Are there STILL morons spreading FUD about this??? Hey idiot, here are some fact for you:
Canopy and SCO combined own about 5.7% of TT. They do NOT in any shape or form "control" the company.
Those shares were sold to Caldera. Caldera used KDE and invested in TT. Caldera then turned to SCO, and SCO got those shares. There's not much TT could do about it.
TT couldn't buy those shares back if SCO is unwilling to sell.
SCO/Canopy COULD NOT take over TT. TT is a privately owned company, with TT-employees owning over 60% of the shares.
If Qt ceases to be available under the GPL, it get re-licensed under the BSD-licence, as required by the Free Qt foundation.
UserLinux seems targeted towards a very specific goal that KDE cannot meet because of the Qt widget set. That's that,
And what goal is that? Are you saying that UL's target audience is "Companies that write for-profit software but they are so poor that they can't afford to spend $2000 on developer tools"? Very very few companies WRITE software. Most companies USE software, but they don't write software. And even if they do, GPL allows company to write in-house closed-source software, so they could use Qt just fine.
Nuts. Choices like that cost money. If a business lets their employees choose either KDE or Gnome, then that business has to spend money supporting both KDE and Gnome. Why would a sensible business do that?
Why not let the decision-makers at that company make that decision? The company could choose just one UI, but they could choose between KDE and GNOME. Now, Bruce Perens makes that choice for them.
A smart business will lock down the desktops of their employees as much as possible, providing access to only the applications emloyees are authorized to use.
Tools to do just that already exist in KDE, but they are not available for GNOME. So KDE has a clear advantage there.
5 of that list are not "someone with a name". NOBODY outside Slashdot knows what the heck are Conectiva, Lindows, Lycoris, Xandros, Knoppix etc. etc.
Well, your average Joe Sixpack doesn't know what Red Hat, Mandrake and SUSE are either. Lindows does have some exposure since it's available at Wal-Mart.
And Conectiva is huge in Brasil. Just because it's not well-known in your area, does not mean that it's irrelevant everywhere.
And even SuSE and Mandrake are LOT smaller than RedHat and Sun.
In USA perhaps, but Mandrake and SUSE are huge in Europe.
Neither I nor the parent mentioned "control." The fact that Canopy invests in TT means that they have rights and influence as investors. Again, you might want to review that Economics 101 text to discover why one company might invest in another.
They have very limited influence. TT-employees have ALOT more control over TT than Canopy/SCO does. Canpoy/SCO has exactly 5.7% stake in TT. 5.7% is peanuts. Borland alone could outvote them. SCO/Canopy could NOT do anything to TT that the other investors did not agree upon. That is a fact.
BTW, did you know that Sun, one of GNOME's primary backers, is funding SCO's assault on Linux?
KDE would have to forge ahead with the existing toolkit, meaning Qt is frozen in its tracks while Qt/KDE developers scramble to bring a new (or GNU) Qt project online. Not the end of the world, but a potentially serious disruption.
Not really. KDE-hackers know Qt inside and out. Many of them are Qt-hackers as well. It wouldn't take that long for them to carry on with their version of Qt.
HELLO? Do you think Canopy invests in Trolltech out of the kindness of its collected hearts? INVEST-ment. Get it?
And Canopy/SCO still control a measly 5.7% on TT-stock! Get it? 94.3% of TT is in no shape or for controlled by Canopy/SCO. Any brain-cells still operating in your head?
SCO's investment in TT was made back when SCO was still Caldera. Caldera used KDE and made an investment to TT. Now those shares are owned by SCO. TT Just can't byu those shares back if SCO is unwilling to sell.
However, should KDE use ever reach a tipping point and Trolltech (or its investors) decide that there's more money to be made off the backs of KDE users and developers, Trolltech might be persuaded to change licensing.
It seems to me you don't know a thing about GPL. HAve you ever even READ it? If TT tomorrow announced that they will close Qt and that there will be no free version of it available, KDE-folks would simply use the current GPL'ed version of Qt and go on from there. There would in essence then be two Qt-toolkits: the free Qt maintained by the community, and the proprietary Qt maintained by TT. TT can't retroactively change the licensing of the software they have already lisenced under the GPL
And should TT try to screw KDE over, Qt would be re-licensed under the BSD-license, as mandated by the Free Qt foundation.
Plase, at least TRY to check your facts, OK?
