Are you forgetting that judges are appointed by the political party in power? Many potential judges are espousing revisions to Miranda clause interpretation, and how a woman does not have the right to decide issues concerning her own body when there is a fetus in it. How long can citizens count on the courts to defend their constitutional rights, when Republicans are trying to steamroller in its most ideological partisans into judicial positions?
In practice, socialism (and communism) can only be applied by force because it implies the abolition of private property.
Regarding Cuba, You have no idea of how people live in Cuba.
Yes, I am aware of these details. But the definition of a sucessful political/economic system is not how may luxury items each person can get access to. As far as I am aware, there is no starvation going on in Cuba, and every citizen can get medical care (unlike the US). Cuba was always a poor country (unless you were a mobster or gov't official), and its too small to possess cattle ranches. That doesn't mean its proof that communism doesn't work. It could be a matter working in a bad situation, or the result of economic embargo by the capitalist US.
OK, the communist regime still exists, but that is only because it is a dictatorship where the goverment has all the military power.
That is only your contention. Dictatorships exist because they are supported (or at least not overthrown) by a majority of its people. Capitalism is rife with corruption, and there is not much difference between a few rich people imprisoning people for being enemies of the state, and a dictatorship imprisoning people for being enemies of the state. Hell, there are Iraqis saying they were better off under Saddam because at least they had electricity, A/C, food markets, and *safety*.
Why do you think so many Cubans take the risk of being eaten by sharks to escape Cuba and go to Florida in self-made rafts?
Because they have rich relatives in Cuba? Because they can get more luxury items in the US. (again, not proof that US capitalism is a superior economic system.) If capitalism is so sucessful, why aren't they taking those boats to Mexico? After all, its a capitalist country, and has the built-in advantage of having the same native tongue.
Communism (as defiend by Marx) is a form of government where there is no state (and therefore no government, no courts, etc.). It is a state of utopia. It is unimplementable in practice.
Anarchism is that state of "utopia". It is not unimplementable in practice because of flawed theory, its unimplementable because currently there are fascist nations that actively prevent anarchism from evolving. Communism is a transition system that is supposed to combat and dissolve those fascist threats to anarchism. You can argue that communism/anarchism in theory is flawed, because it cannot outcompete a capitalist system (because greed (profit motive) makes capitalism a more efficient resource distributor), therefore can't aggregate enough power to defend itself from a capitalist system. But that does not make communism/anarchism unworkable or inferior. The question is what is preferable, people who get the same allocation of resources and a system that discourages exploitation of others, or talented and fortunately positioned people permitted more accumulation of resources at the expense of talented and less fortunately positioned people.
What you describe is not capitalism.
Look, either you accept that economic systems are a reflection of its political systems, or that there is no way to evaluate the merits of an economic system using real world examples. You can't point to historical examples of communism and say its proof its theory is flawed, and yet claim any obvious historical examples of flaws in capitalism is irrelevant, because its inconsistent to its theory.
Wrong. Socialism is a bad idea. Communism isn't even implementable in real life. The only possible implementation of communism is a form of socialism that is even worse than the original.
If they were good ideas they would have worked in practice.
And *why* is socialism a bad idea? Don't hear much complaints about it from the Swedes. Oh, what's that, Sweden doesn't exist, its not in the Real World? Communism is merely supposed to be a transitional gov't state to Anarchistic gov't. (Which does not mean anarchy, BTW.) If its not moving to local gov't collectives, its not Communism. Don't mistake ideological perversion as Communism. Even that distorted Communism you accuse as unworkable hasn't disappeared in Cuba, and in fact, results in more infants surviving than in the USA.
Communism (as in USSR & China) didn't survive into this century, not because its an unworkable form of gov't, but because it focused on trying to militarily compete with the Western (capitalist) nations. A more conscientious ruling elite probably would have resulted in the USSR's survival. If Communism is unworkable, how can Cuba still be communist, even with the demise of its benefactor?
Capitalism is a good idea because it can work in practice (at least the approximation to real capitalsim that is implementable). Many mixed economies approaches are good ideas and the fact that they have been seuccessfully implemented is a proof.
Totalitarianism (or monarchy), by your rule, must also be a good idea, because it can work in practice. Why, some Totalitarian gov'ts (like historical China) have lasted centuries! And totalitarian gov'ts exist to this very day.
Capitalism is an efficient system for resource distribution, but it hardly makes it an ideal economic system. After all, what's superior about a system that favors wealth aggregation, at the expense of talented individuals who don't happen to be born into a wealthy family? What's superior about an economic system that can throw money at legislators to favor their economic status at the expense of the "common" folk?
That a tax system that requires spending money on complication-processing software, or having to hire an accountant/tax preparer, is a tax system in dire need of reform?
You have to realize that some people shouldn't be posting on Slashdot. Others took the 15 min. of mental exertion to figure out the rudimentary basics of HTML typesetting. (And this is from someone who does not do webpages for a living.)
To geek or not to geek... Is that a question for/. readers?
Unprovoked? Israel was occupying the Golan Heights and the Sinai.
