What you're describing sounds more like MacOS X than Windows. Unzipping AppName.zip in to a new directory in "Program Files"? What Windows applications do you use? The majority I've dealt with seem to be packaged with installers who also touch the registry if not various other places.
Granted - there are plenty of little apps that can be "installed" in the manner you've described. But then, you CAN do the same thing with *nix applications too if you really want to (not that OSX is doing anything THAT special). I do on occasion. And some of the proprietary commercial games I've bought for Linux do, too (as well as various one-off builds of Firefox, SUN JRE, etc.).
I'm sure the real problem is that they're trying to integrate it with windows so that windows won't work if you delete it...
You do realize that Microsoft is only adding to their base OS what people want. People wanted an advanced web browser. And people want advanced image editing. Apparently, nobody wants Word.
Yeah - it does assume that competing political parties (and I make that plural in acknowledgment of the theory that a 3rd party has a chance) are able to put forward a candidate that can beat the incumbent. No such luck.
dumbed down interface, no built-in composer. Fewer options in the preferences menu.
Interesting. I equate AOL with "everything and the kitchen sink that we're marketing". I would have picked the Mozilla suite as the "AOL of browsers" - or at least one step away from it just behind the Netscape packaging.
For me, the Mozilla suite is exactly what I don't want. When I installed Netscape and then Mozilla, I usually went with the stand-alone browser if given the option. I like how Firefox is there for what I need it for - a browser. And if I want additional functionality, there's Thunderbird and the associated other projects.
I also find it interesting that you tag Firefox as being "more shiney-plastic interface croft" when I haven't really noticed it being any more "skinnable" than Mozilla is. What really gets a lot of attention for Firefox is its extensions - but then, many of those are also available for Mozilla too.
It implies they have more motivation to market, to exaggerate their features, to astroturf even.
It's always prudent to be aware of bias - especially if that bias leads to exaggeration and general untruths. But just because money becomes involved, doesn't mean it has manifested such bias. Also keep in mind that bias can and does exist for reasons other than money. Feel free to speak up when you notice anything that rings false.
And I wonder if they are - they appear to have an unreasonable amount of support on sites like this for how good their browser actually is.
Keep in mind that Firefox is the latest chapter in a story that Slashdot (and other such sites and individuals) have been following for years. It is one of the better-known Open Source stories - more recognized by the general public than BSD, Apache, or even Linux. That alone guarantees some attention. Add that its multi-platform. And that its not too shabby a browser. Little wonder there's so much interest and support.
We're just starting to hear about real Windows based rootkits in the wild, and a front page Slashdot article gives everyone and their mother an exploit route that is both nasty, nearly impossible to protect against, and hasn't been seen in the wild.
If you're just NOW hearing about "real" Windows rootkits you haven't been listening hard enough. And just because someone has began the discussion of a novel way of hiding a rootkit, doesn't mean implementing the concept is trivial.
I could go on, but I think you see the point by now. Militarism is a poor way to defend freedom and individual rights.
Wow. What an amazingly ignorant observation.
You started out so well. You're right - US Military members give up a considerable number of rights that US citizens enjoy. And there is certainly some irony in that. Good points.
However, you seem to be under the delusion that a functional military is the same as any given civilian organization. Or perhapse you're hinting that there should be no military. In any case, your observations about military life has little to do with how an effective military works and even less to do with the justification (or not) of a military force.
It's funny that Apple fanboys are so obsessed with Microsoft that they can't resist steering a thread about a negative Apple article into an attempt to bash Microsoft.
It's even more fun when the Apple fanboys get under the skin of the Microsoft fanboys. Insecure, indeed.
The Justice Department submitted a declaration by Philip B. Stark, a researcher who rejected the privacy concerns, noting that the government specifically requested that Google remove any identifying information from the search requests.
"The study does not involve examining the queries in more than a cursory way. It involves running a random sample of the queries through the Google search engine and categorizing the results," Stark, a statistics professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said.
