Re:They're improving the file dialogs...
on
GTK 2.6.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
"The file chooser improved a lot on GTK2, but it could still use some polish."
What I've never understood is why, in newer releases, they don't provide the filechooser with a backwards-compatible link library so that the older programs will at least interface with the operating system somewhat like newer programs. Something like an LD_PRELOAD that we could do so that every application doesn't wind up with it's own file chooser.
That's the big problem w/ many Linux apps -- they are all their own beast. To use a single Linux distribution, you have to understand about 10 different file->open dialog boxes and about 20 different file->print dialog boxes. I can do it just fine, but trying to convince others is harder. It would be nice if someone found all of the standard API's and built a generic LD_PRELOAD for all of them. Hmmm..... sounds like a fun project for when I get time.
"It is not a real expense. A real expense is something that actually costs you cash."
Absolutely false. A real expense is something that when given prevents you from giving something else.
For example, you can't issue more options than you have stock to sell. Therefore, any option you give someone is an opportunity costs which prevents you from giving that stock to some other person.
In addition, granting a stock option prevents you from selling that stock as well. So, let's say that I give you an option on a $100 share of stock that lasts for 3 years. That means that I cannot sell that $100 worth of stock and stick the money in the bank. So, while I could be earning 3% on the money from the stock, instead it's tied up in an option. If I didn't want to sell it to begin with, I certainly wouldn't have given an option to someone, but giving an option prevents me from accruing interest on a sale.
The fact is that there are not infinite options. If I pay my employees partially in options, someday I might not be able to pay them with options. At that point I would have to find another equally-valued compensation method. The whole point of accounting is to know how much different parts of your business cost and make you. However, if you have zero-valued options, then the cost of your workforce is artificially low, and when you find that you can't give stock options any more, you will find out that the equations you used to govern your business no longer work because they never showed the true cost of your labor force. Likewise, investors will be fooled into thinking that your workforce is a lot cheaper than it really is.
" Something only has value when it is bought or sold."
But your labor _was_ bought w/ options.
With the zero-value option theory, if a company wanted to show zero expenses, all they would have to do is pay for everything with options. Options are easy enough to value, especially compared to many other goods. There's not a perfect way to value them, but there's not a perfect way to value anything.
The fact is that the options were used as payment for services, and if they didn't receive options they would probably have requested some other kind of compensation, another clear indicator of value. If the employees didn't value the options, why go to the trouble of giving them?
"impeached for misappropriation of funds, minimally"
For what? The no-bid contracts for Haliburton were there because there is NO OTHER COMPANY ON THE PLANET that can do them.
"Halliburton would be shut down"
Based on what? Are they worse than any other large corporation?
"Nov 2000 was a coup."
What? Because of Florida? Really, nothing happened at Florida. Congress looked and looked and looked, and only found 3 people who had possible claims. The infamous "felon's list" is a result of bad data in a database combined w/ court rulings (one of the databases did not have the option of 'hispanic' which led to a lot of problems), and even then had no real favoritism towards Bush (hispanics, when you include both Cuban and South American, are divided pretty evenly, add that they are from a prison population and they actually favor Gore).
What did happen, which there are 5 sworn affidavits to, was that one of the Gore recounters was deliberately mishandling ballots to invalidate the Bush ones.
"A tidal wave of blood coming down on us all from the next terrorist disaster? YOUR FAULT."
Strangely, I thought those were the fault of the terrorists. Silly me.
"Military draft stealing away the lives of an entire generation of young Americans (and then some)? YOUR FAULT."
Draft? Hate to tell you this, but the draft was the democrats idea, and now it's certainly not going to come to pass.
"Perpetual wars in the Middle East making Orwellian nightmares seem like tinkertoys in the sandbox? YOUR FAULT."
The middle east has been propetually in conflict. We've now established two democracies (well, probably 1.5 so far). The region used to only have death. Now it has both death and hope.
"A ruined economy and ecology, a Constitution left in tatters, a tyranny of wealthy white "Christians" who are anything but? YOUR FAULT."
Ummm.... it's the dems that like to play funny games with the constitution. They don't like the fact that conservative judges actually look to what the constitution says, and what the founders meant when they wrote it. The dems think it needs to be "interpretted dynamically" (i.e. mean whatever the judge says it means).
"The rest of the world abandoning us when we'll need it most (and don't say it won't happen)? YOUR FAULT."
I don't use the rest of the world as a judge for my actions. Sometimes the world is right, sometimes they are wrong.