Yes, after the Arab countries started the '67 war, which they lost badly. Hint: If you start a war and lose, your lands might wind up being occupied by an outside force.
Hint: If you insist on occupying land that you won in a war, you shouldn't be surprised that countries will organize attacks against you to take it back. Or are you suggesting Russia was being a warlike aggressor when they proceeded to conduct war after '43 to regain the territories taken from them?
But then, I guess all the Arab armies surrounding Israel weren't a threat after all were they?
Never my point. My point is that it is hypocrisy to characterize an opponent's "sneak" attack as ignoble, but your "sneak" attack as not ignoble. And its ridiculous to think one is historically entitled to land lost 2000 years ago, and yet consider property claims only 5 years ago as irrelevant.
Blockades have been considered acts of war since time immortal. During the Civil War Lincoln was reluctant to actually declare a blockade against the South because that would have implied that the South was actually a nation-state. We called the blockade of Cuba during the missile crisis a "Quarantine" and sought a FAS unanimous vote to made it "legal" (at least in the eyes of the world if not the letter of the law).
And therefore Cuba would have been justified to launch the nukes based in Cuba because the US conducted an act of war? (The blocade)
The minute an act of war is committed by one nation upon another nation that nation is justified in taking whatever means are necessary to defend itself. Even the UN charter says that.
Please produce the section in the UN charter that defines a blockade of a waterway that a country does not control as an act of war.
(Geez, you people are the kings of rationalization...)
What you call a right, I call a rationalization. I guess North Korea has the "right" now to start lighting off nukes on the United States, by your way of thinking.
BTW, I'm not even arguing whether Israel had the "right" to attack in '67. I only pointed out that Israel did not declare war or wait for its enemy to mobilize its air defenses. That is a sneak attack. There's no point in pretending that somehow Egypt was more ignoble in its attack in '73, because they didn't "warn" Israel they were going to retake their lands on a particular date.
You do realize the blockade of the straits of Tiran was an act of war, regardless of who fired the first shot, don't you?
The Arabs blocked the Straits of Tiran? Boo hoo, get your shipping from Haifa or Tel Aviv. Gunboat diplomacy is gunboat diplomacy. Its then the jobs of the Ministry of Propaganda to make the assholes smell like roses.
Or do ya just hate jews?
No, but I hate people who distort the truth rather than scrupulously defend unpopular truths. I also hate people who think killing civilians is justified because they're Jews or Muslims.
What should I think of someone too craven to publicly stand by their statements?
If you can't address the issue head on, open the can of Israeli history (or propaganda, depends on who's reading it) with the the Theme from Exodus in the background.
The bottom line is that Israel did not make a formal declaration of war and wait for the Arabs to mobilize their defenses before making their first strike in '67. It does not change the fact that Israel's action was a "sneak" attack. It is why I perceive your characterization of the Arab's attack in '73 as being somewhat hypocritical.
The '73 "sneak" attack was pretty much inevitable. Israel was occupying lands that 5 years ago belonged to Syria and Egypt. If one is going to dictate borders on the political theory of "I can beat your ass if you try to take it back", one shouldn't be wailing with shocked outrage when the other side actually makes the attempt.
I don't think the conflict will end until the United States makes credible moves towards removing its economic support of Israel or cease meddling in Israeli politics. They are indirectly culpable for the current political state as all the other actors.
That war, as anyone alive since then remembers, was so named after Egypt and Syria, surrounding Israel, combined in unprovoked sneak attack on Israel's holiest day, marked by national fasting and release from all work, including military.
Unprovoked? Israel was occupying the Golan Heights and the Sinai. Sneak attack? Who attacked first in the '67 conflict?
A few guys in need of a shower and a suit can hardly be described as the Linux community. Unfortunately, Daniel Lyons didn't elaborate on it. What will change after SCO vs IBM that will get either side to start sniping at one another?
Just look at Red hat, they refused to pay a piddly $10 per-unit fee to SUN for the ability to bundle StarOffice 6/7.
Piddly?!?!?! It was one-tenth the cost of their entire distribution (when they were selling to end-users). It probably nuked their entire profit margin.
You probably can't. LVM version 1 was not ported to the 2.6.0 kernel. There is LVM version 2, but I do not know if its backward compatible with LVM version 1 partitions.
Wrong. There would be as much support for Iraq as there would be for Vietnam. And Vietnam dragged out for quite a few years after the public made it abundantly clear it was not supported.
The same guys who were asked that are the same guys that said those guerilla attacks were from a few disgruntled Sunnis, and it would all be over soon. They're also the same guys who believe the force can be reduced from 180,000 to 130,000. There were generals that disagreed with those assessments. They're not working at their jobs anymore. (Ain't Rumsfeld a great boss to work for?)
Look, no career general wants conscription if they can avoid it. If there is not a nation to nation deathmatch, a country is much better off with a volunteer force. The US is a high tech military. It costs money to train people to use those weapons (or more important, fix them). The Pentagon is screwed when they sink a couple hundred K into a soldier, only to have him bolt at the end of the enlistment term. Conscripts do not have the commitment to kill, maim and follow orders that a career soldier possesses. And a career soldier is less likely to pump a round into the back of a commissioned officer.
