Re:Seems much more of a threat to the US than Iraq
on
China Goes Nuclear
·
· Score: 1
> Iraq was a tyranical dictatorship, whose leaders and citizens are ignorant, anti-american religious zealots.
Nonsense. Many in the former Iraq gov't were ignorant, anti-american secular zealots. Thus proving that they would never, ever, ever, ever attack the U.S. or give aid to terrorists.
> The man was impeached for not saying that he got a blowjob!
Well, technically, he was impeached for specifically saying that he didn't have sexual relations. Not that I approved of how strongly Clinton was attacked (I was a Democrat back then).
> The current administration invaded another nation on very dubious pretenses (and in a manner that greatly financially benefitted people that they had close ties to), and there was nary a word of impeachment.
Note the words that I've highlighted. Care to hazard a guess why there hasn't been an impeachment yet? That the Democrats haven't even tried? It's because even they have to admit that no law was broken.
As for the invasion, the obvious reality is that it has been building up for the last decade or so. I mean, they never complied with the terms of their cease-fire (of which the U.N. inspections were a part). And it was quite obvious that Saddam Hussein had no intention of complying. The choice was either invasion or letting him off the hook.
Or did you think the sanctions and no-fly zones were supposed to be permanent measures?
> but one would think that now that the group has been completely discredited...
They would be discredited, if it wasn't for the various confimations they've gotten. Kerry has already conceded several points to them (Christmas in Cambodia, his first Purple Heart, leaving the scene of a battle where he said he didn't, not being discharged before meeting with the North Vietnamese...)
And mind you, most of the SBVT are on board to protest Kerry's behavior after the war -- not to give witness to Kerry's (mis)deeds.
It was orginally named Doll House because that actually was the genesis of the game. It wasn't a game at all, but an architechtural/interior design program with the advancement that you could populate it with people and pets so you could see a more natural rendition of your design rather than just a static image.
Close. The virtual people in the original design weren't just for looks. The idea was that you would have no direct control over them, but you'd indirectly control their lives via furniture placement, architecture, and the like. The overall goal of the game was still the same as it is now -- make your Sims happy.
I actually liked the original design better, but I can definitely understand why they chose to give you more direct control. Not only does it work around the AI limitations, but it adds more of a virtual-pet kinda element to it. (Train them to wash their hands after using the bathroom, etc.)
Comparing the ratio of the size of the US economy to that of the sum of the sizes of the countries currently in the EU, you will see that this ratio was much greater than one (say, 1960) and is less than one now; the US relative advantage has disappeared.
Well I suppose the fall of Communism might do that for the economies of many eastern-European nations. It's a bit of a misnomer to think of the EU as a unified whole, though. The new EU Constitution is being shot down in flames, for example.
I believe "cultural exports" includes movies (e.g. Disney) and music; I am not proud of a lot of our "cultural exports."
They're just as good as anyone else's cultural exports. What, you don't believe in cultural relativism? I do, to an extent. The question to ask is, if American culture is so terrible -- why is it so popular?
When I was in Pisa in June, 2002, a Euro was worth (about) US$0.86. In July, 2003 in Germany, a Euro was worth (about) US$1.14. Right now the Euro is even stronger (US$1.30 ??).
That'd have more to do with the purposeful deflation of the Dollar than with any particular strength of the Euro. My points about France and Germany (the biggest economies in the EU) still stand.
I did not notice any ill-will toward individual Americans.
Oh no, it's never aimed at individual Americans. Just Americans, and America, in general. We're their international boogeyman. Look in any European newspaper and see how often we're mentioned.
I would direct open-minded, thinking types to compare "conservative" responses to "liberal" responses on this thread. I think you might see a pattern: that liberals are more fairminded, more thoughtful, and less knee-jerk reactionary.
Like hell. I've seen more knee-jerk reactions to the current Administration than I ever did back when Clinton was president (and I was a Democrat back then!)
And my reaction to old Noam isn't knee-jerk at all. It's a direct result of his poor and slanted writing.
The United States had a temporary advantage after WW2. We have lost that in all areas except the armed forces,
and economy, and cultural exports.
If the rest of the world said, "Pay us what you owe us.", we would be ruined.
Actually, if we didn't pay up, the World would be ruined.
There's an old saying: "When you owe the bank a million dollars, you have a problem. When you owe the bank 100 million dollars, the bank has a problem."
If oil was priced in Euros rather than dollars, we would be screwed (over time).
And if France and Germany weren't breaking the Euro agreement left and right, there might be a chance of that ever happening.
Bush has cost the US decades of international ill-will.
Since the end of the Cold War, the world has increasingly grown to hate us anyway. The sympathy after 9/11/01 was just a blip on the radar. Almost immediately afterwards European "intellectuals" were speculating that we deserved it because of corporate "globalization", and that we shouldn't have built the World Trade Center in the first place.
Remember the war in Iraq is over; Bush announced on that aircraft carrier.
Might I suggest you read the contents of that speech sometime?