"Drop me if you want. Hate me if you want. I don't give a shit. Fuck all 'yall."
Honestly, this makes me feel rather good about who I chose as president. I had a few doubts before, but it seems like GWB's opponents really are largely full of steaming hate. At least on slashdot.
"Actually, that's been public knowledge since the late 1990s, and large amounts of detail were released, based on Iraqi oil minstry records, well before the Commission reported."
Large amounts of detail have still not been released, even from the UN, who doesn't like to look for terror ties within its own organization.
How on earth does this qualify as an extaordinary claim?
"If anywhere, Al Qaeda got some logistical support from Iran rather than Iraq, and those two countries were hardly allies."
So, out of curiosity, why is it that ben Laden, in 1998, all-of-a-sudden decides to mention Iraq throughout his speeches, when previously he gave them little notice?
"One obvious "elsewhere" that no one seems to have seriously considered was Saddam's secret geyser of money, gushing from the so-called Oil-for-Food program. That possibility is not discussed in the 9/11 report, and apparently it was not included in the investigation. A 9/11 Commission spokesman confirms that the commission did not request Oil-for-Food documentation from the U.N., and none was offered."
"I just want to say that any bias the media has about Iraq is pro-Bush, pro-government, pro-patriotism, anti-thinking bias."
That's one of the funniest things I've heard all day. Except for the "pro-government", "anti-thinking" part. It is true that the media has a really wierd love/hate relationship with government that is independent of the office-holder. However, they are definitely NOT pro-Bush or pro-patriotism (they've had to do a little of this to keep the viewers from hating them, but it's mostly just a ruse).
Most people who think that the media is pro-Bush are those who listen to Noam Chomsky too long. Noam Chomsky is pretty famous for completely ignoring the intricacies of international relations and the actions of every other party in order to make America look bad. Of course, if he is your standard, then sure, the media is pro-Bush.
I accidentally said Saddam instead of Ben Laden. Sorry. It was an accident. If you read my point, it was that it was Iraq's national paper who said that Ben Laden would strike America, denoting at least foreknowledge. That WAS my point. I'm sorry I mistyped one evil leader instead of another.
"You take Bin Laden's quote, and attribute it to Saddam. Way to go, moran!"
Oh, mistyping during a long, heated discussion is the worst of all atrocities! May the skies fall on me!
"the same guy who thinks that the fact a terrorist looked sideways at Iraq is confirmed proof that Iraq was involved"
Actually, I've left out a lot of information I didn't find to be credible, and ranked the information I do have according to credibility.
"now dismisses hard evidence (phone records, money trail, etc.)"
I haven't seen such evidence. The sites I saw only used phrases such as "believed to be". Do you have a link listing the hard evidence?
"A more cynical man than I would posit that you were actually being paid to put forth these half-baked and half-assed theories on sites like Slashdot."
Then why are you bothering? I love it when people say "If I were a lesser man..."
The reason I'm here is that I'm on Slashdot a lot lately. And, technically, I am being paid to be here, by my liberal boss who doesn't mind if I participate in forum discussions during work time, especially political ones (he's a big political activist himself -- for Kerry -- so he can't say much).
Because he was unwilling. Unlike what the media would like to tell you he WAS NOT complying with the UN resolutions. We've been trying this for 12 years. We were finally faced with the facts that Saddam was rebuilding his nuclear program, continued to do chemical weapons research (although not mass-scale production, we think [Syria may prove that differently]), continued to increase the range of his missile system far beyond what was allowed, helped fund Al-Qaeda through oil-for-food, provided terrorists with sanctuary, was increasing the amount of money payed to Palestinian terrorists who kill Israelis, and is implicated in numerous attacks on US soil, and I'm sure I've left a few things out.
"It's a matter of record that Bush and Cheney repeatedly accused Saddam Hussein of aiding al Qaeda terrorists and providing them a base, but stopped short of accusing him of aiding the September 11 attacks specifically."
"According to the lawsuit, a columnist writing under the byline Naeem Abd Muhalhal described bin Laden thinking "seriously, with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert, about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House."
The columnist also allegedly wrote that bin Laden was "insisting very convincingly that he will strike America on the arm that is already hurting," a possible reference to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. "
Nevermind about the link, I managed to find one. Of course, the information is mostly hearsay. The information they did find was a link to Umar Sheikh. After discovering this, Pakistani Intelligence relieved him of his duties.
"Jesus Christ, what would it take to get it through their thick skulls? How dumb can these people be"
I agree here. But 9/11 woke them up. The US has been sleeping wrt terrorism for a while now. Clinton was even covering up terrorism in order to not have to go to war.