Take a look, the numbers are simple. There aren't enough US personnel to support a semi-annual troop rotation in Iraq, at its current numbers. The only way to reduce those numbers is to eliminate the cause for the insurgency attacks. You can't do that if you don't have enough personnel to conduct military operations, AND you cannot dismantle an insurgent enemy by being reactionary. Having 33-50% of our military force parked in Iraq means they can't be used in Taiwan or Korea if the horrible possibility becomes reality.
The Pentagon can say there is no problem, and in two years have a disintegration of the professional cadre of soldiers. They won't have reserve forces to fall back on. Who's going to volunteer to swelter in a tent in the middle of nowhere gettting blown up? And then get pushed around everywhere else in the world because the US can't mount overwhelming combat forces in the theatre. The generals will give their professional assessments when they can't continue to equivocate.
The question is whether the political wing of our government will allow a disintegration of the US military, and capitulate on Korea and Taiwan, or withdraw those forces and allow anarchy to break out in the Middle East. I am so convinced it was the Captains of Industry that forced "career" politicians to authorize an invasion of Iraq, there's no way they're going to let those politicians vote to withdraw (or capitulate).
So all the sheep in DC will sit down, and in the spirit of bipartisanship, will insist the US is compelled to institute the draft. There will be no partisan attempts to get one over on the supporters, because those people will not get media coverage, and will be removed from their jobs at the next election cycle. And the mouthpiece of the rich, the media, will be droning on about how unfortunate but necessary it is to draft our youth, how brave and gallant they are, how the draft resisters are child molesting Al-Queda sympathizers, blah, blah, blah. The American public has swallowed this bullshit since 9/11. Habit is hard to break. And face it, if you're over 25, and you don't have kids of draft age, are you really going to give a damn if some young, poor stranger ends up in a body bag? When discontent causes anarchy in the cities and churn in the Congress, that's when they'll rescind the draft. That could be a good six years of body bags.
Are you volunteering to risk death and dismemberment, and certain privation in order to collect $40K, and not at $30K? Damn, if only the US had the money to get you Darwin rejects to enlist. Hint, it doesn't. Bush couldn't even agree to sustain the salary increases the Congress was willing to pass this year. That was the squawking about Bush leaving the veterans high and dry a couple months ago.
People who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. (hint:Vietnam)
Your military assessment of China is pretty poor too. What do you think they're doing with all that money they're generating from exports? Highways, swimming pools, and caviar for the Party elite?
China has been doing a massive modernization of its military forces, and that includes its air force. Part of the problem with gauging their progress is that they are home-basing much of their military production. Even if their current fighters can barely match US fighters 2:1, a 3:1 edge still means less US planes will be in the air at the end of the engagement.
They don't need a navy to take back Taiwan. Taiwan doesn't have much of a navy either. And no way will they be able to spend to create a navy comparable to the US fleet. Its much cheaper to sink the US fleet (with missles), and then ship the troop transports across. (Oh yeah, don't forget the paratroop forces.)
The biggest dirty secret is that in order to have an effective military force, you have to use it. Its the only way to work out the kinks in strategic construction and tactics. China hasn't conducted a significant military operation since the early '80's, and that army got their asses handed to them by the Vietnamese. If the Chinese have a truly wise military and party leadership, they wouldn't execute an invasion merely because they couldn't be sure the combined arms wouldn't shoot each other at a crucial point. I bet there's at least one Chinese general pretty bummed they didn't contribute a contingent force to Iraq.
As for counting on the US to meet its defense obligations to Taiwan, the Bush government has consistently talked through both sides of its mouth. I really have a problem believing that the US can stomach having one of their billion dollar carriers at the bottom of the sea over Taiwan. And trust me, if the Chinese can't sink a carrier group with ten thousand missles, they'll make sure one of them is nuke tipped.
No, I agree, China won't invade Taiwan because after they're victorious, they'd only have a smoking ruin to show for it. The party line is that with Chinese manufacturing power, Taiwan has to move its factories to the mainland to compete internationally, and in thirty years, they will have to accede to the mainland, or else the economic embargoes will pretty much ruin Taiwan. The problem is that there is a HEAVY nationalist streak in their party leadership, particularly the military. You cannot imagine the resentment they have towards the US government for telling them they can't "administer" their own province. It would be much like China telling the Bush administration they had to do a general vote recount for Florida for the 2000 election, but then actually having the power to make the recount happen.
It would be a mistake to believe war couldn't happen because of rational people in power. Remember, Hitler was ELECTED Chancellor. There were no hanging chads or Supreme Court in that election.
The draft is inevitable. There will be conscription in the US after the 2004 elections. The average US citizen is too clueless to realize it. (And the rich's bitch, mass media is not about to clue them in.)
The Pentagon/CiC has guestimated that they need 100,000 combat troops in Iraq. (They probably need twice that number) Without a comprehensive campaign to eradicate the insurgency, that's where our citizens will be for the next decade.