So... exactly what information is these representatives of the US Government after? The fact that people search for porn? If they remove any identification of who, and thus what, the person is... what's going to tell them that any given search conducted by a wide-eyed innocent (queue Bush jokes) vs. a consenting adult?
Great. I'll be ineffectually vigilant. You'll be ineffectually ranting about conspiracies. Most of the US will be entertained watching stories about conspiracies. I think we're all set now. Thanks for setting things straight.
I find it surprising just how far off reality the intelligence community can be. I am not sure why this is. So much money is spent, yet the best answers they can come up with are still so often just plain wrong.
Intelligence isn't an exact science. And it is difficult. And it can be exceptionally difficult in some environments.
I am sure it is very difficult to do, but given the amount of resources thrown into these efforts, it is surprising we don't see better results. Even with the recent Iraq war it really does look like the intelligence was bungled, and, even worse, people who pointed out that the intelligence was bungled were ignored. Perhaps they should outsource their whole intelligence operation.
One of the more disturbing trends in this administration is squelching dissenting opinion. The danger in this is creating an environment that is far too prone to tunnel vision. Intelligence involves a lot of interpretation and, in various degrees, extrapolation. Analysts are people who make best guesses - and can be wrong. Without dissenting opinion, it is very easy to convince yourself that your interpretation is completely accurate... especially if everyone else agrees.
Ever watch the movie War Games? In the movie, agents are convinced that the hacking anti-hero is a foreign agent and act accordingly. The reality is that he's a curious kid. The interesting thing is that I have witnesses echoes of this theme for the past 10 years. Officials I've worked with can become very convinced of the nature of behavior they see and I've often been that dissenting opinion that points out other factors that indicate different motives (the fact that this is changing in recent years is a different conversation all together).
They want to cover up what was done and said historically in order look better now. I wonder if the handshake between President Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfield will be reclassified, or, how long it will take for someone to dig up a photograph of him hugging bin Laden.
I'm quite amused that this image is given so much importance. Sure - Saddam was an ally at one point; a big friend of the US. Heck - he was even given the key of the city of Detroit. But things change. Why someone would be shocked by this is beyond me.
For as long as Governments.... are given cart-blanche to declare their own secrets, they will forever be out of control.
America: your country has been usurped by your CIA and its masters. The American Public no longer control that agency.
You're right! It is high time for reform of the process of classifying state secrets. It is time for the American people to decide on what should be a secret and what shouldn't be!
The start of our ambitious program should be to publish everything currently considered classified. With those publications will come forms. US citizens will be able to review the potential secret and then vote for the classification they think it should get.
Now, I realize critics will already be claiming this makes senstive information available to foreign interests, etc. But we've already covered that. All publications will prominently display the warning "FOR REVIEW BY US CITIZENS ONLY."
The happenstance theory does not square with the record. US forces encircled a Falluja, for instance, kept all males of certain ages inside the city, blocked food, water, electricity, and medical supplies, and shelled it with lithium bombs. 36,000 homes were destroyed. These actions are beyond legal and ethical boundaries--even during war.
If you believe by that point Falluja was still prominently civilians and therefore all those males were civillian, then you have a point. However, Falluja was also a heavily armed city ran by insurgents. I'm not so sure what you describe is all that remarkable given the situation. If commanders were really indifferent, I would expect the whole city to have been entirely demolished - the US certainly had the capability to do so.
Maybe I'm missing something. Obviously you have some material in mind while posting this. Do you have links?
The answer to the first question is again clearly yes. In their benefit/cost calculus on such weapons, it is clear indifference to civilian life that warrants such behaviour.
You're being pretty harsh. It doesn't have to be indifference. A commander is faced with a hard decision. And when given the choice between silencing attackers or letting his people die, you are obviously quite correct that there will be times when they accept the likelihood of civilian deaths. It doesn't mean that commander is, in fact, indifferent to it.
Unless they make nukes, invasion is a done deal. The Middle East holds the last of the cheap oil. If all the cheap oil magically moved to Wisconsin overnight there would be no war, but as it stands, the US (and the West) require a reliable source of oil that is not threatened by regional wanna-bes like Saddam Hussein, ideologies like Muslum fundamentalism, or sabre rattlers like Iranian what's his face. The price of oil is very elastic. Risky oil is expensive oil. Expensive oil means trade deficits and lessening the economic wellbeing the US and the West. That is what drives policy.
