I seem to recall a time where you didn't own the telephone in your house either, but the phone company gave you one with your subscription. Anyone know how&why that model changed?
The problem here is, that either they knew what was going on, and where protecting those who did it, or directly commanded the soldiers to do it.
Sure - but the flip side is exactly who did what. This won't be something that will instantly come to light even with the best of intentions. I agree that there is a coverup - likely still a coverup. That's why the whole situation is, in fact, a scandle. How far it goes - we'll have to wait and see.
I'm not holding my breath.
Apparantly your TV network did not broadcast Rumsfeld personal statement that he took full responsibility?
Alright - so now we know who is being discussed. Sure, he makes the statement because it happened on his watch. Whether he ordered any of this is questionable.
I was not talking about spies, but about prisoners of war.
Here's the problem. What makes these individuals prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention? To be a POW under these restrictions, you have to be a soldier from a signatory country.
Even if these individuals are acting as agents for a country that is a signatory of the Geneva Convention, if they don't meet certain requirements, they are not soldiers. The difference between a spy and a covert ops soldier is often as simple as what they're wearing. A uniform. Blow up a bridge in a being used by a military convoy while wearing a uniform, it's an act of war. Do the same while wearing civilian garb and its an act of espionage. Getting caught would involve different treatement in each case.
Well, you shouldn't. It is about time the US saw all human beings as being equal instead of seeing US citizens as some kind of superior beings.
You're missing a subtle point. Guantanamo Bay exists as a highly questionable legal loophole. One of the keys to keeping this legal slight-of-hand going is maintaining the questionable status an legal juristiction of the prisoners involved.
Toss a US citizen in the mix, and suddenly the murkiness disappears. At least for that individual. There is no doubt that we have a US citizen being held by the US military without due process. Arrested on US soil. The legal clarity is striking.
Hang up your Euro-eliteism and pay attention. I'm handing you ammunition.
Yes, but that's enerving a lot of people outside of the US. Seeing the US goverment demand that a US spy be returned immediatly while prosecuting a foreign spy caught in the US, is totally unfair and causes unease around the world.
I'd like references the the specific cases you have in mind.
None-the-less... this is how the spy game runs. Its been happening for decades throughout the Cold War. Some spys are shipped out of country. Some are traded. Some are caught and tried. Some disappear, never to be seen again. It's happened to any nationality involved in espionage. "Fair" has nothing to do with it.
Hey, we are supposed to be allies of the US and we're in the NATO together, yet the US is spying on European countries as well (remember Carnivore?). This is a huge insult for us, the socalled friends of the US.
First - the point is that China does involve itself far outside its own borders and that of it's neighbors. Let's not brush by it too quickly since its one of the converstion arcs you started.
Secondly, I'm no fan of Carnivore myself. But what you should be more concerned with is ECHELON. Which, by the way, is ran with the help of several other countries. It has been suggested that this allows the US NSA to search domestic communications by having their foriegn counterparts do the searching for them - avoiding US laws against such domestic monitorying.
Finally, you're rather naive if you think friends don't spy on each other. For example, the French are well known to use Government resources for industrial espionage.
For training Al Quada terrorists to attack the former USSR?
You might want to look at the military hardware and training the USSR dumped in to the region. Here's a hint - the Arab-Isreali war was as much about the Cold War as local blood feuds.
Furthermore, Afghanistan was poor, so was Iraq. We didn't need to fear them at all. No WMD at all.
First - Afghanistan sponsored a terrorist organization that is a world-wide network and materminds of the most significant act of civilian terrorism on US soil. WMD's aren't the issue.
Secondly - Iraq had began the 90's with the world's 4th largest standing military. It had been one of the wealthiest nations in the region. And it stands on one of the richest natural resource deposits in the world. Iraq used this military and econmic power to attempt grabbing additional wealth for itself and, ultimately, threatned the world economy. On a side note - Saddam Hussein commissioned an attempt on the former President Bush's life. This is not some small, insigificant, non-threatening country.
The countries that do have WMD,such as North Korea, India and Pakistan, are not being bombed.
I'm sorry - did you just say these countries needed to be bombed? What would you have the US do in these situations? Keep in mind we're already involved in keeping North Korea 1) at bay 2) fed.
The country which is using violence daily and is still occupying other territory and ignoring human rights, namely Israel are not under US threat at all, no, they receive massive financial an military support.
Oh - that's right. The country who had seized buffer territory after being attacked by its neighbors. The same country that has suffered decades of civilian attacks. A country who's neighbors have stated constantly that they should be wiped from the face of the earth. What was that about violence and human rights? Are you claiming some kind of moral high-ground in that mess?
The region would do better to have hardliners from both the Palestinians and Isrealis gathered and shot (or at least locked away until a solid peace could be worked out).
People are like sheep. They do follow stupid leaders. If you looked at history, you should have noticed this. It has happened again and again. And the media most succesfull in reaching the entire population -TV-, is not really educating people.
So what you're saying is that you're affriad that if someone were to teach Mein Kampf, you would end up with leaders who are Neo-Nazis? Odd. Here in the US, we have Neo-Nazis, White Supremists, Black Supremists, and other wack-jobs. They tend to have a rough time in political office once their associations become known.