The problem is that roughly 40% of that force is not "regular" Army; its reserve forces. Those forces consist of people who decided not to make a lifelong career in the military, but agreed to train and be used in military conflicts when needed. The people making USD 40-100K/yr are not going to be happy making USD 30K while living in a shithole and having to worry about dying or being permanently disabled.
Right now, the US military has committed to the policy of rotating troops out of that region after one year. That means roughly 100K NEW bodies, trained and capable of executing combat operations will be needed each year. And its not like they can keep the 60% of the career forces in Iraq for longer than a year; they have families and an appreciation for not getting blown up, just like the reservists. Finally, you have to realize at some point, the reservists contracts will have expired. Do you think they're going to re-up?
Contrary to what you may believe, you can't just roust up 100K bodies and ship them out to a combat zone. The US Armed Forces are an extremely well trained, technological fighting force. Traditionally, the first 6 months are spent in boot camp and basic combat training, and then another 6 months for a military specialization skill. Even if you cut that in half, its at least 6 months before you have productive cannon fodder. The answer is to draft those bodies before a potential crisis, so you have something useful for combat when you need them.
So, in two years, all the personnel that is the US Armed Forces will have done a tour of duty in Iraq. What reservist is going to agree to put his career on hold every other year so he can get shot at in the desert? And no, their job will waiting for him when he gets back. He'll just be canned six months later in a layoff. Most of them will not re-enlist. And a lot of regular army personnel won't either.
I laugh when I see the young conservative punks cheering for GWB and invading Iraq. In two years, they're going to be in boiling/freezing in a sand dune, assuming they're not shot/crippled/dead. The twentysomething punks will be safe.:o(
I'll close with this parting shot: your knowlege of economics is hideously flawed and appalling.
When you use the phrase "liberal idiot," you are making a statement or at least an implication that one is an idiot for being a liberal.
No, I don't. Liberal describes political bent. I'm quite comfortable describing appropriate people as Conservative idiots. John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, and Rush Limbaugh are three that come to mind. You also appear to presume that I am Conservative in political philosophy. Finally, I find Liberal idiots and Conservative idiots not much different than Slashdot idiots...
Of course you excuse your own original post, which was entirely an attack on immigrants... and later liberals. A member of either group will predictably take that personally.
Hardly. It was an "attack" on illegal immigrants. And all it did was point out the obvious holes in the respondent's position. And is a sad state of affairs when someone considers being called liberal a slur rather than idiot.
Unprovoked? "Anyone who's against illegal immigrants is stupid?" The ONLY ad hominem attack of that message was the last sentence. And it should be screamingly obvious to what it was responding to.
I wouldn't know if you're stupid or not. But it's at least fair to call you ignorant.
It would only be fair to call me ignorant if someone presented a point to point rebuttal to the arguments I made. Can you show me where it has been done? Right now I would be basking in the smug knowledge of an unrefuted position, except this is Slashdot. So its more like being Shaq gloating over elementary school students. It doesn't matter. Anyone capable of comprehending what they read is able to see how this argument went.
Ah, typical weak-minded liberal thinking. Instead of attacking the arguments I present, you spew obscenity, make condencending judgments, present strawman arguments, and more ad hominem attacks.
Man, everytime I read posts from nimrods like you, I think what stupid, retarded idiots who reside in the Western world, and how its going down the tubes.
I am for the legal persecution of any illegal immigrant, whether they're Asian, African, Hispanic, Arab, Israeli, or European! I have zero problem with any Mexican who legally applied for a visa and citizenship.
And guess what asshole, I'm not white and I'm not for the execution of illegals in the USA. My parents did not immigrate to the country by crossing the border and waiting around for a citizenship amnesty. They had to go through the immigration process and they would not be residing here if they weren't college educated professionals. Why the hell should hispanics be given a free pass into this country, but not Asians, Africans, Arabs, Israelis, or Europeans???
I feel bad about how those people have to toil in the fields, live their subsistence lives, and die from the pesticides they get exposed to on the job. But its white trash losers like you who don't vote to abolish all immigration controls. Then they could unionize (without threat of deportation) and strike for better wages and healthier working conditions. You'd rather pay less at the grocery store and live off of their suffering.
I'd rather have uniform, enforced immigration laws, pay more at the grocery store, and take advantage of this country's resources to live a better, less polluted life. So less people are able to immigrate? Boo hoo, I'm not willing to accept a lower standard of living, more crime, more terrorism, water shortages, pollution laws that favor industry, and sovereignty referendums (with implied changes in law) just to ONLY discriminate against people who do NOT live south of the border.
OR (if you read the sentence completely) you'd realize my contempt for the use of ad hominem attacks on people expressing a position, so I applied the same rhetorical technique on the offending poster.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you forgetting that judges are appointed by the political party in power? Many potential judges are espousing revisions to Miranda clause interpretation, and how a woman does not have the right to decide issues concerning her own body when there is a fetus in it. How long can citizens count on the courts to defend their constitutional rights, when Republicans are trying to steamroller in its most ideological partisans into judicial positions?