The bottom line is that Gtk/GNOME provides a lot less risk than Qt/KDE and this is something that corporations will welcome.
How exactly? Both toolkits are free and open source. Just because TT is the primary developer of Qt does not mean that Qt or KDE is somehow "vulnerable". You are just spreading FUD, and you are not very good at it.
Or you're planning on WRITING non-free proprietary software. This distribution is for businesses after all.
And how many businesses write software? This may come as a shock to you, but most companies do NOT write software as their business! Yes, most companies USE software, but very few WRITE software. And you can write closed in-house software for free with Qt. GPL allows that.
It doesn't matter about control. Every time you give a quarter to Trolltech, letting the stock price rise, you give a penny to Canopy and its blood-sucking weasels. That's a really good reason to support Gnome. Since it's not controlled by a public corporation, you don't have to convince yourself that you're isolated from the antics of its major stockholders.
HELLO?!?!? anyone home?? Trolltech is NOT a public company! it's NOT listed in stock-exchange! It's a privately owned company!
If you want to look at who controls GNOME, we will see that it's basically controlled by three companies: Sun, Red Hat and Novell (via Ximian). All three are pulic companies whose shares are listed in a stock-exchange. Since GNOME is more or less controlled by public companies, whereas KDE is not, I expect that you will switch from GNOME to KDE. I mean, that WAS the reason you supported GNOME, right? Now that you have been proven to be in error, I expect you to rectify the situation.
Lindows is a newbie-oriented distro that uses KDE. They also use GNOME-apps where appropriate (GAIM for example) and it doesn't seem to "confuse" their users one bit.
So let me get this straight: KDE has a feature that is basically required by corporate environments. GNOME lacks that feature. Yet Perens said that the two desktops are equal in features and architecture.
Yes, I do agree that there generally is no "freeedom of choice" in corporate-environments, so sticking to one desktop is a smart thing to do. But why not let the admin make that choice? Why does Perens get to make that choice?
KDE seems haunted by bad luck - everyone with a name (contrary to the polled masses, maybe) picks Gnome over them.
Such as? If we look at who has picked GNOME, we'll have Red Hat, UL (which doesn't have anything to show yet) and Sun. If we look at who has picked KDE we will have SUSE, Mandrake, Conectiva, Lindows, Lycoris, Xandros, Knoppix etc. etc.
Bruce Perens said, repeatedly, that he feels that GNOME and KDE are exactly equal in features, and that there is no real technical superiority of either over the other.
Many think that KDE is significantly ahead of GNOME when it comes to the infrastructure and the like. For example, Kparts, Kioslaves and DCOP (Hell, DCOP is so good that the new D-BUS was largely based around it!)
Yes, of course you can istall KDE by yourself of UL. But UL is making a BIG mistake when they limit themselves to just GNOME/GTK+-stuff. For example, Lindos is a KDE-distro. Yet their IM-client is GAIM! Clearly, they just picked the best tools for the job. UL is not doing that. They are limiting themselves by just picking one toolkit. By excluding KDE, they wont get kick-ass stuff like K3B, Kdevelop and Quanta+. Even though Lindows is focudes on KDE, they still support GTK+-apps. And it hasn't hurted them one bit.
And I dislike the fact that UL seems to be one man show. There was discussion about this topic in the mailing-list, and the KDE-folks made a ver good proposal. Perens simply said (in effect): "talk all you want, but here we do things MY way!". I wouldn't be one bit surprised if Perens chose GNOME because ut happens to be his personal favourite of the two. Whch desktop does he use, anyone know?
Athlon64's run very cool. Under light load, the CPU slows down (all the way down to 800Mhz). Hell, I have heard people using their system with the fan being dead-still! And XP's don't run particularly hot either. In fact, they run a bit cooler than equivalent Intel-chips do!
Do you think she put those applications into the menu HERSELF? If not, how did they get there? She said she just installed the Fedora RPMs. Regardless of whether or not the included apps are strictly a part of KDE or not, they were there in what she had to work with, and a stupidly bloated menu was the result. Nothing unfair in pointing out that it's bad thing in a review of an desktop environment.
In the past those apps wouldn't have appeared in the menu. And people complained that "I use these apps and they are not in the menu! I have to add them there manually! This sucks!". Now that the process has been automated, people still complain! This only proves that you can't please everyone. But, luckily you can remove those entries from the menu, so I really fail to see the problem here.