Meanwhile, in Germany, where Nazi propoganda is illegal... there are still Neo-Nazis. There are still hate groups and hate crime. Your laws has not stopped it - just driven it underground. Heck... might have even made it more attractive - that whole forbidden fruit thing.
Hiding your head in the sand is not dealing with the issue.
That's because you are only considering WWII. Consider the treatement of the blacks in the US. (And by no means am I trying to imply that Europe treated black better or worse) The treatement of the north american original population is also a very strong historical precedent.
Sure. I suppose we have a certain legacy we inherited from our European past. Another less-than-proud moment. Having said that - are you really trying to imply that US involvement with Iraq has something to do with Manifest Destiny?
Don't be too quick to discard WWII. WWII was an important lesson to the US. It established the US and a world Super Power and it demonstrated the cost of being isolated from World affairs.
No, it is a peaceful majority who's sitting around criticizing US policies. It's the minority who's using violence because they saw that using conversation lead to nothing. The US is famous for using its veto power in the U.N. f.e. to protect Israel nomatter what.
The peacefull ones aren't being bombed. Otherwise France would have been hit by now. Its those who make strikes against the US that have to worry.
I find it annoyingly strange, that the US and Israel seem to think that violence and murder validated by a group of persons who call them selves goverment, are less evil then any other violence or murders.
I agree. I cringe whenever I hear the word "terrorist". Terrorism is a valid military tactic. When it starts becoming a crime is when civilians are intentionally targeted.
If a GI rapes and shoots a beloved one, or a terrorist, I don't see the difference. Actually there is a difference, if the GI does not get punished while he is getting the support of his countries citizens and president, it's worse.
Oh please. Rape is not condoned. Killing is depending on the situation. Please point out the GIs that have been proven to rape who are being supported by the US people and their President.
Terrorism does not happen just like that. The fact that they are all targetting the US and its allies should make something clear.
Read some of the writings and speaches from these Islamic Fundimentalists. Its not just political. They see the entire Western culture as a threat that must be faught as a war.
I have no problem with disliking US culture. Heck - I don't like it all either. But that is no excuse for violence. It does not provide justification for the destruction of civilian buildings and people.
Oddly enough, I would have found the attack on the Pentagon "acceptable" as it were... if it didn't involve civilians. I don't like it. I see it as an attack on my country. But at least it had some semblance of a military attack. So few of these kinds of attacks do.
They are only being tried after the pictures were leaked to the press, weren't they?
Picture being worth a thousand words and all that. It's called proof. Claims of brutality are one thing. Proof of it is entirely different. Furthermore, proof that has gone beyond a close group who knew the truth to the matter.
How many pictures and videos were found, and how many soldiers are convicted? one is convicted and only about 6 other are being accused.
Justice isn't instantanious. It will take time to ferret out exactly what was going on and convict those who are charged - unless, of course, you don't believe in a fair trial.
I do agree with one point, though. This obviously goes deeper than 6 junior enlisted. In fact, I find them victoms to a limited extent. They were following orders that appeared to be lawfull. That sounds absurd - but keep in mind that these are people who are trained to kill. And killing is not something trivial (despite the bashing it takes). In the end, though, they should have known better.
Where this should go next is the soldier's chain of command. It should include the Military Intel personnel (both civilian and military) present in that prison. It should include those who set the policy for Military Intel interrogation. It probably won't.
When Clinton had an affair, they were trying to bring him down.
Clinton did these acts. Directly. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. The absurd thing about our culture is that we would care enough that he would have to lie to avoid accusations.
So, do you really call this a scandle now? A guy apologizing and then going on without punishment? I call that a joke.
Yes. It is a scandle. And who are you referring to about "a guy appologizing"? Point to the person you claim is reponsible and show me the proof that they directly did it. Especially when you want to bring in the circus that was the Clinton scandle.
And more, the US keeps mistreating the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, actively violating the Geneva conventions.
You might want to look in to exactly what the Geneva convention is all about. It involves signing countries to that document. And it involves combatants in wars between those countries. Spies, for example, are not covered.
And that's the crux of the problem. I completely agree that whats going on at Guantanamo stinks. On ice. But it isn't as cut-and-dried as you make it sound.
I thought the US was a little more civilised, and am therefor shocked, as are a lot of other people in this world -except for the US citizens apparantly. Innocence until proven guilty and all that doesn't count anymore? That only counts for US citizens right?
Yes. Not one of our proudest moments. At a time where the foundations of US civil rights are being eroded by the same administration (the so-called PATRIOT act).
However, keep in mind that "innocent until proven guilty" is concept belonging to the US and its citizens. Perhapse you'd like to point out how many judicial systems throughout Europe follow the same concept?
Of course, that's a moot point. Guantanamo Bay holds US citizens too. That, right there, I find even more scary.
Reading Hitlers view on the Jews will not educate them about the failures in his reasoning. Many people fell for his lies. We just don't see the point in risking a third world war.
What I find interesting is that there is apparently something in your culture where some form of forbidden information or view will lead to war. You should be embracing history and teaching how certain views lead to the near destruction of your cultures. Then it doesn't matter if some idiot stands up and starts trying to spread "the truth" as he sees it. Consider it inoculation.