In practice, socialism (and communism) can only be applied by force because it implies the abolition of private property. Regarding Cuba, You have no idea of how people live in Cuba.
Yes, I am aware of these details. But the definition of a sucessful political/economic system is not how may luxury items each person can get access to. As far as I am aware, there is no starvation going on in Cuba, and every citizen can get medical care (unlike the US). Cuba was always a poor country (unless you were a mobster or gov't official), and its too small to possess cattle ranches. That doesn't mean its proof that communism doesn't work. It could be a matter working in a bad situation, or the result of economic embargo by the capitalist US.
OK, the communist regime still exists, but that is only because it is a dictatorship where the goverment has all the military power.
That is only your contention. Dictatorships exist because they are supported (or at least not overthrown) by a majority of its people. Capitalism is rife with corruption, and there is not much difference between a few rich people imprisoning people for being enemies of the state, and a dictatorship imprisoning people for being enemies of the state. Hell, there are Iraqis saying they were better off under Saddam because at least they had electricity, A/C, food markets, and *safety*.
Why do you think so many Cubans take the risk of being eaten by sharks to escape Cuba and go to Florida in self-made rafts?
Because they have rich relatives in Cuba? Because they can get more luxury items in the US. (again, not proof that US capitalism is a superior economic system.) If capitalism is so sucessful, why aren't they taking those boats to Mexico? After all, its a capitalist country, and has the built-in advantage of having the same native tongue.
Communism (as defiend by Marx) is a form of government where there is no state (and therefore no government, no courts, etc.). It is a state of utopia. It is unimplementable in practice.
Anarchism is that state of "utopia". It is not unimplementable in practice because of flawed theory, its unimplementable because currently there are fascist nations that actively prevent anarchism from evolving. Communism is a transition system that is supposed to combat and dissolve those fascist threats to anarchism. You can argue that communism/anarchism in theory is flawed, because it cannot outcompete a capitalist system (because greed (profit motive) makes capitalism a more efficient resource distributor), therefore can't aggregate enough power to defend itself from a capitalist system. But that does not make communism/anarchism unworkable or inferior. The question is what is preferable, people who get the same allocation of resources and a system that discourages exploitation of others, or talented and fortunately positioned people permitted more accumulation of resources at the expense of talented and less fortunately positioned people.
What you describe is not capitalism.
Look, either you accept that economic systems are a reflection of its political systems, or that there is no way to evaluate the merits of an economic system using real world examples. You can't point to historical examples of communism and say its proof its theory is flawed, and yet claim any obvious historical examples of flaws in capitalism is irrelevant, because its inconsistent to its theory.
Wrong. Socialism is a bad idea. Communism isn't even implementable in real life. The only possible implementation of communism is a form of socialism that is even worse than the original. If they were good ideas they would have worked in practice.
And *why* is socialism a bad idea? Don't hear much complaints about it from the Swedes. Oh, what's that, Sweden doesn't exist, its not in the Real World? Communism is merely supposed to be a transitional gov't state to Anarchistic gov't. (Which does not mean anarchy, BTW.) If its not moving to local gov't collectives, its not Communism. Don't mistake ideological perversion as Communism. Even that distorted Communism you accuse as unworkable hasn't disappeared in Cuba, and in fact, results in more infants surviving than in the USA.
Communism (as in USSR & China) didn't survive into this century, not because its an unworkable form of gov't, but because it focused on trying to militarily compete with the Western (capitalist) nations. A more conscientious ruling elite probably would have resulted in the USSR's survival. If Communism is unworkable, how can Cuba still be communist, even with the demise of its benefactor?
Capitalism is a good idea because it can work in practice (at least the approximation to real capitalsim that is implementable). Many mixed economies approaches are good ideas and the fact that they have been seuccessfully implemented is a proof.
Totalitarianism (or monarchy), by your rule, must also be a good idea, because it can work in practice. Why, some Totalitarian gov'ts (like historical China) have lasted centuries! And totalitarian gov'ts exist to this very day.
Capitalism is an efficient system for resource distribution, but it hardly makes it an ideal economic system. After all, what's superior about a system that favors wealth aggregation, at the expense of talented individuals who don't happen to be born into a wealthy family? What's superior about an economic system that can throw money at legislators to favor their economic status at the expense of the "common" folk?
That a tax system that requires spending money on complication-processing software, or having to hire an accountant/tax preparer, is a tax system in dire need of reform?
You have to realize that some people shouldn't be posting on Slashdot. Others took the 15 min. of mental exertion to figure out the rudimentary basics of HTML typesetting. (And this is from someone who does not do webpages for a living.)
To geek or not to geek... Is that a question for
Unprovoked? Israel was occupying the Golan Heights and the Sinai.
Yes, after the Arab countries started the '67 war, which they lost badly. Hint: If you start a war and lose, your lands might wind up being occupied by an outside force.
Hint: If you insist on occupying land that you won in a war, you shouldn't be surprised that countries will organize attacks against you to take it back. Or are you suggesting Russia was being a warlike aggressor when they proceeded to conduct war after '43 to regain the territories taken from them?
