remember this discussion in three years when the next presidential campaigns starts. I predict an immediate withdrawal from Iraq will be the campaign promise of the winner in 2008, whomever that may be.
would you not agree now that the people of Iraq are better off because they no longer have to suffer?
The people of Iraq are suffering like never before. Yes, it's true that Saddam Hussein was tyrant and committed atrocities, but daily shellings, suicide bombings and looting did not happen. Iraq was a secular state, ruled with an iron fist. Now it is an annexed warzone with pockets of theocratic rebels just waiting for the US to pull out so that they can become the next Taleban.
This is the true legacy of the US invasion: never-ending occupation or civil war. Considering these options, anyone would choose the former.
Perhaps your, and the current adminstration's, arguments would be more appealing to non-believers of the New World Order if democracy acutally followed American military invention, and not anarchy.
Earlier you made the point that the US should not be influenced by outside nations. Why do you feel that America has the right to influence other nations at will, even with military force? If you feel might is right, then you should say so and not hide behind clichés like 'all is well that ends well'.
but it is important to understand that it was a long held belief by Presidents and administrations before Bush that WMDs existed in Iraq and that Saddam had the intent to develop and use them
Fair enough, I can accept that the administration was actually incompetent enough not to get good intelligence for 10 years and also 'forget' what the UN inspectors kept telling them (that there were no WMDs). But invading a nation that you are sure has stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons with an armor blitz? How absolutely insane would that be? A few nukes could have wiped out the entire American force! I'm no fan of Bush, but I cannot believe he is that asenine.
If nonpreliferation and security in the Middle East actually was an issue, Israel and Saudi Arabia should have been invaded first, in that order. Israel has somewhere around 100 nukes and Saudi Arabia is the homebase for militant Islam.
Obviously, WMDs were not the true motive.
I, for one, find it shocking that anybody would feel that 100 000 dead civilians, and who knows how many Iraqi soldiers, in Iraq is a price worth paying for a foggy promise of future sovereignity, especially since the Iraqis did not ask to be liberated. The armies your military crushed with your gunships, bombers and armor were conscripts, defending their nation from invasion.
How Americans sleep at night is a complete mystery to me.