What does KDE install that you don't want to install? And besides, that's a matter of distro as well. In Debian for example (if my memory server me correctly), you can choose what KDE-apps you want to install, instead of the whole shebang. And if KDE does install stuff you don't need, what's there stopping you from removing them afterwards?
GNOME has always been the commerical desktop of choice.
How so? Which distros are GNOME-centric? Well, there's Red Hat and.... That's about it. Sure, there's Fedora, but their KDE-support is alot better than Red Hat's was. Then there is Sun, but we'll have to see how that pans aout. They don't even call their desktop GNOME though.
If we look at KDE, there's SUSE, Mandrake, Lycoris, Lindows, Xandros, Knoppix and Conectiva. I bet I missed few though. Rest (Debian, Gentoo, Slackware etc.) are more or less desktop-agnostic.
To me it seems that KDE is the "desktop of choice"
KDE is extremely expensive to develop for, unless you intend to produce GPL software.
So, let me get this straight: Before, GNOME-fanboys whined because Qt was not 100% free (as in speech). Now that it is, they whine because Qt does not allow them to write closed and proprietary software for free? How's that for hypocrisy!? "I support open source and free software! I want others to give me free tools so I could write proprietary software for profit with them!"
TrollTech, the owners of KDE and Qt
Trolltech does not own KDE.
Qt's/KDE lack of accessiblity
Examples please?
KDE has spent the time making *fake* translucent menus
I have seen similar fake translucency on GNOME as well, so what's your point?
thanks to the fine work of Sun engineers
Those "Fine Sun engineers" that are now working on GNOME used to work on CDE. A ringing endorsement, don't you think?
TrollTech is also vulnerable to takeover
Over 60% of TT's shares are owned by the emplyees of TT. The shares are not publicly listed. So how exactly are they "vulnerable"? And even if they were taken over and GPL'ed Qt was eliminated, Qt would be automatically released under a BSD-style license. Do some research, OK?
OpenOffice v2 -- the only open source desktop capable of satisfying business needs -- is already working on integration with the GNOME desktop
And they are working on integraring it with KDE as well, so what's your point?
Not quite. "Illegal combatant" is something USA came up with in order not to be bound by the Geneva convention. Since the convention bans torture among other things, it begs the question: why does USA want to go around the treaty? They are clearly doing something that is banned by the convention.
Yep, totally agree. We couldn't have detained Saddam and his government while we searched for WMDs. So, we used intelligence agencies and broken resolutions as our evidence. Kind of like investigating a domestic murder when the killer won't let you in to inspect his house.
Uh, there had been weapons-inspectors going through the country for a long time since the first Gulf War (apart from a period of time when they left the country at the request of the USA). They destroyed loads of weapons. Later teams came up with nothing. Nada. They went on the record and said that they haven't found a thing. Powell and Condie Rice also said that they believe Iraq has destroyed all their weapons, as mandated by the internation community. USA still invaded, and guess what? They haven't found a thing either!
What more do you want? Iraq had WMD's, that's not in dispute. They have been destroyed. Like you yourtself said: "because the killer has had ample time (months) to hide or destroy it.".
First, the people in Camp X-Ray are not covered by the Geneva Convention.
Says who? GWB?
Second, as for Iraq, a country is not the same as a person. Your analogy falls apart under closer inspection. In most criminal cases, the defendant is not able to conceal or tamper with evidence, since he or she is put into holding while that happens, or kept away from the crime scene while the investigation takes place.
If Iraq has WMD's, why didn't they use them? I mean, US forces were closing in on Baghdad, if Iraq had WMD's it was then that they should have been used: as a weapon of last resort. But they did not. Why? If you are going to say "because they didn't have the guts", then they weren't really threat now were they? What kind of threat would they be if they weren't going to use their WMD's in the first place?
Should we have arrested and detained Saddam and his regime while we searched his country for WMD and terrorist links?
No. If you did, then wouldn't FInland (for example) have the right to invade USA and seize GWB while we look for evidence about US's WMD's?
If you're one of these suffering people, it's your sovereign government that's probably going to kill you. If you plainly respect the soverign government, the people die. I'd rather take down a man made notion of government than let masses of innocent people die.
So, why are you getting down on all fours and kissing Chinas ass, instead of invading them? After all, they have killed alot of their own citizens. And when Taiwan plans to have the ultimate form of democracy, a referendum, on whether to become a independent nation or not, you tell them that they can't do that. But I thought you supported democracy??