However, I don't see how anyone else who has been running for office in this election would have done any better. I do think our current crop of politicians are morons, but I think Bush is one of the better ones. Kind of a sad state.
"Your critical thinking skills are as close to zero as I've ever seen anywhere. The 9/11 commission itself said there was no link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda."
You should try reading the 9/11 report. It said it had no operational ties (they didn't plan together) but they did have strategic ties (money, training, and weapons development). The oil-for-food scandal was unearthed _after_ the 9/11 report, and includes funding for Al-Qaeda.
"ROTFLMAO... you dimwit. The same system of "justice" is practiced in many Islamic countries. Look at the number of beheadings that are done in Saudi Arabia."
Quite true. I don't see how that is a counterpoint.
"And what makes you think this? Have you ever seen how many Americans (and 100x that many innocent Iraqis) have been killed since "Mission Accomplished" ?"
You don't think there might be more than one mission? We defeated Saddam. Mission accomplished. Now we need to establish the peace. Do you think that we should not have declared victory in WWII even though it was 4 years between victory and elections in Germany?
As for Saudi Arabia, it's a difficult problem. Internationally, they are very powerful in helping in the war on terror. However, their government is an oligarchy ruled by consensus. While the head of the government is very progressive, other elements are not. It's tough to separate the wheat from the chaff.
As for the connection to Pakistani Intelligence, I've seen that charge repeated, but I've never seen any backup for it. Do you have a link? Also remember - the head of the government is trying to get rid of terrorism, although many under him support it. What to do there? It's possible he could improve the situation massively on his own. Wouldn't that be a good way to try it? And that's exactly what we're doing.
"So the site has some blatant lies and a lot of creative distortion of facts."
It would be nice to point those out. The article you list doesn't mention any.
Do you think the polls he is doing is inaccurate? Do you think his bias is beyond the bias of those anti-war researchers (they mention this themselves) who claim Iraqi casualties at 100,000? Do you have anything other than innuendo?
I'm not saying this guy is the clean bill of truth, but certainly there is nothing in the link you provided which lends any factual doubt onto the website.
"Only because there was literally no defense brought forth for Iraq."
You don't think it's interesting that the Iraqi national paper had predicted the strike and the targets months beforehand?
"On top of that, the US government is refusing to allow payment of the judgement because it might cut into Halliburton's oil revenues in Iraq."
Haliburton would not be affected either way. Haliburton is paid by the US, while Iraq would be the one who paid the families.
But remember, the point of forgiving Iraq for its past debts and faults is because it is now a new government. Completely. If I'm selling hot dogs on the street corner, and sell you bad hot dogs, and then someone else starts selling good hot dogs on the same corner, are you going to sue _them_ for what the previous guy did?
It's not like the people of Iraq had any choice before. When we elect a president, we had the choice before, and we have the choice now. The people of Iraq had no choice before, and therefore are not really liable.
"Some of the things that you refrence even the Bush administration has said aren't true."
That's because the Bush administration is very cautious of what info it releases, and is VERY cautious of anything that presents previous administrations in a bad light, and is also very cautious of anything that might divide the country. You see the Bush administration as being at the far edge of believability, but I think you are quite wrong, and they do a very good job of only presenting what they have fairly solid unclassified evidence for.
If you instead look at the former head of the congressional task force of terrorism and unconventional warfare (Bodansky), and clinton's former head of the CIA (Woosley), they both agree w/ Jayna Davis's OKC story.
OKC included domestic attackers, but it also included foreign attackers. Jayna Davis, an OKC reporter, actually found John Doe #2, wrote a book naming him as John Doe #2 (a former member of the republican guard). He sued her. She won. EVERY eyewitness who saw McVeigh in OKC saw him with a middle-eastern looking man. Clinton did not want a war in the middle east, and therefore suppressed the information. In fact, the administration did not call even a single one of the twenty eyewitnesses in the McVeigh trial, because all of them saw him with a middle-easter man. Look at the book "The Third Terrorist" by Jayna Davis. She's not a conspiracy writer, she's just a local TV reporter in OKC who did her homework.
"I'm not sure how you link the others with Iraq, but I highly doubt the actual facts back you up considering the other things you have asserted."
I'd look into them, especially considering your lack of information on OKC.
"but saying that we are there for untrue reasons helps no one."
I agree entirely.
"That's great, our troops only killed 15,000 CIVILIANS. What is it called again when you kill civilians to futher a cause, like bombing buildings, Oh thats right its called TERRORISM."