I entirely agree with your observations on oil. If it weren't so important to the world economy (and thus the US economy), few would have any interest what the people of that region do to each other. It would be another Africa.
Sure, Iran has oil. But so does Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. Do you really propose that Iran's oil is important enough to justify the cost of invasion? Of course, if Iran proves to be an unstable influence in the region - I agree that they will likely become a target. And that's the point. Iran makes itself a target by attempting to seize nuclear weapons. Never mind their own saber rattling and attempts to influence Iraqi politics.
It is true that the North Korean situation was unique in that their artillery would have levelled Seoul should they be invaded. When the US accused N. Korea of possessing a nuclear weapon, they simply admitted it. I don't think there is doubt there. But they also truly think that the US could invade them in the near future. And that their extremely strong conventional deterrant was the only thing holding that invasion back. Nuclear weapons, again, become increasingly important to a country like N. Korea because it is analagous to their convensional experience. Additionally, one announces your secret weapon's existance because of it's deterrent value. There will be more announcements.
Of course there will be more announcements. These announcements are a dangerous ploy to get economic aid that is sorely needed. But the ploy is, indeed, dangerous. If the US could invade N. Korea in such a manner that N. Korea's conventional retaliation on the South wouldn't be a deterrent - it is N. Korea's alliance with China that holds such a plan in check. But that very same saber rattling is causing China to distance itself as well press the US in to believing, perhaps, that the situation is desperate enough to warrant the risk of invasion.
The topic is about needing better propaganda, and yet we are using terms like "collateral damage" and "smart-bombs". Looks to me like the existing propaganda is working just fine.
"Smart-bombs" aren't infallible. "Collateral damage" ultimately means destruction of innocent lives. Fair enough points. But keep in mind that "smart bombs" are different than "dumb bombs". And "collateral damage" refers to more than just the death of civilians. There ARE legitimate reasons to use these terms outside propaganda. ARE they used for propaganda? No doubt. Fair enough point. But let's keep proper perspective (and avoid "anti-war" propaganda).
Has any other army ever done otherwise? Friendly fire is a part of war and always has been. Friendly fire is not civilian deaths; it's only used for allied combatants.
I understand that friendly fire is not used to describe civilian deaths. But it does show that even the most basic undesirable outcomes of war still happen despite the obvious best interests of those involved. The point is that the fact that civilians are killed is not proof that there is no desire to avoid killing civilians.
I don't think anyone is. The troops are doing the best they can and responding to the environment they are placed in. Nothing that's happened in Iraq is unusual or undocumented from prior wars.
Indeed. I suppose, in a nutshell, that's my point.
What is more worrying is that you seem to put across the attitude that you believe that Americans are somehow superiour to everyone else. Torture is rare, friendly fire is avoided and "collateral damage" is minimal. This is a very dangerous view to hold and is part of the problem. Most Americans assume that no one has a genuine gripe against them as that could not be possible, we are the good guys etc etc. You need to realise that your leaders and troops are capable of the same shit as everyone else.
That attitude is an assumption on the reader's part. Sure - there is poor judgment (to put it kindly) in the US military. And the US is not beyond criticism. But that criticism must maintain perspective and be, for the most part, accurate. And that's proving to be a very difficult thing to do; propaganda is not the domain of any one interest.
To what extent? This seems to be a very murky issue. Which isn't surprising. If the US is condoning torture, they sure aren't going to be forthcoming about it. But then, those who are stoking anti-US feeling in the region are going to generate murky rumors of torture too. But again - I agree on this point. If torture is done, it should be stopped.