Re:GWI wasn't a formally declared war...
on
Saddam Hussein Arrested
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
So, have you proven that those people in camp X-ray are guilty? No you have not, in fact, you haven't even charged them with any crime! You are just holding them there!
And where is the evidence saying Iraq threatened USA? Where is the evidence that they had WMD's? remember: "innocent untill proven guilty".
And here in Europe, we are innocent untill proven guilty. Law-enforcement official don't keep records on the books we borrow from the library, unlike in USA.
They also haven't found evidence of WMD yet. That doesn't mean they won't. And therefore you can't yet say that the war was illegal.
then let the weapons-inspectors back in the country. For some reason USA doesn't want them in there, instead USA is looking for the weapons themselves. What's there to stop them from planting those weapons there?
Funny thing is that first Colin Powell said that "Iraq has destroyed their WMD's". A bit later he said "Iraq has WMD's and we know where they are". So, if they knew were they are, shouldn't they have found them by now?
And why hasn't USA invaded Israel yet? There are strong suspicions that Israel has nukes. Strangly, USA doesn't do a thing, quite the contrary. Contrast that to the situation with Iran for example. Double standards?
"Ma'am, your husband died doing what he volunteered to do. He got killed 'over there' because every Islamic thug we kill 'over there' is one less Islamic thug who can eventually try his luck at killing civilians 'over here', but sometimes the Islamic thugs get lucky 'over there' too. War is hell."
Well, the fighting seems to be mostly carried out my the Feyadeen militia. They operated strictly inside Iraq before the war. So the people who are killing americans (and others) in Iraq seem to be people who did NOT kill any americans outside Iraq before the war.
But the government is within its rights in protecting fetuses/infants who cannot enforce their own rights.
What does infants have to do with abortions? Abortions are not murder. The embryos that are aborted are not even self-aware for crying out loud! It's more or less similar to cutting down a tree of picking a flower. No sentient creature is harmed. Hell, eating a hamburger is alot worse than aborting an embryo!
Slashdot Mirror
Are there STILL morons spreading FUD about this??? Hey idiot, here are some fact for you:
Canopy and SCO combined own about 5.7% of TT. They do NOT in any shape or form "control" the company.
Those shares were sold to Caldera. Caldera used KDE and invested in TT. Caldera then turned to SCO, and SCO got those shares. There's not much TT could do about it.
TT couldn't buy those shares back if SCO is unwilling to sell.
SCO/Canopy COULD NOT take over TT. TT is a privately owned company, with TT-employees owning over 60% of the shares.
If Qt ceases to be available under the GPL, it get re-licensed under the BSD-licence, as required by the Free Qt foundation.
And what goal is that? Are you saying that UL's target audience is "Companies that write for-profit software but they are so poor that they can't afford to spend $2000 on developer tools"? Very very few companies WRITE software. Most companies USE software, but they don't write software. And even if they do, GPL allows company to write in-house closed-source software, so they could use Qt just fine.
Why not let the decision-makers at that company make that decision? The company could choose just one UI, but they could choose between KDE and GNOME. Now, Bruce Perens makes that choice for them.
Tools to do just that already exist in KDE, but they are not available for GNOME. So KDE has a clear advantage there.
Well, your average Joe Sixpack doesn't know what Red Hat, Mandrake and SUSE are either. Lindows does have some exposure since it's available at Wal-Mart.
And Conectiva is huge in Brasil. Just because it's not well-known in your area, does not mean that it's irrelevant everywhere.
In USA perhaps, but Mandrake and SUSE are huge in Europe.
They have very limited influence. TT-employees have ALOT more control over TT than Canopy/SCO does. Canpoy/SCO has exactly 5.7% stake in TT. 5.7% is peanuts. Borland alone could outvote them. SCO/Canopy could NOT do anything to TT that the other investors did not agree upon. That is a fact.
BTW, did you know that Sun, one of GNOME's primary backers, is funding SCO's assault on Linux?
Not really. KDE-hackers know Qt inside and out. Many of them are Qt-hackers as well. It wouldn't take that long for them to carry on with their version of Qt.
And Canopy/SCO still control a measly 5.7% on TT-stock! Get it? 94.3% of TT is in no shape or for controlled by Canopy/SCO. Any brain-cells still operating in your head?