It's sad that civilians died. That happens in every war. I like what Tommy Franks said about it - war is always a tragedy. However, there are some things in life that are worse than war, that can only be solved that way.
The fact that civilians died was a result of war, not terrorism. I find it odd that you aren't cognizant of the distinction.
"Unless you're hiding under a rock, you know exactly what I'm talking about here."
I honestly don't. His point was that we have to go after terrorists and terrorist states wherever they are. His point was that attacking Iraq was the best way to prevent another 9/11. I don't know of ANYONE who was confused as to what the president said. I know a lot of people who think Iraq was behind 9/11, but not because of what the administration has said.
I think he was pretty clear, and was not pulling Michael Moore-ish tactics.
"It is quite surprising that you claim to be a follower of Christ, and yet you look away when innocents are being slaughtered."
Actually, I think that the war in Iraq will prevent the future slaughter of the innocent.
"Oh right! They don't apply to Muslims! That must be it."
I'm sure putting words in other people's mouths help you feel good about everything you believe.
"But, why not apply the same reasoning to states like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?"
You have to start somewhere. The hope is that after Iraq becomes stable, in 15-30 years it will help stabilize the whole region. That might not be true, but forgive me if I have a little hope for the world.
"Remember Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi PM? He was a Christian! Imagine, that: a Christian PM in a 95% Muslim country! Let me know if you find such a thing ever again in the Middle East."
Of course, if you disagreed w/ Saddam, he'd cut off your hands. His son would rape your daughters. But since he wasn't prejudiced against religions I guess it was okay.
"The children that Jim Hake cites were "killed under Saddam" ? They were killed by the UN sanctions."
No, they were killed because Saddam didn't use Oil-for-Food to get food, he used it to bribe leaders, support Al-Qaeda, and other things.
Then you haven't honestly listened to what he has said.
"the American people believe Saddam has something to do with Al-Queida"
He did. The 9/11 report even said so. Bill Clinton's indictment of Osama ben Laden said so. In fact, one of their known agreements included weapons development.
"or Sept 11"
There are several possible links between Saddam and 9/11. None of them are hard enough to say for 100% certain, but they are there. In fact, the families of 9/11 have won a judgment against Iraq for its complicity in 9/11. They at the very least knew about it beforehand, as their national paper described it a few months in advance, including the specific targets. It said Saddam would attack America with the vengeance of the bedouins, hitting the Pentagon and the White House, and strike America on the arm that is already hurting (ref. 1993 WTC), and that America would curse the name of Frank Sinatra (referring to his song, "New York, New York").
Even so, Bush has NEVER ONCE himself tied Saddam or Iraq to 9/11. He has tied him, rightfully so, to Al-Qaeda.
"You can present all the good reasons to invade Iraq, but you nobody can attribute them to Bush because he's still clinging to his gutless deception."
Actually you're just lying about his position. Maybe if you listened to him instead of what others say about him you would know the truth.
"But clearly given the info we have, Bush is."
Of course you fail to mention that Bush probably has a lot of info that we have no access to.
"Documented cases of civilians killed by the US is up around 15,000. [iraqbodycount.net, etc]"
Exactly my point. This is nowhere near 100,000.
"you seem to think that a nation that supports terrorism/atrocities should be invaded."
You didn't read it carefully enough. Iraq has been _involved_ in nearly all of those attacks, including AT LEAST 1993 WTC, OKC, and the attempted assassination of GWHB, and likely involved in 9/11, anthrax, and Khobar Towers, and possibly involved in TWA Flight 800 (since we have no suspects, the only thing linking this one to Iraq is the date).
"Ok... so what about US support of Iraq while Sadaam actually *was* gassing people? Cheney & Kerry both supported it. How about our illegal and massive support of Afghan "freedom fighters" (hint: the folks we now call "terrorists") around the same time? These are facts, public record, etc.... but remain unexamined because they get in the way of our national illusion."
In other posts I have always pointed out that much of our terrorist problems today are tied back to our bad policies in the 80's. We made a mistake in thinking that supporting evil people we would win a victory over even eviler people. This is one of Reagan's most egregious errors. So, I agree wholeheartedly with you on that one!
Slashdot Mirror
"The file chooser improved a lot on GTK2, but it could still use some polish."
What I've never understood is why, in newer releases, they don't provide the filechooser with a backwards-compatible link library so that the older programs will at least interface with the operating system somewhat like newer programs. Something like an LD_PRELOAD that we could do so that every application doesn't wind up with it's own file chooser.