And it is that same WWII that is being used to excuse any warcrime that the US commits. "The helped us before, so we should honor and obey them nomatter what." I certainly disagree with that. All respect to the people who died to liberate Europe from the Nazi's, but those gooddoings can't make up for current crimes.
You're missing the point. US involvement in world affairs has a very strong historical precedent. I don't believe Europeans should blindly follow the US out of some feeling of debt. But I do expect some historical perspective; a realization that in a modern world, one must be involved in world affairs. And sometimes that involvement means military action.
And you forget to mention that those other countries are those who blindly follow the U.S..
Be that as it may.... it is not some peaceful minority sitting around criticizing US and allied policy. These are people who commit acts of violence... yes... even terrorism (for what worth the word has these days). Don't try to paint them as innocents.
the US military is getting attacked BECAUSE they are over in some other nation, fighting people who never attacked them in the first place. this is contrary to even the most basic common sense.
The perfect isolationist argument. The same sentiments expressed throughout the mid-30's in the US. It has been argued that this simply created a bigger problem up to the eventual direct involvement of the US in WWII.
The US (or any country) should be very carefull when it uses military power. But the world is a smaller place and there will come times when one must act. Whether the US chose wisely in this particular case is an entirely different debate.
This isn't a defense of saddam,and he's a freaking goon we propped up and supported in the first place, but it is a condemnation of going to war under false pretenses, then blaming the people over there if they fight back in the only ways they can. You have _one_ choice against overwhelming tech and military superiority, and that's assymetrical warfare.
Sure. The tactics aren't suprising. However, the point is that the US forces can not conceivably prevent every single civilian death. And while I find it fair to blame a certain degree of those deaths on US involvement in the area, I find those who wish to claim the US intentionally causes those deaths deplorable. If the US military wished to kill Iraqis, there would be a horrid bodycount.
Turn it around, would you fight back if some coalition that was huge enough and big enough and decided to come over here and "regime change" us, even if you disliked the current regime here, wouldn't you consider those people invaders? I certainly am NO fan of the past three "regimes" we have had here in the US, but no way would I have welcomed or assisted some large outside military force coming over here and "helping out", I would consider them "the enemy" and act accordingly.
Sure. I understand that there will be Iraqi nationalists who decide to fight because they see the US as an invader. But the comparison between the Saddam regime and the US eletorial system is absurd.
As to how those folks over there feel about us, I think if a long time ago we had changed two things in our polciies we would be better off. 1-we should have run with the reality wake up call of the OPEC embargo and engaged in a massive national size scale effort to completely eliminate any dependence on middle eastern oil. Totally.
By "we", I assume you're talking about the world. The US itself is far less dependant on the Middle East for oil imports than many other countries. However, the US economy is tightly intertwined with world economic standing.
2- we should have stopped the massive support for radical zionism in our policies by at least the early 70s when it became obvious that things weren't as originally presented. And along with those two issues, we should have never shipped so much as one bullet, in sales or direct aid, to any nation in the mid east. That's a blunder of incalcuable dimensions really.
Meanwhile, the Soviet Union was quite quick to provide military equipment and consoltation. The US was never the only superpower operating in that region. Failing to support anyone in the region would have abandoned the world economy and military might to the Soviets.
I thought so too, for a while. But it turns out that popular authors like Ann Coulter have rehabilitated McCarthy's image. They have now "proved" he was a good guy.
The interesting thing here is that McCarthy wasn't entirely off base. There is evidence that shows there was Soviet espionage activity in the US for some time at some fairly impressive levels. It does cause some re-evaluation of McCarthy and the Red Scare. However, it shouldn't detract from the fact that the Red Scare was out of control - even in light of this newer evidence.
One of the longest-surviving relics of that period is the "Pledge of Allegiance", which McCarthyites in Congress modified to violate the 1st Amendment.
Yet it is still a relic. It is not a manifestation of McCarthy's continued power. And it certainly has nothing to do with Hollywood.
On an aside - I grew up refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance. The one time I got any flack for it was from a Civics teacher who lesson was, essentially, questioning anybody who would force such a pledge. I did, however, end up taking an oath of enlistment. But that was under my own accord.
1. We actually try to learn from our history, that's why we oppose wars so much as opposed to the U.S. which seems to glorify it.
Ahh yes. And banning hate-monger blather has everything to do with war. Much better to drive that underground than educate those who might otherwise be suceptable to it.
In any case, your your historical study is lacking. You would otherwise understand that the US had been very isolationist during the beginnings of German expansion. It was US involvement before, during, and after WWII that did much to defend and stabilize Europe.
2. Muslim extremists are a minority as well. There's a huge amount of fear against them. Hey, the U.S. even bombed several countries to punish some minorities.
Muslin extremists who attack the US as well as other countries. You forget to mention that bit.
Besides their neighbouring countries, I can't recall any conflict between the Chinese and any other country. And about the neighbouring countries, that happens all over the world.
Ahh yes. The expanding border of China. Even though China did have that bothersome Soviet Union to tend with, they have still managed to reach out to their "neighbors" often enough. You'll have to excuse the US for not keeping up with China's pace. Obviously, the US should have come up with reasons to absorb Canada and most of South America by now.