Same goes for attempting to limit collateral damage: Remember "shock and awe"? That was not limiting the collateral damage was it? One hears of the use of smart bombs in the context of limiting unnecessary killing. Accurate, yes, but when they take out a city block, that does undermine the claim. Same with Lithium bombs. They deny they use them, (in urban areas, no less) until the evidence is overwelming. Same with napalm style weapons. Same with cluster bombs. They don't deny the use of depleted uranium weapons, just the effects. The use of these weapons in urban environments indicates--at best-- an calice indifference to the suffering of civilians in this conflict. Of course you will not hear that spin from the official sources, as they are too busy denying what happens on the ground. Note that Rumsfield doesn't wish for a 24 hour propaganda channel in the US...
"Limiting" is not the same as eliminating. If war comes to a civilian area, civilians are very likely going to die. Especially when one army puts its guns in the midst of those civilians and starts to fire on the other. I've also read reports on cluster bombs used by the US Army in Iraqi urban areas. And, indeed, such munitions have been used. But reports also outline a decision process is not indifferent. Cluster munitions are used because they are effective. But there is a reluctance to use them because the unexploded bomblets present a problem not only to civilians, but to US forces.
There are two questions that come to mind. Do decision makers ever cut corners and habitually use these munitions when it wasn't, at the least, appearing to be necessary? And are critics of these decisions using cluster munitions as a cover for a greater grievance against the war itself?
Yes, Iran wants nukes. After the invasion of Iraq, they definitely want them now! Not to say that they are a pleasant regime in any way. But they have been forced into a corner: whether they intend to build them or not, they will be invaded in the next few years. They see the writing in the wall and rationally, nuclear weapons are the only guarantee that the won't become a larger Iraq. In fact, the risk of invasion to all nations that don't get along with the US is much higher today than at any time. Hence the incentive to build nukes for these countries is much higher too.
Where's this writing on the wall? Saddam's fall was set in motion over 10 years ago. If Iraq hadn't invaded Kuwait, the Saddam regime would probably still be in power. Iran only becomes a target if it contributes to instability in the region. And making a grab for nuclear weapons would certainly do it.
And I know its tempting to trot out N. Korea as a counter-example. But N. Korea's nuclear standing is in question. What keeps N. Korea from invasion (at least in a military context) is powerful allies and the fact that they are snug against our own ally - S. Korea. It won't take nuclear weapons to turn S. Korea in to a bloodbath.
Isreal would dearly love to wipe Iran off the map and they have the ability. It is not in their benefit to do so right now, but that may change. They are natural rivals and locked in a power struggle for middle eastern dominance. The Isreali government is too sophisticated to spout off in public, but that does not change their opinion.. They simply do not benefit from such public statements.
Isreal's desire to wipe Iran from the map might have something to do
No, the problem is that the US forces pretend it's OK to do X "because we only target terrorists with our very precise weapons", then civilians die and they say "well, shit happens, it's collateral damage". What if they were really up-front about it. Bush would have announced in 2003 "OK, we're going to invade Iraq. In the process, we will probably will 100,000 [insert whatever you consider to be the true number] people, but we don't care".
Fair enough. But then, I'm not sure any leader has ever tried to convince people that the sacrifice of war was worth it by listing off a butcher's bill in the same statement.
One of the negative legacies of the Iran-Kuwait Gulf War was the success of smart weapons. Even though during that conflict, civilians still died... for some reason, people now expect war to be "clean" in so far as only intended targets will die.
I find it hard to believe that US forces are so cavalier in selecting targets. Having said that, I'm also rather uncomfortable about this administration and the constant uncovering of events where pressure from the administration ran rough-shod over better judgement.
If you'd bother to read up some on the more recent decades of Iranian history, you'd find out that for a good while, the US and British backed Shah suppressed the majority of the people.
And if you would bother to read up on Iranian history, you will note that life under the Shah was not all that bad. Part of the problem with the Shah seemed to be a penchant to "modernize" which ran counter to traditional Muslim ideals and was labeled as Western "imperialism". That's not to say it wasn't a rosey picture. The Shah's regime was rampant with cronyism and corruption. And as unrest started forming in the country, the Shah fed that unrest through a foolish program of suppression. Then things went very badly very quick as suppression became an increasing death toll against protesters.