That's the big problem w/ many Linux apps -- they are all their own beast. To use a single Linux distribution, you have to understand about 10 different file->open dialog boxes and about 20 different file->print dialog boxes. I can do it just fine, but trying to convince others is harder. It would be nice if someone found all of the standard API's and built a generic LD_PRELOAD for all of them. Hmmm..... sounds like a fun project for when I get time.
"It is not a real expense. A real expense is something that actually costs you cash."
Absolutely false. A real expense is something that when given prevents you from giving something else.
For example, you can't issue more options than you have stock to sell. Therefore, any option you give someone is an opportunity costs which prevents you from giving that stock to some other person.
In addition, granting a stock option prevents you from selling that stock as well. So, let's say that I give you an option on a $100 share of stock that lasts for 3 years. That means that I cannot sell that $100 worth of stock and stick the money in the bank. So, while I could be earning 3% on the money from the stock, instead it's tied up in an option. If I didn't want to sell it to begin with, I certainly wouldn't have given an option to someone, but giving an option prevents me from accruing interest on a sale.
The fact is that there are not infinite options. If I pay my employees partially in options, someday I might not be able to pay them with options. At that point I would have to find another equally-valued compensation method. The whole point of accounting is to know how much different parts of your business cost and make you. However, if you have zero-valued options, then the cost of your workforce is artificially low, and when you find that you can't give stock options any more, you will find out that the equations you used to govern your business no longer work because they never showed the true cost of your labor force. Likewise, investors will be fooled into thinking that your workforce is a lot cheaper than it really is.
" Something only has value when it is bought or sold."
But your labor _was_ bought w/ options.
With the zero-value option theory, if a company wanted to show zero expenses, all they would have to do is pay for everything with options. Options are easy enough to value, especially compared to many other goods. There's not a perfect way to value them, but there's not a perfect way to value anything.
The fact is that the options were used as payment for services, and if they didn't receive options they would probably have requested some other kind of compensation, another clear indicator of value. If the employees didn't value the options, why go to the trouble of giving them?
I see you are forgetting the fact that John Ashcroft fought for Muslim's right to wear clothing in keeping with their religion in schools.
"impeached for misappropriation of funds, minimally"
For what? The no-bid contracts for Haliburton were there because there is NO OTHER COMPANY ON THE PLANET that can do them.
"Halliburton would be shut down"
Based on what? Are they worse than any other large corporation?
"Nov 2000 was a coup."
What? Because of Florida? Really, nothing happened at Florida. Congress looked and looked and looked, and only found 3 people who had possible claims. The infamous "felon's list" is a result of bad data in a database combined w/ court rulings (one of the databases did not have the option of 'hispanic' which led to a lot of problems), and even then had no real favoritism towards Bush (hispanics, when you include both Cuban and South American, are divided pretty evenly, add that they are from a prison population and they actually favor Gore).
What did happen, which there are 5 sworn affidavits to, was that one of the Gore recounters was deliberately mishandling ballots to invalidate the Bush ones.
"A tidal wave of blood coming down on us all from the next terrorist disaster? YOUR FAULT."
Strangely, I thought those were the fault of the terrorists. Silly me.
"Military draft stealing away the lives of an entire generation of young Americans (and then some)? YOUR FAULT."
Draft? Hate to tell you this, but the draft was the democrats idea, and now it's certainly not going to come to pass.
"Perpetual wars in the Middle East making Orwellian nightmares seem like tinkertoys in the sandbox? YOUR FAULT."
The middle east has been propetually in conflict. We've now established two democracies (well, probably 1.5 so far). The region used to only have death. Now it has both death and hope.
"A ruined economy and ecology, a Constitution left in tatters, a tyranny of wealthy white "Christians" who are anything but? YOUR FAULT."
Ummm.... it's the dems that like to play funny games with the constitution. They don't like the fact that conservative judges actually look to what the constitution says, and what the founders meant when they wrote it. The dems think it needs to be "interpretted dynamically" (i.e. mean whatever the judge says it means).
"The rest of the world abandoning us when we'll need it most (and don't say it won't happen)? YOUR FAULT."
I don't use the rest of the world as a judge for my actions. Sometimes the world is right, sometimes they are wrong.
"Drop me if you want. Hate me if you want. I don't give a shit. Fuck all 'yall."
Honestly, this makes me feel rather good about who I chose as president. I had a few doubts before, but it seems like GWB's opponents really are largely full of steaming hate. At least on slashdot.