If you compare that to the U.S. behavior in regards to Vietnam, Palestine (indirectly by helping Israel), Afghanistan, Iraq and as said the socalled axis of evil Libya and Syria and probably some other countries.
You've forgotten to mention US involvement in Europe and Japan.
The U.S. president said: You're either against terror or with terror.
I agree. Foolish rhetoric that was uncalled for.
Actually, I found it particullary interesting, that when a U.S. spy was caught in China, the U.S. demanded the spy back. When the U.S. caught a spy, they wanted to give him the death penalty.
Spying is largely a civil crime. There are stiff penalties in all countries for such activities. Although in practice, thos penalties take a back seat to politics.
Incidently... the US is not a neighbor to China. Yet China has spies in the US? What was that about China only being involved in its neighbors?
So, in conclusion, I think most of the world fears the U.S. hunger for power more then China, Iraq or Afghanistan.
And you can thank the US for limiting the threat of China, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Even if it does make the US appear more eager and dangeorus. The world is complex like that.
That stuff is widely known, BTW, so it's not far fetched at all to believe the people's story at that massacre site.
Yes - it is well known. And yes, it is certainly a possible explanation for what happened. But again, and this is the point that was made... it is not the only possible explanation.
It's happened all over, just last week I was listening (radio interview)to a soldier who just got out, describing how his unit would shoot civilians at the drop of a hat.
You'll just have to face it, the US is starting to get pretty trigger happy over there. And right off the bat, just think on this, EVERYONE "detained" is automatically a terrorist, instantly a non human basically. That's official US policy. All you have to do is follow the news from more than a few places and you can see that. And they really don't care too much about killing innocents (collateral damage), because they had to go in and save innocents from getting killed, on the way to the WMD giant stashes, that were one second away from being launched towards the US. It's a sham really, and we are looking worse and worse every day around the world.
Well certainly. All those who would kill a US soldier wear a specific, easy-to-recognize uniforms. And the US military just guns down waves of civilians to get at them.
The fact of the matter is that the US military is under constant attack by individuals who are indistinguishable from civilians. These attacks happen in areas populated by civilians. This will lead to situations where civilians are going to get killed due to the crossfire or being misidentified as hostile. This, despite the US military's long-standing policies towards minimizing "collateral damage" - a euphanism for, amoung other things, killing non-combatants.
Insidently, you forgot to mention that Iraqi civilians are specifically being targeted by those who are hostile towards the US. When they're not being caught in the cross-fire for bombs and shots intended for US forces.
I live here, and I am fully confident in saying the bulk of the population here is just plain old fashioned jingoists.
I agree. It bugs me too. But it is far from a US-only behavior. Heck - look at some of the things that come out of the Middle East (since that's the two sides of the current conversational coin). Not that that it means much.
Some German friends brought over Risk and we played a little. They explained to us that due to sensitivity about their Nazi past, in German Risk you don't 'conquer' the world, you 'liberate' it.
What makes for an even more interesting interaction was when the German goverment insisted the US military bookstores on US bases in Germany stop selling Mein Kampf.
The fact that although this war was about the so called proven connection between Sadam and Bin Laden...
Got a link that shows the US Government claiming a proven link between Sadam and Bin Laden? From what I understood, that was something the American public seemed to be coming up with on their own. The Bush administration was pushing WMD and, at most, some possible terrorist training camps with possible links to Al Quida.
Now, they're dead silent about the connection, about the weapons...
Your right. They should be having daily press briefings about how they screwed up, how they haven't found any WMDs, and how utterly embarassing that whole bit has been.
...they are torturing them theirselves...
Yep. Torture. Standard operating procedure for the US military. That's why some poor underling soldiers are being handed Federal convictions right now. Because torture is something the US does on a regular basis and expects to be happening. Nevermind this "scandle" nonsense.
...and their goverment is selected by the US and has bonds with the FBI and CIA.
Your right again. The word "interm" in "Interm Government" means "permament" or "final". Don't worry your head about all this election crap. And sure... when the US rebuilds a contry and selects an interm government... heck, the first thing they should do is put the former regeime back in power. Or at least get someone hostile to the US just to make that whole rebuilding process a bit more challenging. Because nothing makes the US more happy than having an unstable power base sitting on a large portion of the world's economic lifeblood (and not to mention power involved with that wealth).
The US is building the Forth Reich and aparantly, other then the Arabs nobody seems to care.
Possibly its because nobody else is confusing the Bush administration, as objectionable as it may be to some, with the Nazi party and The Third Reich. You might want to educate yourself before tossing around such terms.
Or did you never read anything about the McCarthy years, and what filmakers in Hollywood could, or could not portray in their films?
Perhapse you missed the part where McCarthy lost his power under public scrutiny and quickly faded from the public spotlight in a cloud of shame. Maybe you miss that the term "McCarthyism" is a negative one. And having missed all this... maybe you don't realize that this period ended somewhere in the mid-to-late 50's.
Hollywood has always had links with Government. Both recognize the power of the other and wish to make use of that power in one way or another. However, it doesn't mean that they're in each other's back pocket. Animosity sometimes exists between the two as entities.