Did the US bungle their handling of the situation? Perhaps. And things continued to get worse when Iran took hostages. Little wonder the US didn't feel too warm towards Iran.
He was overthrown, and shortly thereafter Iraq, with encouragement and active support from the US tried to invade Iran. Far more Iranians died in that war than Iraqis. Also note that the US supplied satellite reconnaisance that helped Iraq to more efficiently gas Iranians.
You seem to imply that the Iran-Iraq War was a manifestation of US politics. Far from it. But you are correct on the timing. On seizing power, Khomeini began to support revolution in other countries including Iraq. Meanwhile, Saddam saw a weakened Iran. Add in a long history of border disputes and it was war.
Did the US back Iraq? Certainly. Around 3 years later and after Iraq had shown some victories. After all, the US was hardly comfortable with Iran after the 1979 Hostage Crises. That - and Iraq had already developed relationships with the Soviets. And keep in mind that this is a time when the US-lead West and Soviets jockied for influence. Especially in the Middle East.
A side note here is that actual support from the US was far, far behind that of other countries. For example, the primary suppliers of military hardware to Iraq was the Soviets and France. And yes - part of that support was intelligence. Did the Iraqis use that to gas Iranians? I wouldn't be surprised. But I would be curious as to why you imply that such battlefield intelligence was intended for that purpose.
It might be counter to your own beliefs - but all the world's problems do not rest at the feet of the United States.
Well yes, of course they do, wouldn't you if it'd stop the US invading your country for control of the oil reserves?
Iran has managed to avoid invasion for the last few decades without nuclear weapons. I'm not sure what would lead them to believe attempts at getting them now would do them any good. Sure - there's Iraq. But it seems that critics like to forget that Saddam set his regime up for the chopping block with the invasion of Kuwait (nevermind that the Iraq's attempts to gain nuclear weapons themselves did no good).
Wich countries have used nukes? Wich country has been using amunition containing radioactive material? Wich country have talked about using nuclear tactical weapons against Iran (bunker bombs)?
No what do we do with this perticular country?
The answer in all cases is the United States. But let's keep some perspective. First, US use of nuclear weapons is mostly historical. Many concepts were widely abandoned once a better understanding of the issues of nuclear weapons were understood. Continued development of nuclear capability has been largely due to countering the Soviet threat (something US policy critics seem to ignore).
Second, depleted uranium ordinance is not the same as nuclear ordinance. I'm not so sure that the studies that claim there is no environmental damage from such ordinance is accurate. But by any stretch of the imagination, they are entirely different issues.
Now - the third point is interesting. It should be pointed out that these were plans for using tactical nukes against IRAQ, not Iran. And those plans were never put to use. Nor is there any indication that these plans were ever intended to be put in use. I remember quite a few years ago, the news was all abuzz when it was revealed that the Pentagon had been actively updating plans on invading Canada. These are contingency plans. That they exist in and unto themselves only points out that someone has given some thought as to how to do something. Not that they intend to do it. What concerns me, personally, is that an administration that I do not trust and has a habit of squeezing out dissenting views drew up these plans. But again - the significance is... debatable at best.
Slashdot Mirror
A bit of advice for Jack9... "know thyself." Obviously he doesn't.
Where they seem to compete is the USD price per gold piece, not the gold price for objects.
What you're describing sounds more like MacOS X than Windows. Unzipping AppName.zip in to a new directory in "Program Files"? What Windows applications do you use? The majority I've dealt with seem to be packaged with installers who also touch the registry if not various other places.
Granted - there are plenty of little apps that can be "installed" in the manner you've described. But then, you CAN do the same thing with *nix applications too if you really want to (not that OSX is doing anything THAT special). I do on occasion. And some of the proprietary commercial games I've bought for Linux do, too (as well as various one-off builds of Firefox, SUN JRE, etc.).
You do realize that Microsoft is only adding to their base OS what people want. People wanted an advanced web browser. And people want advanced image editing. Apparently, nobody wants Word.
Yeah - it does assume that competing political parties (and I make that plural in acknowledgment of the theory that a 3rd party has a chance) are able to put forward a candidate that can beat the incumbent. No such luck.