Maybe we all need to read Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders Into Insiders.
"Actually, that's been public knowledge since the late 1990s, and large amounts of detail were released, based on Iraqi oil minstry records, well before the Commission reported."
. html
Large amounts of detail have still not been released, even from the UN, who doesn't like to look for terror ties within its own organization.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
How on earth does this qualify as an extaordinary claim?
"If anywhere, Al Qaeda got some logistical support from Iran rather than Iraq, and those two countries were hardly allies."
So, out of curiosity, why is it that ben Laden, in 1998, all-of-a-sudden decides to mention Iraq throughout his speeches, when previously he gave them little notice?
http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.06.20/news2
9/11 commission never looked into oil-for-food
"One obvious "elsewhere" that no one seems to have seriously considered was Saddam's secret geyser of money, gushing from the so-called Oil-for-Food program. That possibility is not discussed in the 9/11 report, and apparently it was not included in the investigation. A 9/11 Commission spokesman confirms that the commission did not request Oil-for-Food documentation from the U.N., and none was offered."
"I just want to say that any bias the media has about Iraq is pro-Bush, pro-government, pro-patriotism, anti-thinking bias."
That's one of the funniest things I've heard all day. Except for the "pro-government", "anti-thinking" part. It is true that the media has a really wierd love/hate relationship with government that is independent of the office-holder. However, they are definitely NOT pro-Bush or pro-patriotism (they've had to do a little of this to keep the viewers from hating them, but it's mostly just a ruse).
Most people who think that the media is pro-Bush are those who listen to Noam Chomsky too long. Noam Chomsky is pretty famous for completely ignoring the intricacies of international relations and the actions of every other party in order to make America look bad. Of course, if he is your standard, then sure, the media is pro-Bush.
"obviously, not in the college YOU came from, looking at the dull-as-a-snail brain that you have"
Enjoy the personal attacks, do you?
Sorry I don't have links to disprove ad-hominem attacks.
Oh wait, I do.
I accidentally said Saddam instead of Ben Laden. Sorry. It was an accident. If you read my point, it was that it was Iraq's national paper who said that Ben Laden would strike America, denoting at least foreknowledge. That WAS my point. I'm sorry I mistyped one evil leader instead of another.
"You take Bin Laden's quote, and attribute it to Saddam. Way to go, moran!"
Oh, mistyping during a long, heated discussion is the worst of all atrocities! May the skies fall on me!
"the same guy who thinks that the fact a terrorist looked sideways at Iraq is confirmed proof that Iraq was involved"
Actually, I've left out a lot of information I didn't find to be credible, and ranked the information I do have according to credibility.
"now dismisses hard evidence (phone records, money trail, etc.)"
I haven't seen such evidence. The sites I saw only used phrases such as "believed to be". Do you have a link listing the hard evidence?
"A more cynical man than I would posit that you were actually being paid to put forth these half-baked and half-assed theories on sites like Slashdot."
Then why are you bothering? I love it when people say "If I were a lesser man..."
The reason I'm here is that I'm on Slashdot a lot lately. And, technically, I am being paid to be here, by my liberal boss who doesn't mind if I participate in forum discussions during work time, especially political ones (he's a big political activist himself -- for Kerry -- so he can't say much).
"And why didn't you try this with Saddam?"
Because he was unwilling. Unlike what the media would like to tell you he WAS NOT complying with the UN resolutions. We've been trying this for 12 years. We were finally faced with the facts that Saddam was rebuilding his nuclear program, continued to do chemical weapons research (although not mass-scale production, we think [Syria may prove that differently]), continued to increase the range of his missile system far beyond what was allowed, helped fund Al-Qaeda through oil-for-food, provided terrorists with sanctuary, was increasing the amount of money payed to Palestinian terrorists who kill Israelis, and is implicated in numerous attacks on US soil, and I'm sure I've left a few things out.
I think 12 years of that is a good enough try.
You should read your own links:
"It's a matter of record that Bush and Cheney repeatedly accused Saddam Hussein of aiding al Qaeda terrorists and providing them a base, but stopped short of accusing him of aiding the September 11 attacks specifically."
CBS News Link
"According to the lawsuit, a columnist writing under the byline Naeem Abd Muhalhal described bin Laden thinking "seriously, with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert, about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House."
The columnist also allegedly wrote that bin Laden was "insisting very convincingly that he will strike America on the arm that is already hurting," a possible reference to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. "
Nevermind about the link, I managed to find one. Of course, the information is mostly hearsay. The information they did find was a link to Umar Sheikh. After discovering this, Pakistani Intelligence relieved him of his duties.