So why the villians? It sells. Hollywood's villians have been American Indians, Cattlemen, Germans, Japanese, Soviets, Vietnamese. They have also been Mexican bandits and Columbian drug lords. They have been crazed non-nationals who play both the Soviets and the West against each other in a bid for World Domination. They have been crazed American businessmen after the same World Domination. Hollywood has pit mankind against alien lifeforms, biological viruses, and intelligent machines. Sometimes the villian is pretty straight forward; Dr. No seeks to rule the modern world. Sometimes the villian directly reflects something bothering the American public; the Body Snatchers were the Red Scare.
In any case, Hollywood picks its own villians. Those villians are diverse and often reflect current issues. But they are not directly hand-picked propoganda from the US Government.
Once people had access to it, signifigantly less than 10 years. Sure, email was around for a long time before it took off, but that's a function of access to the Internet, not a function of the usability or functionality of email.
It's also an issue of people realizing the need for something. Back in the 80's, I hadn't even heard of the Internet. But I did have access to FidoNet. I used email. I thought it was amazingly cool - even profound. Although my family and non-BBS friends had no idea what email was or why anybody would want to use it.
You're right - email as we know it soared as ISPs became commonplace. However, to many people, "the Internet" was as much about email as the Web. Email being the killer app and all that. Many people sought access to the Internet because they wanted to use email. Even if Internet access required learning new technology and buying new hardware and software.
These days, people don't understand why they need to encrypt email. So they don't invest any effort in to getting the capability to do so. Ease of use or not.
In my part of SE Asia, piracy must be a very powerful ally of M$. People have grown so accustomed to M$ products and proggies running on windows 'cos they know where they can get them - and they've all been so "trained" in them cos of their "availability". And I would think that much of the general comp literacy in the region is due to this ally -
I don't think your experience is much different than your peers in the United States, Europe, or any other computer-using economic base.
I wouldn't be surprised if M$ sees this region as rather "safe" since Linux is kind of a "hardcore" "server" "alternative" solution.
That's exactly what Microsoft is worried about. They're after the base architecture everyone uses. Anything that dilutes their impact on that architecture is a threat. That means servers.
oh yes i must also mention that after all those years of "free education", M$ started "cleaning up" several years back.
Microsoft isn't cleaning up. They're fighting an increasing perception of the OS as a commodity. Windows being widely available for free, even illegally, re-enforces the perception that the OS itself is generic.
Sharp added that there are several myths surrounding open source. People tend to believe it is free, he said, but even companies that support open source are just as motivated by commercial interests as any other commercial software vendor. Apparently undermining his initial assertion about open-source ruining local software efforts, he pointed out that open source giants such as Red Hat and IBM are still after a return on their investments. "They are not for the greater good of the community; they are also after the money," he said.
Really? Huh. So tell me again... as a Microsoft marketing strategist, when you look at me, what do you see?
I've noted before that Microsoft's short-term concern is commoditization. An echo of that can be seen in the article:
"IBM is trying to drive the value out of the operating system," says Martin Taylor, a general manager at Microsoft. "I don't think it's a direct attack on Microsoft--but we are definitely a fairly big casualty."
What Martin Taylor doesn't note (and the parent does) is that this is a natural process.
When this happened in computing, IBM was the obvious loser. However, they're not alone. Apple has been hurt by this commoditization. And it has lead to eventual erosion of markets for the likes of SGI, Sun, HP, etc. The list goes on.
But it's not all about losses. Microsoft was a big winner. The market spawned the likes of Compaq (who were instrumental in creating that market) and Dell. It provided a platform for hardware innovators (3DFX) and niche developers. It also helped establish an entirely different market for software and revolutionized the software industry. Most importantly... for the most part... the consumer has benefited.
Now we're standing on the precipice of a possible commoditization of the OS. There should be no surprise that some industry players are looking to harness that wave. While others are complaining that they aren't in position to profit from it.
You might want to check on who owns that before you give it away. Seems like I've seen it elsewhere. Granted, it could be public domain. But it could also belong to SCO.
Slashdot Mirror
It was the eventual result of removing "foreign attachment" restrictions from the tarrif.
Sure - but the flip side is exactly who did what. This won't be something that will instantly come to light even with the best of intentions. I agree that there is a coverup - likely still a coverup. That's why the whole situation is, in fact, a scandle. How far it goes - we'll have to wait and see.
I'm not holding my breath.
Alright - so now we know who is being discussed. Sure, he makes the statement because it happened on his watch. Whether he ordered any of this is questionable.
Here's the problem. What makes these individuals prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention? To be a POW under these restrictions, you have to be a soldier from a signatory country.
Even if these individuals are acting as agents for a country that is a signatory of the Geneva Convention, if they don't meet certain requirements, they are not soldiers. The difference between a spy and a covert ops soldier is often as simple as what they're wearing. A uniform. Blow up a bridge in a being used by a military convoy while wearing a uniform, it's an act of war. Do the same while wearing civilian garb and its an act of espionage. Getting caught would involve different treatement in each case.
You're missing a subtle point. Guantanamo Bay exists as a highly questionable legal loophole. One of the keys to keeping this legal slight-of-hand going is maintaining the questionable status an legal juristiction of the prisoners involved.
Toss a US citizen in the mix, and suddenly the murkiness disappears. At least for that individual. There is no doubt that we have a US citizen being held by the US military without due process. Arrested on US soil. The legal clarity is striking.