I have to disagree. The terrorists aren't winning, they've won.
They've forced the US to make such dramatic charges in what could be considered our basic way of life that the freedoms upon which we have based our lives are quickly being eroded.
You think terrorists give a crap about the current level of our (still expansive) freedoms? They haven't won until we've all submitted to their brand of paleo-Islam. This is their stated ultimate goal.
We should NOT be sending our troops half way across the world because somebody's daddy couldn't finish a war.
An unfinished war is a dangerous and precarious thing. You do know that there was only a cease-fire with Iraq, right? It was supposed to be replaced with a formal peace treaty once Iraq's government complied with the terms of the cease-fire.
Non-compliance will eventually lead to a renewal of hostilities, barring outside forces. Or did you think that the sanctions and the no-fly-zones were supposed to be permanent?
Obviously it's not a good idea to entirely replace live-fire exercises or OPFOR exercises in the field with simulations, but as a complement to such things, I don't see why it's a particularly bad idea.
Actually, the real purpose is to get soldiers to play these training games in their otherwise free time. It's the military's answer to "edutainment", except it might actually entertain too.
No disrespect to your service, but you're saying that -- in order to get people to join the military -- we should present it in the worst light possible?
I don't think you have a balanced view of America's Army (the game). Have you noticed how often you die playing that game? Or how the teams are always exactly evenly balanced? Those are unrealistic aspects of the game too, but I don't hear you complaining about them. I'm guessing that's because those particular defects show military service in a negative light.
> It is nice to see Americans turn against him and he'll do himself in
Actually, I think he's leading the polls this week. It fluctuates.
The only reason most Europeans are against him is because of the media monoculture over there. Especially with all that state control over news agencies.
I don't think anyone is opposed to the Iraqi people being better off, it's the reasoning for it. Instead of making up some crap about wmd's why didn't Bush just come out and say 'look this ass has been killing x people per year, is disregarding UN requirements on a lot of things' it is the worlds duty to the Iraqi people to stop this crap from happening any longer.
I would have supported that, and I don't think anyone could have said no to that, except maybe the majority of the American public.
So you can't support the war for those reasons because...?
And whatever has happened to Afganistan for god's sake! The country seems like it's collapsing and we don't hear a word about it.
The media can't harp on how invading Afghanistan was a bad idea, that's why. They would if they could, but there would be viewer outrage.
I don't know if you noticed, but the media like to simplify everything. Much like how they boil down the Iraq question to "WMD or not" -- not even touching on WMD intent.
If the US had send a quarter of the troops it has in Iraq we probably would have had Osama by now.
Osama is in Pakistan, more than likely.
I think this is what is pissing 'the world' off so much, the US goes in bombing, but there is little followthrough
Actually, most opposers of the war in Iraq have been against it since before day one -- well before any reconstruction efforts.
>...one shell containing a small amount of Sarin...
Ignoring the other shells found for a second, that "one shell" did indeed have a full compliment of Sarin. It was just detonated improperly, and thus the copious starter chemicals didn't get a change to mix.
Slashdot Mirror
> ...a Stalin-like hard right rule in the United States...
Er, Stalin was "hard left", if anything. Mostly he was a monster.
Orson Scott Card?
Nonsense. Many in the former Iraq gov't were ignorant, anti-american secular zealots. Thus proving that they would never, ever, ever, ever attack the U.S. or give aid to terrorists.
</lefty>
> Frankly, this blows your argument out of the water.
Not if Sweden's population is as closely bunched up as Canada's.
Do you know if it is? If not, then how did you reach your conclusion with such smarmy conviction?
> The man was impeached for not saying that he got a blowjob!
.
Well, technically, he was impeached for specifically saying that he didn't have sexual relations. Not that I approved of how strongly Clinton was attacked (I was a Democrat back then).
> The current administration invaded another nation on very dubious pretenses (and in a manner that greatly financially benefitted people that they had close ties to), and there was nary a word of impeachment
Note the words that I've highlighted. Care to hazard a guess why there hasn't been an impeachment yet? That the Democrats haven't even tried? It's because even they have to admit that no law was broken.
As for the invasion, the obvious reality is that it has been building up for the last decade or so. I mean, they never complied with the terms of their cease-fire (of which the U.N. inspections were a part). And it was quite obvious that Saddam Hussein had no intention of complying. The choice was either invasion or letting him off the hook.
Or did you think the sanctions and no-fly zones were supposed to be permanent measures?
> but one would think that now that the group has been completely discredited...
They would be discredited, if it wasn't for the various confimations they've gotten. Kerry has already conceded several points to them (Christmas in Cambodia, his first Purple Heart, leaving the scene of a battle where he said he didn't, not being discharged before meeting with the North Vietnamese...)
And mind you, most of the SBVT are on board to protest Kerry's behavior after the war -- not to give witness to Kerry's (mis)deeds.
> It's perfectly legal to track dirt onto my sidewalk too
True, but there is a difference between tracking a little mud on the sidewalk, and serially tracking it on the sidewalk all day long across the city.