Interesting. I equate AOL with "everything and the kitchen sink that we're marketing". I would have picked the Mozilla suite as the "AOL of browsers" - or at least one step away from it just behind the Netscape packaging.
For me, the Mozilla suite is exactly what I don't want. When I installed Netscape and then Mozilla, I usually went with the stand-alone browser if given the option. I like how Firefox is there for what I need it for - a browser. And if I want additional functionality, there's Thunderbird and the associated other projects.
I also find it interesting that you tag Firefox as being "more shiney-plastic interface croft" when I haven't really noticed it being any more "skinnable" than Mozilla is. What really gets a lot of attention for Firefox is its extensions - but then, many of those are also available for Mozilla too.
But hey - to each their own.
It's always prudent to be aware of bias - especially if that bias leads to exaggeration and general untruths. But just because money becomes involved, doesn't mean it has manifested such bias. Also keep in mind that bias can and does exist for reasons other than money. Feel free to speak up when you notice anything that rings false.
Keep in mind that Firefox is the latest chapter in a story that Slashdot (and other such sites and individuals) have been following for years. It is one of the better-known Open Source stories - more recognized by the general public than BSD, Apache, or even Linux. That alone guarantees some attention. Add that its multi-platform. And that its not too shabby a browser. Little wonder there's so much interest and support.
Are you trolling, or do you actually have a point? How is Firefox the "AOL of Mozilla browsers"?
If you're just NOW hearing about "real" Windows rootkits you haven't been listening hard enough. And just because someone has began the discussion of a novel way of hiding a rootkit, doesn't mean implementing the concept is trivial.
Wow. What an amazingly ignorant observation.
You started out so well. You're right - US Military members give up a considerable number of rights that US citizens enjoy. And there is certainly some irony in that. Good points.
However, you seem to be under the delusion that a functional military is the same as any given civilian organization. Or perhapse you're hinting that there should be no military. In any case, your observations about military life has little to do with how an effective military works and even less to do with the justification (or not) of a military force.
It's even more fun when the Apple fanboys get under the skin of the Microsoft fanboys. Insecure, indeed.
So... exactly what information is these representatives of the US Government after? The fact that people search for porn? If they remove any identification of who, and thus what, the person is... what's going to tell them that any given search conducted by a wide-eyed innocent (queue Bush jokes) vs. a consenting adult?
Great. I'll be ineffectually vigilant. You'll be ineffectually ranting about conspiracies. Most of the US will be entertained watching stories about conspiracies. I think we're all set now. Thanks for setting things straight.
I see. While ranting and raving about conspiracies has done... exactly what? Besides provide good material for television and movies.
Intelligence isn't an exact science. And it is difficult. And it can be exceptionally difficult in some environments.
One of the more disturbing trends in this administration is squelching dissenting opinion. The danger in this is creating an environment that is far too prone to tunnel vision. Intelligence involves a lot of interpretation and, in various degrees, extrapolation. Analysts are people who make best guesses - and can be wrong. Without dissenting opinion, it is very easy to convince yourself that your interpretation is completely accurate... especially if everyone else agrees.
Ever watch the movie War Games? In the movie, agents are convinced that the hacking anti-hero is a foreign agent and act accordingly. The reality is that he's a curious kid. The interesting thing is that I have witnesses echoes of this theme for the past 10 years. Officials I've worked with can become very convinced of the nature of behavior they see and I've often been that dissenting opinion that points out other factors that indicate different motives (the fact that this is changing in recent years is a different conversation all together).
I'm quite amused that this image is given so much importance. Sure - Saddam was an ally at one point; a big friend of the US. Heck - he was even given the key of the city of Detroit. But things change. Why someone would be shocked by this is beyond me.
You're right! As soon as human nature changes, we'll be set. Until then, we'll just have to maintain some perspective and a vigilant watch.
You're right! It is high time for reform of the process of classifying state secrets. It is time for the American people to decide on what should be a secret and what shouldn't be!
The start of our ambitious program should be to publish everything currently considered classified. With those publications will come forms. US citizens will be able to review the potential secret and then vote for the classification they think it should get.