"Jesus Christ, what would it take to get it through their thick skulls? How dumb can these people be"
I agree here. But 9/11 woke them up. The US has been sleeping wrt terrorism for a while now. Clinton was even covering up terrorism in order to not have to go to war.
However, I don't see how anyone else who has been running for office in this election would have done any better. I do think our current crop of politicians are morons, but I think Bush is one of the better ones. Kind of a sad state.
"Your critical thinking skills are as close to zero as I've ever seen anywhere. The 9/11 commission itself said there was no link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda."
You should try reading the 9/11 report. It said it had no operational ties (they didn't plan together) but they did have strategic ties (money, training, and weapons development). The oil-for-food scandal was unearthed _after_ the 9/11 report, and includes funding for Al-Qaeda.
"ROTFLMAO... you dimwit. The same system of "justice" is practiced in many Islamic countries. Look at the number of beheadings that are done in Saudi Arabia."
Quite true. I don't see how that is a counterpoint.
"And what makes you think this? Have you ever seen how many Americans (and 100x that many innocent Iraqis) have been killed since "Mission Accomplished" ?"
You don't think there might be more than one mission? We defeated Saddam. Mission accomplished. Now we need to establish the peace. Do you think that we should not have declared victory in WWII even though it was 4 years between victory and elections in Germany?
As for Saudi Arabia, it's a difficult problem. Internationally, they are very powerful in helping in the war on terror. However, their government is an oligarchy ruled by consensus. While the head of the government is very progressive, other elements are not. It's tough to separate the wheat from the chaff.
As for the connection to Pakistani Intelligence, I've seen that charge repeated, but I've never seen any backup for it. Do you have a link? Also remember - the head of the government is trying to get rid of terrorism, although many under him support it. What to do there? It's possible he could improve the situation massively on his own. Wouldn't that be a good way to try it? And that's exactly what we're doing.
"So the site has some blatant lies and a lot of creative distortion of facts."
It would be nice to point those out. The article you list doesn't mention any.
Do you think the polls he is doing is inaccurate? Do you think his bias is beyond the bias of those anti-war researchers (they mention this themselves) who claim Iraqi casualties at 100,000? Do you have anything other than innuendo?
I'm not saying this guy is the clean bill of truth, but certainly there is nothing in the link you provided which lends any factual doubt onto the website.
"Only because there was literally no defense brought forth for Iraq."
You don't think it's interesting that the Iraqi national paper had predicted the strike and the targets months beforehand?
"On top of that, the US government is refusing to allow payment of the judgement because it might cut into Halliburton's oil revenues in Iraq."
Haliburton would not be affected either way. Haliburton is paid by the US, while Iraq would be the one who paid the families.
But remember, the point of forgiving Iraq for its past debts and faults is because it is now a new government. Completely. If I'm selling hot dogs on the street corner, and sell you bad hot dogs, and then someone else starts selling good hot dogs on the same corner, are you going to sue _them_ for what the previous guy did?
It's not like the people of Iraq had any choice before. When we elect a president, we had the choice before, and we have the choice now. The people of Iraq had no choice before, and therefore are not really liable.
"Some of the things that you refrence even the Bush administration has said aren't true."
That's because the Bush administration is very cautious of what info it releases, and is VERY cautious of anything that presents previous administrations in a bad light, and is also very cautious of anything that might divide the country. You see the Bush administration as being at the far edge of believability, but I think you are quite wrong, and they do a very good job of only presenting what they have fairly solid unclassified evidence for.
If you instead look at the former head of the congressional task force of terrorism and unconventional warfare (Bodansky), and clinton's former head of the CIA (Woosley), they both agree w/ Jayna Davis's OKC story.
OKC included domestic attackers, but it also included foreign attackers. Jayna Davis, an OKC reporter, actually found John Doe #2, wrote a book naming him as John Doe #2 (a former member of the republican guard). He sued her. She won. EVERY eyewitness who saw McVeigh in OKC saw him with a middle-eastern looking man. Clinton did not want a war in the middle east, and therefore suppressed the information. In fact, the administration did not call even a single one of the twenty eyewitnesses in the McVeigh trial, because all of them saw him with a middle-easter man. Look at the book "The Third Terrorist" by Jayna Davis. She's not a conspiracy writer, she's just a local TV reporter in OKC who did her homework.
"I'm not sure how you link the others with Iraq, but I highly doubt the actual facts back you up considering the other things you have asserted."