But then, I guess all the Arab armies surrounding Israel weren't a threat after all were they?
Never my point. My point is that it is hypocrisy to characterize an opponent's "sneak" attack as ignoble, but your "sneak" attack as not ignoble. And its ridiculous to think one is historically entitled to land lost 2000 years ago, and yet consider property claims only 5 years ago as irrelevant.
Blockades have been considered acts of war since time immortal. During the Civil War Lincoln was reluctant to actually declare a blockade against the South because that would have implied that the South was actually a nation-state. We called the blockade of Cuba during the missile crisis a "Quarantine" and sought a FAS unanimous vote to made it "legal" (at least in the eyes of the world if not the letter of the law).
And therefore Cuba would have been justified to launch the nukes based in Cuba because the US conducted an act of war? (The blocade)
The minute an act of war is committed by one nation upon another nation that nation is justified in taking whatever means are necessary to defend itself. Even the UN charter says that.
Please produce the section in the UN charter that defines a blockade of a waterway that a country does not control as an act of war.
(Geez, you people are the kings of rationalization...)
Care to explain why the US does not excel over Cuba when comparing infant mortality rates?
Capitalism is a system which believes its okay to let a few babies drop dead if the result is a more efficent accumulation of capital.
What you call a right, I call a rationalization. I guess North Korea has the "right" now to start lighting off nukes on the United States, by your way of thinking.
BTW, I'm not even arguing whether Israel had the "right" to attack in '67. I only pointed out that Israel did not declare war or wait for its enemy to mobilize its air defenses. That is a sneak attack. There's no point in pretending that somehow Egypt was more ignoble in its attack in '73, because they didn't "warn" Israel they were going to retake their lands on a particular date.
You do realize the blockade of the straits of Tiran was an act of war, regardless of who fired the first shot, don't you?
The Arabs blocked the Straits of Tiran? Boo hoo, get your shipping from Haifa or Tel Aviv. Gunboat diplomacy is gunboat diplomacy. Its then the jobs of the Ministry of Propaganda to make the assholes smell like roses.
Or do ya just hate jews?
No, but I hate people who distort the truth rather than scrupulously defend unpopular truths. I also hate people who think killing civilians is justified because they're Jews or Muslims.
What should I think of someone too craven to publicly stand by their statements?
If you can't address the issue head on, open the can of Israeli history (or propaganda, depends on who's reading it) with the the Theme from Exodus in the background.
The bottom line is that Israel did not make a formal declaration of war and wait for the Arabs to mobilize their defenses before making their first strike in '67. It does not change the fact that Israel's action was a "sneak" attack. It is why I perceive your characterization of the Arab's attack in '73 as being somewhat hypocritical.
The '73 "sneak" attack was pretty much inevitable. Israel was occupying lands that 5 years ago belonged to Syria and Egypt. If one is going to dictate borders on the political theory of "I can beat your ass if you try to take it back", one shouldn't be wailing with shocked outrage when the other side actually makes the attempt.
I don't think the conflict will end until the United States makes credible moves towards removing its economic support of Israel or cease meddling in Israeli politics. They are indirectly culpable for the current political state as all the other actors.
That war, as anyone alive since then remembers, was so named after Egypt and Syria, surrounding Israel, combined in unprovoked sneak attack on Israel's holiest day, marked by national fasting and release from all work, including military.
Unprovoked? Israel was occupying the Golan Heights and the Sinai. Sneak attack? Who attacked first in the '67 conflict?
The Linux community will turn on IBM
A few guys in need of a shower and a suit can hardly be described as the Linux community. Unfortunately, Daniel Lyons didn't elaborate on it. What will change after SCO vs IBM that will get either side to start sniping at one another?
Just look at Red hat, they refused to pay a piddly $10 per-unit fee to SUN for the ability to bundle StarOffice 6/7.
Piddly?!?!?! It was one-tenth the cost of their entire distribution (when they were selling to end-users). It probably nuked their entire profit margin.
You probably can't. LVM version 1 was not ported to the 2.6.0 kernel. There is LVM version 2, but I do not know if its backward compatible with LVM version 1 partitions.
Are you proud because you can string along a girl for 14 years without getting married?
Is this a joke? What do you think GWB has been trying to do for the past couple of months?
Wrong. There would be as much support for Iraq as there would be for Vietnam. And Vietnam dragged out for quite a few years after the public made it abundantly clear it was not supported.
The same guys who were asked that are the same guys that said those guerilla attacks were from a few disgruntled Sunnis, and it would all be over soon. They're also the same guys who believe the force can be reduced from 180,000 to 130,000. There were generals that disagreed with those assessments. They're not working at their jobs anymore. (Ain't Rumsfeld a great boss to work for?)