Now, I realize critics will already be claiming this makes senstive information available to foreign interests, etc. But we've already covered that. All publications will prominently display the warning "FOR REVIEW BY US CITIZENS ONLY."
Don't forget that Services for Unix also includes GPL code.
If you believe by that point Falluja was still prominently civilians and therefore all those males were civillian, then you have a point. However, Falluja was also a heavily armed city ran by insurgents. I'm not so sure what you describe is all that remarkable given the situation. If commanders were really indifferent, I would expect the whole city to have been entirely demolished - the US certainly had the capability to do so.
Maybe I'm missing something. Obviously you have some material in mind while posting this. Do you have links?
You're being pretty harsh. It doesn't have to be indifference. A commander is faced with a hard decision. And when given the choice between silencing attackers or letting his people die, you are obviously quite correct that there will be times when they accept the likelihood of civilian deaths. It doesn't mean that commander is, in fact, indifferent to it.
I entirely agree with your observations on oil. If it weren't so important to the world economy (and thus the US economy), few would have any interest what the people of that region do to each other. It would be another Africa.
Sure, Iran has oil. But so does Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. Do you really propose that Iran's oil is important enough to justify the cost of invasion? Of course, if Iran proves to be an unstable influence in the region - I agree that they will likely become a target. And that's the point. Iran makes itself a target by attempting to seize nuclear weapons. Never mind their own saber rattling and attempts to influence Iraqi politics.
Of course there will be more announcements. These announcements are a dangerous ploy to get economic aid that is sorely needed. But the ploy is, indeed, dangerous. If the US could invade N. Korea in such a manner that N. Korea's conventional retaliation on the South wouldn't be a deterrent - it is N. Korea's alliance with China that holds such a plan in check. But that very same saber rattling is causing China to distance itself as well press the US in to believing, perhaps, that the situation is desperate enough to warrant the risk of invasion.
"Smart-bombs" aren't infallible. "Collateral damage" ultimately means destruction of innocent lives. Fair enough points. But keep in mind that "smart bombs" are different than "dumb bombs". And "collateral damage" refers to more than just the death of civilians. There ARE legitimate reasons to use these terms outside propaganda. ARE they used for propaganda? No doubt. Fair enough point. But let's keep proper perspective (and avoid "anti-war" propaganda).
I understand that friendly fire is not used to describe civilian deaths. But it does show that even the most basic undesirable outcomes of war still happen despite the obvious best interests of those involved. The point is that the fact that civilians are killed is not proof that there is no desire to avoid killing civilians.
Indeed. I suppose, in a nutshell, that's my point.
That attitude is an assumption on the reader's part. Sure - there is poor judgment (to put it kindly) in the US military. And the US is not beyond criticism. But that criticism must maintain perspective and be, for the most part, accurate. And that's proving to be a very difficult thing to do; propaganda is not the domain of any one interest.
To what extent? This seems to be a very murky issue. Which isn't surprising. If the US is condoning torture, they sure aren't going to be forthcoming about it. But then, those who are stoking anti-US feeling in the region are going to generate murky rumors of torture too. But again - I agree on this point. If torture is done, it should be stopped.
"Limiting" is not the same as eliminating. If war comes to a civilian area, civilians are very likely going to die. Especially when one army puts its guns in the midst of those civilians and starts to fire on the other. I've also read reports on cluster bombs used by the US Army in Iraqi urban areas. And, indeed, such munitions have been used. But reports also outline a decision process is not indifferent. Cluster munitions are used because they are effective. But there is a reluctance to use them because the unexploded bomblets present a problem not only to civilians, but to US forces.
There are two questions that come to mind. Do decision makers ever cut corners and habitually use these munitions when it wasn't, at the least, appearing to be necessary? And are critics of these decisions using cluster munitions as a cover for a greater grievance against the war itself?
Where's this writing on the wall? Saddam's fall was set in motion over 10 years ago. If Iraq hadn't invaded Kuwait, the Saddam regime would probably still be in power. Iran only becomes a target if it contributes to instability in the region. And making a grab for nuclear weapons would certainly do it.