Hang up your Euro-eliteism and pay attention. I'm handing you ammunition.
I'd like references the the specific cases you have in mind.
None-the-less... this is how the spy game runs. Its been happening for decades throughout the Cold War. Some spys are shipped out of country. Some are traded. Some are caught and tried. Some disappear, never to be seen again. It's happened to any nationality involved in espionage. "Fair" has nothing to do with it.
First - the point is that China does involve itself far outside its own borders and that of it's neighbors. Let's not brush by it too quickly since its one of the converstion arcs you started.
Secondly, I'm no fan of Carnivore myself. But what you should be more concerned with is ECHELON. Which, by the way, is ran with the help of several other countries. It has been suggested that this allows the US NSA to search domestic communications by having their foriegn counterparts do the searching for them - avoiding US laws against such domestic monitorying.
Finally, you're rather naive if you think friends don't spy on each other. For example, the French are well known to use Government resources for industrial espionage.
You might want to look at the military hardware and training the USSR dumped in to the region. Here's a hint - the Arab-Isreali war was as much about the Cold War as local blood feuds.
First - Afghanistan sponsored a terrorist organization that is a world-wide network and materminds of the most significant act of civilian terrorism on US soil. WMD's aren't the issue.
Secondly - Iraq had began the 90's with the world's 4th largest standing military. It had been one of the wealthiest nations in the region. And it stands on one of the richest natural resource deposits in the world. Iraq used this military and econmic power to attempt grabbing additional wealth for itself and, ultimately, threatned the world economy. On a side note - Saddam Hussein commissioned an attempt on the former President Bush's life. This is not some small, insigificant, non-threatening country.
I'm sorry - did you just say these countries needed to be bombed? What would you have the US do in these situations? Keep in mind we're already involved in keeping North Korea 1) at bay 2) fed.
Oh - that's right. The country who had seized buffer territory after being attacked by its neighbors. The same country that has suffered decades of civilian attacks. A country who's neighbors have stated constantly that they should be wiped from the face of the earth. What was that about violence and human rights? Are you claiming some kind of moral high-ground in that mess?
The region would do better to have hardliners from both the Palestinians and Isrealis gathered and shot (or at least locked away until a solid peace could be worked out).
So what you're saying is that you're affriad that if someone were to teach Mein Kampf, you would end up with leaders who are Neo-Nazis? Odd. Here in the US, we have Neo-Nazis, White Supremists, Black Supremists, and other wack-jobs. They tend to have a rough time in political office once their associations become known.
Meanwhile, in Germany, where Nazi propoganda is illegal... there are still Neo-Nazis. There are still hate groups and hate crime. Your laws has not stopped it - just driven it underground. Heck... might have even made it more attractive - that whole forbidden fruit thing.
Hiding your head in the sand is not dealing with the issue.
Sure. I suppose we have a certain legacy we inherited from our European past. Another less-than-proud moment. Having said that - are you really trying to imply that US involvement with Iraq has something to do with Manifest Destiny?
Don't be too quick to discard WWII. WWII was an important lesson to the US. It established the US and a world Super Power and it demonstrated the cost of being isolated from World affairs.
The peacefull ones aren't being bombed. Otherwise France would have been hit by now. Its those who make strikes against the US that have to worry.
I agree. I cringe whenever I hear the word "terrorist". Terrorism is a valid military tactic. When it starts becoming a crime is when civilians are intentionally targeted.
Oh please. Rape is not condoned. Killing is depending on the situation. Please point out the GIs that have been proven to rape who are being supported by the US people and their President.
Read some of the writings and speaches from these Islamic Fundimentalists. Its not just political. They see the entire Western culture as a threat that must be faught as a war.
I have no problem with disliking US culture. Heck - I don't like it all either. But that is no excuse for violence. It does not provide justification for the destruction of civilian buildings and people.
Oddly enough, I would have found the attack on the Pentagon "acceptable" as it were... if it didn't involve civilians. I don't like it. I see it as an attack on my country. But at least it had some semblance of a military attack. So few of these kinds of attacks do.
Picture being worth a thousand words and all that. It's called proof. Claims of brutality are one thing. Proof of it is entirely different. Furthermore, proof that has gone beyond a close group who knew the truth to the matter.
Justice isn't instantanious. It will take time to ferret out exactly what was going on and convict those who are charged - unless, of course, you don't believe in a fair trial.
I do agree with one point, though. This obviously goes deeper than 6 junior enlisted. In fact, I find them victoms to a limited extent. They were following orders that appeared to be lawfull. That sounds absurd - but keep in mind that these are people who are trained to kill. And killing is not something trivial (despite the bashing it takes). In the end, though, they should have known better.
Where this should go next is the soldier's chain of command. It should include the Military Intel personnel (both civilian and military) present in that prison. It should include those who set the policy for Military Intel interrogation. It probably won't.
Clinton did these acts. Directly. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. The absurd thing about our culture is that we would care enough that he would have to lie to avoid accusations.
Yes. It is a scandle. And who are you referring to about "a guy appologizing"? Point to the person you claim is reponsible and show me the proof that they directly did it. Especially when you want to bring in the circus that was the Clinton scandle.
You might want to look in to exactly what the Geneva convention is all about. It involves signing countries to that document. And it involves combatants in wars between those countries. Spies, for example, are not covered.