Look, no career general wants conscription if they can avoid it. If there is not a nation to nation deathmatch, a country is much better off with a volunteer force. The US is a high tech military. It costs money to train people to use those weapons (or more important, fix them). The Pentagon is screwed when they sink a couple hundred K into a soldier, only to have him bolt at the end of the enlistment term. Conscripts do not have the commitment to kill, maim and follow orders that a career soldier possesses. And a career soldier is less likely to pump a round into the back of a commissioned officer.
Take a look, the numbers are simple. There aren't enough US personnel to support a semi-annual troop rotation in Iraq, at its current numbers. The only way to reduce those numbers is to eliminate the cause for the insurgency attacks. You can't do that if you don't have enough personnel to conduct military operations, AND you cannot dismantle an insurgent enemy by being reactionary. Having 33-50% of our military force parked in Iraq means they can't be used in Taiwan or Korea if the horrible possibility becomes reality.
The Pentagon can say there is no problem, and in two years have a disintegration of the professional cadre of soldiers. They won't have reserve forces to fall back on. Who's going to volunteer to swelter in a tent in the middle of nowhere gettting blown up? And then get pushed around everywhere else in the world because the US can't mount overwhelming combat forces in the theatre. The generals will give their professional assessments when they can't continue to equivocate.
The question is whether the political wing of our government will allow a disintegration of the US military, and capitulate on Korea and Taiwan, or withdraw those forces and allow anarchy to break out in the Middle East. I am so convinced it was the Captains of Industry that forced "career" politicians to authorize an invasion of Iraq, there's no way they're going to let those politicians vote to withdraw (or capitulate).
So all the sheep in DC will sit down, and in the spirit of bipartisanship, will insist the US is compelled to institute the draft. There will be no partisan attempts to get one over on the supporters, because those people will not get media coverage, and will be removed from their jobs at the next election cycle. And the mouthpiece of the rich, the media, will be droning on about how unfortunate but necessary it is to draft our youth, how brave and gallant they are, how the draft resisters are child molesting Al-Queda sympathizers, blah, blah, blah. The American public has swallowed this bullshit since 9/11. Habit is hard to break. And face it, if you're over 25, and you don't have kids of draft age, are you really going to give a damn if some young, poor stranger ends up in a body bag? When discontent causes anarchy in the cities and churn in the Congress, that's when they'll rescind the draft. That could be a good six years of body bags.
Are you volunteering to risk death and dismemberment, and certain privation in order to collect $40K, and not at $30K? Damn, if only the US had the money to get you Darwin rejects to enlist. Hint, it doesn't. Bush couldn't even agree to sustain the salary increases the Congress was willing to pass this year. That was the squawking about Bush leaving the veterans high and dry a couple months ago.
People who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. (hint:Vietnam)
Your military assessment of China is pretty poor too. What do you think they're doing with all that money they're generating from exports? Highways, swimming pools, and caviar for the Party elite?
China has been doing a massive modernization of its military forces, and that includes its air force. Part of the problem with gauging their progress is that they are home-basing much of their military production. Even if their current fighters can barely match US fighters 2:1, a 3:1 edge still means less US planes will be in the air at the end of the engagement.
They don't need a navy to take back Taiwan. Taiwan doesn't have much of a navy either. And no way will they be able to spend to create a navy comparable to the US fleet. Its much cheaper to sink the US fleet (with missles), and then ship the troop transports across. (Oh yeah, don't forget the paratroop forces.)
The biggest dirty secret is that in order to have an effective military force, you have to use it. Its the only way to work out the kinks in strategic construction and tactics. China hasn't conducted a significant military operation since the early '80's, and that army got their asses handed to them by the Vietnamese. If the Chinese have a truly wise military and party leadership, they wouldn't execute an invasion merely because they couldn't be sure the combined arms wouldn't shoot each other at a crucial point. I bet there's at least one Chinese general pretty bummed they didn't contribute a contingent force to Iraq.
As for counting on the US to meet its defense obligations to Taiwan, the Bush government has consistently talked through both sides of its mouth. I really have a problem believing that the US can stomach having one of their billion dollar carriers at the bottom of the sea over Taiwan. And trust me, if the Chinese can't sink a carrier group with ten thousand missles, they'll make sure one of them is nuke tipped.
No, I agree, China won't invade Taiwan because after they're victorious, they'd only have a smoking ruin to show for it. The party line is that with Chinese manufacturing power, Taiwan has to move its factories to the mainland to compete internationally, and in thirty years, they will have to accede to the mainland, or else the economic embargoes will pretty much ruin Taiwan. The problem is that there is a HEAVY nationalist streak in their party leadership, particularly the military. You cannot imagine the resentment they have towards the US government for telling them they can't "administer" their own province. It would be much like China telling the Bush administration they had to do a general vote recount for Florida for the 2000 election, but then actually having the power to make the recount happen.
It would be a mistake to believe war couldn't happen because of rational people in power. Remember, Hitler was ELECTED Chancellor. There were no hanging chads or Supreme Court in that election.
The draft is inevitable. There will be conscription in the US after the 2004 elections. The average US citizen is too clueless to realize it. (And the rich's bitch, mass media is not about to clue them in.)