SCO's investment in TT was made back when SCO was still Caldera. Caldera used KDE and made an investment to TT. Now those shares are owned by SCO. TT Just can't byu those shares back if SCO is unwilling to sell.
It seems to me you don't know a thing about GPL. HAve you ever even READ it? If TT tomorrow announced that they will close Qt and that there will be no free version of it available, KDE-folks would simply use the current GPL'ed version of Qt and go on from there. There would in essence then be two Qt-toolkits: the free Qt maintained by the community, and the proprietary Qt maintained by TT. TT can't retroactively change the licensing of the software they have already lisenced under the GPL
And should TT try to screw KDE over, Qt would be re-licensed under the BSD-license, as mandated by the Free Qt foundation.
Plase, at least TRY to check your facts, OK?
How exactly? Both toolkits are free and open source. Just because TT is the primary developer of Qt does not mean that Qt or KDE is somehow "vulnerable". You are just spreading FUD, and you are not very good at it.
And how many businesses write software? This may come as a shock to you, but most companies do NOT write software as their business! Yes, most companies USE software, but very few WRITE software. And you can write closed in-house software for free with Qt. GPL allows that.
HELLO?!?!? anyone home?? Trolltech is NOT a public company! it's NOT listed in stock-exchange! It's a privately owned company!
If you want to look at who controls GNOME, we will see that it's basically controlled by three companies: Sun, Red Hat and Novell (via Ximian). All three are pulic companies whose shares are listed in a stock-exchange. Since GNOME is more or less controlled by public companies, whereas KDE is not, I expect that you will switch from GNOME to KDE. I mean, that WAS the reason you supported GNOME, right? Now that you have been proven to be in error, I expect you to rectify the situation.
Lindows is a newbie-oriented distro that uses KDE. They also use GNOME-apps where appropriate (GAIM for example) and it doesn't seem to "confuse" their users one bit.
So let me get this straight: KDE has a feature that is basically required by corporate environments. GNOME lacks that feature. Yet Perens said that the two desktops are equal in features and architecture.
Yes, I do agree that there generally is no "freeedom of choice" in corporate-environments, so sticking to one desktop is a smart thing to do. But why not let the admin make that choice? Why does Perens get to make that choice?
Such as? If we look at who has picked GNOME, we'll have Red Hat, UL (which doesn't have anything to show yet) and Sun. If we look at who has picked KDE we will have SUSE, Mandrake, Conectiva, Lindows, Lycoris, Xandros, Knoppix etc. etc.
Many think that KDE is significantly ahead of GNOME when it comes to the infrastructure and the like. For example, Kparts, Kioslaves and DCOP (Hell, DCOP is so good that the new D-BUS was largely based around it!)
Yes, of course you can istall KDE by yourself of UL. But UL is making a BIG mistake when they limit themselves to just GNOME/GTK+-stuff. For example, Lindos is a KDE-distro. Yet their IM-client is GAIM! Clearly, they just picked the best tools for the job. UL is not doing that. They are limiting themselves by just picking one toolkit. By excluding KDE, they wont get kick-ass stuff like K3B, Kdevelop and Quanta+. Even though Lindows is focudes on KDE, they still support GTK+-apps. And it hasn't hurted them one bit.
And I dislike the fact that UL seems to be one man show. There was discussion about this topic in the mailing-list, and the KDE-folks made a ver good proposal. Perens simply said (in effect): "talk all you want, but here we do things MY way!". I wouldn't be one bit surprised if Perens chose GNOME because ut happens to be his personal favourite of the two. Whch desktop does he use, anyone know?
Athlon64's run very cool. Under light load, the CPU slows down (all the way down to 800Mhz). Hell, I have heard people using their system with the fan being dead-still! And XP's don't run particularly hot either. In fact, they run a bit cooler than equivalent Intel-chips do!
In the past those apps wouldn't have appeared in the menu. And people complained that "I use these apps and they are not in the menu! I have to add them there manually! This sucks!". Now that the process has been automated, people still complain! This only proves that you can't please everyone. But, luckily you can remove those entries from the menu, so I really fail to see the problem here.
What does KDE install that you don't want to install? And besides, that's a matter of distro as well. In Debian for example (if my memory server me correctly), you can choose what KDE-apps you want to install, instead of the whole shebang. And if KDE does install stuff you don't need, what's there stopping you from removing them afterwards?