I'd look into them, especially considering your lack of information on OKC.
"but saying that we are there for untrue reasons helps no one."
I agree entirely.
"That's great, our troops only killed 15,000 CIVILIANS. What is it called again when you kill civilians to futher a cause, like bombing buildings, Oh thats right its called TERRORISM."
It's sad that civilians died. That happens in every war. I like what Tommy Franks said about it - war is always a tragedy. However, there are some things in life that are worse than war, that can only be solved that way.
The fact that civilians died was a result of war, not terrorism. I find it odd that you aren't cognizant of the distinction.
"Unless you're hiding under a rock, you know exactly what I'm talking about here."
I honestly don't. His point was that we have to go after terrorists and terrorist states wherever they are. His point was that attacking Iraq was the best way to prevent another 9/11. I don't know of ANYONE who was confused as to what the president said. I know a lot of people who think Iraq was behind 9/11, but not because of what the administration has said.
I think he was pretty clear, and was not pulling Michael Moore-ish tactics.
"It is quite surprising that you claim to be a follower of Christ, and yet you look away when innocents are being slaughtered."
Actually, I think that the war in Iraq will prevent the future slaughter of the innocent.
"Oh right! They don't apply to Muslims! That must be it."
I'm sure putting words in other people's mouths help you feel good about everything you believe.
"But, why not apply the same reasoning to states like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?"
You have to start somewhere. The hope is that after Iraq becomes stable, in 15-30 years it will help stabilize the whole region. That might not be true, but forgive me if I have a little hope for the world.
"Remember Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi PM? He was a Christian! Imagine, that: a Christian PM in a 95% Muslim country! Let me know if you find such a thing ever again in the Middle East."
Of course, if you disagreed w/ Saddam, he'd cut off your hands. His son would rape your daughters. But since he wasn't prejudiced against religions I guess it was okay.
"The children that Jim Hake cites were "killed under Saddam" ? They were killed by the UN sanctions."
No, they were killed because Saddam didn't use Oil-for-Food to get food, he used it to bribe leaders, support Al-Qaeda, and other things.
"But Bush has said nothing of the sort"
Then you haven't honestly listened to what he has said.
"the American people believe Saddam has something to do with Al-Queida"
He did. The 9/11 report even said so. Bill Clinton's indictment of Osama ben Laden said so. In fact, one of their known agreements included weapons development.
"or Sept 11"
There are several possible links between Saddam and 9/11. None of them are hard enough to say for 100% certain, but they are there. In fact, the families of 9/11 have won a judgment against Iraq for its complicity in 9/11. They at the very least knew about it beforehand, as their national paper described it a few months in advance, including the specific targets. It said Saddam would attack America with the vengeance of the bedouins, hitting the Pentagon and the White House, and strike America on the arm that is already hurting (ref. 1993 WTC), and that America would curse the name of Frank Sinatra (referring to his song, "New York, New York").
Even so, Bush has NEVER ONCE himself tied Saddam or Iraq to 9/11. He has tied him, rightfully so, to Al-Qaeda.
"You can present all the good reasons to invade Iraq, but you nobody can attribute them to Bush because he's still clinging to his gutless deception."
Actually you're just lying about his position. Maybe if you listened to him instead of what others say about him you would know the truth.
"But clearly given the info we have, Bush is."
Of course you fail to mention that Bush probably has a lot of info that we have no access to.
"Documented cases of civilians killed by the US is up around 15,000. [iraqbodycount.net, etc]"
Exactly my point. This is nowhere near 100,000.
"you seem to think that a nation that supports terrorism/atrocities should be invaded."
You didn't read it carefully enough. Iraq has been _involved_ in nearly all of those attacks, including AT LEAST 1993 WTC, OKC, and the attempted assassination of GWHB, and likely involved in 9/11, anthrax, and Khobar Towers, and possibly involved in TWA Flight 800 (since we have no suspects, the only thing linking this one to Iraq is the date).
"Ok... so what about US support of Iraq while Sadaam actually *was* gassing people? Cheney & Kerry both supported it. How about our illegal and massive support of Afghan "freedom fighters" (hint: the folks we now call "terrorists") around the same time? These are facts, public record, etc.... but remain unexamined because they get in the way of our national illusion."
In other posts I have always pointed out that much of our terrorist problems today are tied back to our bad policies in the 80's. We made a mistake in thinking that supporting evil people we would win a victory over even eviler people. This is one of Reagan's most egregious errors. So, I agree wholeheartedly with you on that one!