And that's the crux of the problem. I completely agree that whats going on at Guantanamo stinks. On ice. But it isn't as cut-and-dried as you make it sound.
Yes. Not one of our proudest moments. At a time where the foundations of US civil rights are being eroded by the same administration (the so-called PATRIOT act).
However, keep in mind that "innocent until proven guilty" is concept belonging to the US and its citizens. Perhapse you'd like to point out how many judicial systems throughout Europe follow the same concept?
Of course, that's a moot point. Guantanamo Bay holds US citizens too. That, right there, I find even more scary.
What I find interesting is that there is apparently something in your culture where some form of forbidden information or view will lead to war. You should be embracing history and teaching how certain views lead to the near destruction of your cultures. Then it doesn't matter if some idiot stands up and starts trying to spread "the truth" as he sees it. Consider it inoculation.
You're missing the point. US involvement in world affairs has a very strong historical precedent. I don't believe Europeans should blindly follow the US out of some feeling of debt. But I do expect some historical perspective; a realization that in a modern world, one must be involved in world affairs. And sometimes that involvement means military action.
Be that as it may.... it is not some peaceful minority sitting around criticizing US and allied policy. These are people who commit acts of violence... yes... even terrorism (for what worth the word has these days). Don't try to paint them as innocents.
The perfect isolationist argument. The same sentiments expressed throughout the mid-30's in the US. It has been argued that this simply created a bigger problem up to the eventual direct involvement of the US in WWII.
The US (or any country) should be very carefull when it uses military power. But the world is a smaller place and there will come times when one must act. Whether the US chose wisely in this particular case is an entirely different debate.
Sure. The tactics aren't suprising. However, the point is that the US forces can not conceivably prevent every single civilian death. And while I find it fair to blame a certain degree of those deaths on US involvement in the area, I find those who wish to claim the US intentionally causes those deaths deplorable. If the US military wished to kill Iraqis, there would be a horrid bodycount.
Sure. I understand that there will be Iraqi nationalists who decide to fight because they see the US as an invader. But the comparison between the Saddam regime and the US eletorial system is absurd.
By "we", I assume you're talking about the world. The US itself is far less dependant on the Middle East for oil imports than many other countries. However, the US economy is tightly intertwined with world economic standing.
Meanwhile, the Soviet Union was quite quick to provide military equipment and consoltation. The US was never the only superpower operating in that region. Failing to support anyone in the region would have abandoned the world economy and military might to the Soviets.
Well heck - I guess those soldiers are being tried over non-existant laws. And the US media has misunderstood the meaning of the term "scandle".
The interesting thing here is that McCarthy wasn't entirely off base. There is evidence that shows there was Soviet espionage activity in the US for some time at some fairly impressive levels. It does cause some re-evaluation of McCarthy and the Red Scare. However, it shouldn't detract from the fact that the Red Scare was out of control - even in light of this newer evidence.
Yet it is still a relic. It is not a manifestation of McCarthy's continued power. And it certainly has nothing to do with Hollywood.
On an aside - I grew up refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance. The one time I got any flack for it was from a Civics teacher who lesson was, essentially, questioning anybody who would force such a pledge. I did, however, end up taking an oath of enlistment. But that was under my own accord.
Ahh yes. And banning hate-monger blather has everything to do with war. Much better to drive that underground than educate those who might otherwise be suceptable to it.
In any case, your your historical study is lacking. You would otherwise understand that the US had been very isolationist during the beginnings of German expansion. It was US involvement before, during, and after WWII that did much to defend and stabilize Europe.
Muslin extremists who attack the US as well as other countries. You forget to mention that bit.
Ahh yes. The expanding border of China. Even though China did have that bothersome Soviet Union to tend with, they have still managed to reach out to their "neighbors" often enough. You'll have to excuse the US for not keeping up with China's pace. Obviously, the US should have come up with reasons to absorb Canada and most of South America by now.
You've forgotten to mention US involvement in Europe and Japan.
I agree. Foolish rhetoric that was uncalled for.
Spying is largely a civil crime. There are stiff penalties in all countries for such activities. Although in practice, thos penalties take a back seat to politics.
Incidently... the US is not a neighbor to China. Yet China has spies in the US? What was that about China only being involved in its neighbors?
And you can thank the US for limiting the threat of China, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Even if it does make the US appear more eager and dangeorus. The world is complex like that.
And I find it interesting that Europeans would
1) be so eager to ignore their history, no matter how distastefull
2) find so much to fear in, at least in the US, minority hate groups
Yes - it is well known. And yes, it is certainly a possible explanation for what happened. But again, and this is the point that was made... it is not the only possible explanation.
Well certainly. All those who would kill a US soldier wear a specific, easy-to-recognize uniforms. And the US military just guns down waves of civilians to get at them.
The fact of the matter is that the US military is under constant attack by individuals who are indistinguishable from civilians. These attacks happen in areas populated by civilians. This will lead to situations where civilians are going to get killed due to the crossfire or being misidentified as hostile. This, despite the US military's long-standing policies towards minimizing "collateral damage" - a euphanism for, amoung other things, killing non-combatants.