It's not called "Kontrol Center". It's just "Control Center"
How so? Which distros are GNOME-centric? Well, there's Red Hat and.... That's about it. Sure, there's Fedora, but their KDE-support is alot better than Red Hat's was. Then there is Sun, but we'll have to see how that pans aout. They don't even call their desktop GNOME though.
If we look at KDE, there's SUSE, Mandrake, Lycoris, Lindows, Xandros, Knoppix and Conectiva. I bet I missed few though. Rest (Debian, Gentoo, Slackware etc.) are more or less desktop-agnostic.
To me it seems that KDE is the "desktop of choice"
So, let me get this straight: Before, GNOME-fanboys whined because Qt was not 100% free (as in speech). Now that it is, they whine because Qt does not allow them to write closed and proprietary software for free? How's that for hypocrisy!? "I support open source and free software! I want others to give me free tools so I could write proprietary software for profit with them!"
Trolltech does not own KDE.
Examples please?
I have seen similar fake translucency on GNOME as well, so what's your point?
Those "Fine Sun engineers" that are now working on GNOME used to work on CDE. A ringing endorsement, don't you think?
Over 60% of TT's shares are owned by the emplyees of TT. The shares are not publicly listed. So how exactly are they "vulnerable"? And even if they were taken over and GPL'ed Qt was eliminated, Qt would be automatically released under a BSD-style license. Do some research, OK?
And they are working on integraring it with KDE as well, so what's your point?
Not quite. "Illegal combatant" is something USA came up with in order not to be bound by the Geneva convention. Since the convention bans torture among other things, it begs the question: why does USA want to go around the treaty? They are clearly doing something that is banned by the convention.
Uh, there had been weapons-inspectors going through the country for a long time since the first Gulf War (apart from a period of time when they left the country at the request of the USA). They destroyed loads of weapons. Later teams came up with nothing. Nada. They went on the record and said that they haven't found a thing. Powell and Condie Rice also said that they believe Iraq has destroyed all their weapons, as mandated by the internation community. USA still invaded, and guess what? They haven't found a thing either!
What more do you want? Iraq had WMD's, that's not in dispute. They have been destroyed. Like you yourtself said: "because the killer has had ample time (months) to hide or destroy it.".
Says who? GWB?
If Iraq has WMD's, why didn't they use them? I mean, US forces were closing in on Baghdad, if Iraq had WMD's it was then that they should have been used: as a weapon of last resort. But they did not. Why? If you are going to say "because they didn't have the guts", then they weren't really threat now were they? What kind of threat would they be if they weren't going to use their WMD's in the first place?
No. If you did, then wouldn't FInland (for example) have the right to invade USA and seize GWB while we look for evidence about US's WMD's?
So, why are you getting down on all fours and kissing Chinas ass, instead of invading them? After all, they have killed alot of their own citizens. And when Taiwan plans to have the ultimate form of democracy, a referendum, on whether to become a independent nation or not, you tell them that they can't do that. But I thought you supported democracy??
So, have you proven that those people in camp X-ray are guilty? No you have not, in fact, you haven't even charged them with any crime! You are just holding them there!
And where is the evidence saying Iraq threatened USA? Where is the evidence that they had WMD's? remember: "innocent untill proven guilty".
And here in Europe, we are innocent untill proven guilty. Law-enforcement official don't keep records on the books we borrow from the library, unlike in USA.
But in this case the police (weapons-inspectors) did search the house, and they came up with nothing.
then let the weapons-inspectors back in the country. For some reason USA doesn't want them in there, instead USA is looking for the weapons themselves. What's there to stop them from planting those weapons there?
Funny thing is that first Colin Powell said that "Iraq has destroyed their WMD's". A bit later he said "Iraq has WMD's and we know where they are". So, if they knew were they are, shouldn't they have found them by now?
And why hasn't USA invaded Israel yet? There are strong suspicions that Israel has nukes. Strangly, USA doesn't do a thing, quite the contrary. Contrast that to the situation with Iran for example. Double standards?
Well, the fighting seems to be mostly carried out my the Feyadeen militia. They operated strictly inside Iraq before the war. So the people who are killing americans (and others) in Iraq seem to be people who did NOT kill any americans outside Iraq before the war.
What does infants have to do with abortions? Abortions are not murder. The embryos that are aborted are not even self-aware for crying out loud! It's more or less similar to cutting down a tree of picking a flower. No sentient creature is harmed. Hell, eating a hamburger is alot worse than aborting an embryo!