Much like there's a difference between following a cute girl down the street a bit, and following her home from work every day.
Even selling directly to the consumer, they still need money to get the game made.
When are they going to make a follow-up to the best trackball on the market?
By "their" you mean "China's", right? Because that's not true of Japan and Korea anymore.
Not that China isn't in danger of recession, as I've heard some analysts say.
Close. The virtual people in the original design weren't just for looks. The idea was that you would have no direct control over them, but you'd indirectly control their lives via furniture placement, architecture, and the like. The overall goal of the game was still the same as it is now -- make your Sims happy.
I actually liked the original design better, but I can definitely understand why they chose to give you more direct control. Not only does it work around the AI limitations, but it adds more of a virtual-pet kinda element to it. (Train them to wash their hands after using the bathroom, etc.)
Well I suppose the fall of Communism might do that for the economies of many eastern-European nations. It's a bit of a misnomer to think of the EU as a unified whole, though. The new EU Constitution is being shot down in flames, for example.
They're just as good as anyone else's cultural exports. What, you don't believe in cultural relativism? I do, to an extent. The question to ask is, if American culture is so terrible -- why is it so popular?
That'd have more to do with the purposeful deflation of the Dollar than with any particular strength of the Euro. My points about France and Germany (the biggest economies in the EU) still stand.
Oh no, it's never aimed at individual Americans. Just Americans, and America, in general. We're their international boogeyman. Look in any European newspaper and see how often we're mentioned.
Here is a nice article on virulent anti-Americanism.
This is a somewhat interesting article too. About two recent books on the subject.
And we're hated even when we live up to this double-standard.
Like hell. I've seen more knee-jerk reactions to the current Administration than I ever did back when Clinton was president (and I was a Democrat back then!)
And my reaction to old Noam isn't knee-jerk at all. It's a direct result of his poor and slanted writing.
Fan of Noam Chomsky? You have my empathy. That must have been a pretty bad mid-life crisis you went through.
> Please get your facts straight.
"Please get your facts straight "?! I'm deeply offended!
Or at least I would be, if I was a Queer Homo Deviant (QHD).
(Yes, bad joke, but don't mod me down. Arguably, I couldn't help myself.)
and economy, and cultural exports.
Actually, if we didn't pay up, the World would be ruined.
There's an old saying: "When you owe the bank a million dollars, you have a problem.
When you owe the bank 100 million dollars, the bank has a problem."
And if France and Germany weren't breaking the Euro agreement left and right, there might be a chance of that ever happening.
Since the end of the Cold War, the world has increasingly grown to hate us anyway. The sympathy after 9/11/01 was just a blip on the radar. Almost immediately afterwards European "intellectuals" were speculating that we deserved it because of corporate "globalization", and that we shouldn't have built the World Trade Center in the first place.
Might I suggest you read the contents of that speech sometime?
You think terrorists give a crap about the current level of our (still expansive) freedoms? They haven't won until we've all submitted to their brand of paleo-Islam. This is their stated ultimate goal.
An unfinished war is a dangerous and precarious thing. You do know that there was only a cease-fire with Iraq, right? It was supposed to be replaced with a formal peace treaty once Iraq's government complied with the terms of the cease-fire.
Non-compliance will eventually lead to a renewal of hostilities, barring outside forces. Or did you think that the sanctions and the no-fly-zones were supposed to be permanent?
Actually, the real purpose is to get soldiers to play these training games in their otherwise free time. It's the military's answer to "edutainment", except it might actually entertain too.
No disrespect to your service, but you're saying that -- in order to get people to join the military -- we should present it in the worst light possible?
I don't think you have a balanced view of America's Army (the game). Have you noticed how often you die playing that game? Or how the teams are always exactly evenly balanced? Those are unrealistic aspects of the game too, but I don't hear you complaining about them. I'm guessing that's because those particular defects show military service in a negative light.
Kinda gives new meaning to the phrase "ripped from today's headlines", eh? ;-)
He was supposed to be on the No-Drive List.
> It is nice to see Americans turn against him and he'll do himself in
Actually, I think he's leading the polls this week. It fluctuates.
The only reason most Europeans are against him is because of the media monoculture over there. Especially with all that state control over news agencies.
The media can't harp on how invading Afghanistan was a bad idea, that's why. They would if they could, but there would be viewer outrage.
I don't know if you noticed, but the media like to simplify everything. Much like how they boil down the Iraq question to "WMD or not" -- not even touching on WMD intent.
Osama is in Pakistan, more than likely.
Actually, most opposers of the war in Iraq have been against it since before day one -- well before any reconstruction efforts.
> ...one shell containing a small amount of Sarin...
Ignoring the other shells found for a second, that "one shell" did indeed have a full compliment of Sarin. It was just detonated improperly, and thus the copious starter chemicals didn't get a change to mix.
> but the first thing I think of is a giant, bloated Mario saying, "Get in my belly!"
Wrong Nintendo character, methinks.