And I know its tempting to trot out N. Korea as a counter-example. But N. Korea's nuclear standing is in question. What keeps N. Korea from invasion (at least in a military context) is powerful allies and the fact that they are snug against our own ally - S. Korea. It won't take nuclear weapons to turn S. Korea in to a bloodbath.
Isreal's desire to wipe Iran from the map might have something to do
Fair enough. But then, I'm not sure any leader has ever tried to convince people that the sacrifice of war was worth it by listing off a butcher's bill in the same statement.
One of the negative legacies of the Iran-Kuwait Gulf War was the success of smart weapons. Even though during that conflict, civilians still died... for some reason, people now expect war to be "clean" in so far as only intended targets will die.
I find it hard to believe that US forces are so cavalier in selecting targets. Having said that, I'm also rather uncomfortable about this administration and the constant uncovering of events where pressure from the administration ran rough-shod over better judgement.
And if you would bother to read up on Iranian history, you will note that life under the Shah was not all that bad. Part of the problem with the Shah seemed to be a penchant to "modernize" which ran counter to traditional Muslim ideals and was labeled as Western "imperialism". That's not to say it wasn't a rosey picture. The Shah's regime was rampant with cronyism and corruption. And as unrest started forming in the country, the Shah fed that unrest through a foolish program of suppression. Then things went very badly very quick as suppression became an increasing death toll against protesters.
Did the US bungle their handling of the situation? Perhaps. And things continued to get worse when Iran took hostages. Little wonder the US didn't feel too warm towards Iran.
You seem to imply that the Iran-Iraq War was a manifestation of US politics. Far from it. But you are correct on the timing. On seizing power, Khomeini began to support revolution in other countries including Iraq. Meanwhile, Saddam saw a weakened Iran. Add in a long history of border disputes and it was war.
Did the US back Iraq? Certainly. Around 3 years later and after Iraq had shown some victories. After all, the US was hardly comfortable with Iran after the 1979 Hostage Crises. That - and Iraq had already developed relationships with the Soviets. And keep in mind that this is a time when the US-lead West and Soviets jockied for influence. Especially in the Middle East.
A side note here is that actual support from the US was far, far behind that of other countries. For example, the primary suppliers of military hardware to Iraq was the Soviets and France. And yes - part of that support was intelligence. Did the Iraqis use that to gas Iranians? I wouldn't be surprised. But I would be curious as to why you imply that such battlefield intelligence was intended for that purpose.
It might be counter to your own beliefs - but all the world's problems do not rest at the feet of the United States.
Iran has managed to avoid invasion for the last few decades without nuclear weapons. I'm not sure what would lead them to believe attempts at getting them now would do them any good. Sure - there's Iraq. But it seems that critics like to forget that Saddam set his regime up for the chopping block with the invasion of Kuwait (nevermind that the Iraq's attempts to gain nuclear weapons themselves did no good).
The answer in all cases is the United States. But let's keep some perspective. First, US use of nuclear weapons is mostly historical. Many concepts were widely abandoned once a better understanding of the issues of nuclear weapons were understood. Continued development of nuclear capability has been largely due to countering the Soviet threat (something US policy critics seem to ignore).
Second, depleted uranium ordinance is not the same as nuclear ordinance. I'm not so sure that the studies that claim there is no environmental damage from such ordinance is accurate. But by any stretch of the imagination, they are entirely different issues.
Now - the third point is interesting. It should be pointed out that these were plans for using tactical nukes against IRAQ, not Iran. And those plans were never put to use. Nor is there any indication that these plans were ever intended to be put in use. I remember quite a few years ago, the news was all abuzz when it was revealed that the Pentagon had been actively updating plans on invading Canada. These are contingency plans. That they exist in and unto themselves only points out that someone has given some thought as to how to do something. Not that they intend to do it. What concerns me, personally, is that an administration that I do not trust and has a habit of squeezing out dissenting views drew up these plans. But again - the significance is... debatable at best.
In the end, the US is no Iran.