The Pentagon/CiC has guestimated that they need 100,000 combat troops in Iraq. (They probably need twice that number) Without a comprehensive campaign to eradicate the insurgency, that's where our citizens will be for the next decade.
The problem is that roughly 40% of that force is not "regular" Army; its reserve forces. Those forces consist of people who decided not to make a lifelong career in the military, but agreed to train and be used in military conflicts when needed. The people making USD 40-100K/yr are not going to be happy making USD 30K while living in a shithole and having to worry about dying or being permanently disabled.
Right now, the US military has committed to the policy of rotating troops out of that region after one year. That means roughly 100K NEW bodies, trained and capable of executing combat operations will be needed each year. And its not like they can keep the 60% of the career forces in Iraq for longer than a year; they have families and an appreciation for not getting blown up, just like the reservists. Finally, you have to realize at some point, the reservists contracts will have expired. Do you think they're going to re-up?
Contrary to what you may believe, you can't just roust up 100K bodies and ship them out to a combat zone. The US Armed Forces are an extremely well trained, technological fighting force. Traditionally, the first 6 months are spent in boot camp and basic combat training, and then another 6 months for a military specialization skill. Even if you cut that in half, its at least 6 months before you have productive cannon fodder. The answer is to draft those bodies before a potential crisis, so you have something useful for combat when you need them.
So, in two years, all the personnel that is the US Armed Forces will have done a tour of duty in Iraq. What reservist is going to agree to put his career on hold every other year so he can get shot at in the desert? And no, their job will waiting for him when he gets back. He'll just be canned six months later in a layoff. Most of them will not re-enlist. And a lot of regular army personnel won't either.
I laugh when I see the young conservative punks cheering for GWB and invading Iraq. In two years, they're going to be in boiling/freezing in a sand dune, assuming they're not shot/crippled/dead. The twentysomething punks will be safe. :o(
I'll close with this parting shot: your knowlege of economics is hideously flawed and appalling.
Especially the pacifists, who have been around for centuries, and even played a role in the founding and settlement of the U.S.
Are those the same pacifists that tacitly permitted if not aided the genocide of Native Americans?
When you use the phrase "liberal idiot," you are making a statement or at least an implication that one is an idiot for being a liberal.
No, I don't. Liberal describes political bent. I'm quite comfortable describing appropriate people as Conservative idiots. John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, and Rush Limbaugh are three that come to mind. You also appear to presume that I am Conservative in political philosophy. Finally, I find Liberal idiots and Conservative idiots not much different than Slashdot idiots...
Of course you excuse your own original post, which was entirely an attack on immigrants... and later liberals. A member of either group will predictably take that personally.
Hardly. It was an "attack" on illegal immigrants. And all it did was point out the obvious holes in the respondent's position. And is a sad state of affairs when someone considers being called liberal a slur rather than idiot.
Unprovoked? "Anyone who's against illegal immigrants is stupid?" The ONLY ad hominem attack of that message was the last sentence. And it should be screamingly obvious to what it was responding to.
I wouldn't know if you're stupid or not. But it's at least fair to call you ignorant.
It would only be fair to call me ignorant if someone presented a point to point rebuttal to the arguments I made. Can you show me where it has been done? Right now I would be basking in the smug knowledge of an unrefuted position, except this is Slashdot. So its more like being Shaq gloating over elementary school students. It doesn't matter. Anyone capable of comprehending what they read is able to see how this argument went.
Ah, typical weak-minded liberal thinking. Instead of attacking the arguments I present, you spew obscenity, make condencending judgments, present strawman arguments, and more ad hominem attacks.
Man, everytime I read posts from nimrods like you, I think what stupid, retarded idiots who reside in the Western world, and how its going down the tubes.
I am for the legal persecution of any illegal immigrant, whether they're Asian, African, Hispanic, Arab, Israeli, or European! I have zero problem with any Mexican who legally applied for a visa and citizenship.
And guess what asshole, I'm not white and I'm not for the execution of illegals in the USA. My parents did not immigrate to the country by crossing the border and waiting around for a citizenship amnesty. They had to go through the immigration process and they would not be residing here if they weren't college educated professionals. Why the hell should hispanics be given a free pass into this country, but not Asians, Africans, Arabs, Israelis, or Europeans???
I feel bad about how those people have to toil in the fields, live their subsistence lives, and die from the pesticides they get exposed to on the job. But its white trash losers like you who don't vote to abolish all immigration controls. Then they could unionize (without threat of deportation) and strike for better wages and healthier working conditions. You'd rather pay less at the grocery store and live off of their suffering.
I'd rather have uniform, enforced immigration laws, pay more at the grocery store, and take advantage of this country's resources to live a better, less polluted life. So less people are able to immigrate? Boo hoo, I'm not willing to accept a lower standard of living, more crime, more terrorism, water shortages, pollution laws that favor industry, and sovereignty referendums (with implied changes in law) just to ONLY discriminate against people who do NOT live south of the border.
OR (if you read the sentence completely) you'd realize my contempt for the use of ad hominem attacks on people expressing a position, so I applied the same rhetorical technique on the offending poster.