Insidently, you forgot to mention that Iraqi civilians are specifically being targeted by those who are hostile towards the US. When they're not being caught in the cross-fire for bombs and shots intended for US forces.
I agree. It bugs me too. But it is far from a US-only behavior. Heck - look at some of the things that come out of the Middle East (since that's the two sides of the current conversational coin). Not that that it means much.
What makes for an even more interesting interaction was when the German goverment insisted the US military bookstores on US bases in Germany stop selling Mein Kampf.
"Ignore" being a euphanism for "invade", "shoot", "execute", "run over with a tank", or simply "threaten".
The US is behind the powercurve then. There's a whole lotta world out there that hasn't been bombed yet. Better speed things up.
Got a link that shows the US Government claiming a proven link between Sadam and Bin Laden? From what I understood, that was something the American public seemed to be coming up with on their own. The Bush administration was pushing WMD and, at most, some possible terrorist training camps with possible links to Al Quida.
Your right. They should be having daily press briefings about how they screwed up, how they haven't found any WMDs, and how utterly embarassing that whole bit has been.
Yep. Torture. Standard operating procedure for the US military. That's why some poor underling soldiers are being handed Federal convictions right now. Because torture is something the US does on a regular basis and expects to be happening. Nevermind this "scandle" nonsense.
Your right again. The word "interm" in "Interm Government" means "permament" or "final". Don't worry your head about all this election crap. And sure... when the US rebuilds a contry and selects an interm government... heck, the first thing they should do is put the former regeime back in power. Or at least get someone hostile to the US just to make that whole rebuilding process a bit more challenging. Because nothing makes the US more happy than having an unstable power base sitting on a large portion of the world's economic lifeblood (and not to mention power involved with that wealth).
Possibly its because nobody else is confusing the Bush administration, as objectionable as it may be to some, with the Nazi party and The Third Reich. You might want to educate yourself before tossing around such terms.
Perhapse you missed the part where McCarthy lost his power under public scrutiny and quickly faded from the public spotlight in a cloud of shame. Maybe you miss that the term "McCarthyism" is a negative one. And having missed all this... maybe you don't realize that this period ended somewhere in the mid-to-late 50's.
Hollywood has always had links with Government. Both recognize the power of the other and wish to make use of that power in one way or another. However, it doesn't mean that they're in each other's back pocket. Animosity sometimes exists between the two as entities.
So why the villians? It sells. Hollywood's villians have been American Indians, Cattlemen, Germans, Japanese, Soviets, Vietnamese. They have also been Mexican bandits and Columbian drug lords. They have been crazed non-nationals who play both the Soviets and the West against each other in a bid for World Domination. They have been crazed American businessmen after the same World Domination. Hollywood has pit mankind against alien lifeforms, biological viruses, and intelligent machines. Sometimes the villian is pretty straight forward; Dr. No seeks to rule the modern world. Sometimes the villian directly reflects something bothering the American public; the Body Snatchers were the Red Scare.
In any case, Hollywood picks its own villians. Those villians are diverse and often reflect current issues. But they are not directly hand-picked propoganda from the US Government.
I hope so. It'll provide another source for cannibalizing drives.
It's also an issue of people realizing the need for something. Back in the 80's, I hadn't even heard of the Internet. But I did have access to FidoNet. I used email. I thought it was amazingly cool - even profound. Although my family and non-BBS friends had no idea what email was or why anybody would want to use it.
You're right - email as we know it soared as ISPs became commonplace. However, to many people, "the Internet" was as much about email as the Web. Email being the killer app and all that. Many people sought access to the Internet because they wanted to use email. Even if Internet access required learning new technology and buying new hardware and software.
These days, people don't understand why they need to encrypt email. So they don't invest any effort in to getting the capability to do so. Ease of use or not.
Huh. How long did it take to get internet email accepted as a commonly used service? How long for the telephone?
I don't think your experience is much different than your peers in the United States, Europe, or any other computer-using economic base.
That's exactly what Microsoft is worried about. They're after the base architecture everyone uses. Anything that dilutes their impact on that architecture is a threat. That means servers.
Microsoft isn't cleaning up. They're fighting an increasing perception of the OS as a commodity. Windows being widely available for free, even illegally, re-enforces the perception that the OS itself is generic.
Great. Now some jerk is going to make a crack about "pissing away our future."
Really? Huh. So tell me again... as a Microsoft marketing strategist, when you look at me, what do you see?
What Martin Taylor doesn't note (and the parent does) is that this is a natural process.
When this happened in computing, IBM was the obvious loser. However, they're not alone. Apple has been hurt by this commoditization. And it has lead to eventual erosion of markets for the likes of SGI, Sun, HP, etc. The list goes on.
But it's not all about losses. Microsoft was a big winner. The market spawned the likes of Compaq (who were instrumental in creating that market) and Dell. It provided a platform for hardware innovators (3DFX) and niche developers. It also helped establish an entirely different market for software and revolutionized the software industry. Most importantly... for the most part... the consumer has benefited.
Now we're standing on the precipice of a possible commoditization of the OS. There should be no surprise that some industry players are looking to harness that wave. While others are complaining that they aren't in position to profit from it.
You might want to check on who owns that before you give it away. Seems like I've seen it elsewhere. Granted, it could be public domain. But it could also belong to SCO.