As 65% of all Brazilians with income more than US$ 2000 always walksequipped with gun...
This may be true. But keep in mind the the percentage of the Brazilian population with income more than US$ 2000 is roughly 5%. That's right. Only 5% of Brazilian have a monthly income superior to US$ 2000. So, your 65% become something like 3% of the total population.
Exactly. For the first time in history, two big cities in the US were attacked. Now, there's something interesting about it: the US has played first role in the bigger wars in the past 50 years, and none of these wars were fought on american soil. Think about it for a moment.
...and hoping and giving them stuff has failed. It's time to punish the evil with consequences for evil acts, no matter the casualties.
Why is it so hard to some people to understand that the recent attacks were a direct retaliation made to the US by the terrorists? Please, I beg you to think about it and understand that the US has already caused lots of casualties in Mid-East countries, and that those casualties are the main cause of the terrorism we saw last tuesday. Read this letter from an Afghani-American, and try to understand why bombing Afghanistan is useless.
Terrorism is not dominant in the islamic countries. It's a product of radical groups, spread all over the world. The best way to make them stop attacking the US, is make them stop wanting to do it. And not by fear, but by reason.
You still miss the point. You're assuming that all of the US foreign actions are altruistic. They're not. What the US does to other countries is not democratic and wouldn't be accepted by americans if they cared about it.
About Hitler: the US entered the war only after they were attacked. Before that, there was no support at all to Europe. And I guess WWII was a bigger issue.
I know that the US conducts itself better than any other country. The US is the biggest economic/military power in the world. But, unfortunately, it does not conducts itself very well outside the US. You have proof of that now, after the attacks.
So are you claiming it was a terrible thing to help Kuwait?
I never said that. What I said is that the US has bombed civil buildings before.
Are you saying that US did bombard innocent civilians on purpose and if not do you know any other way of conducting warfare without causing occasional civilian casualties.
This is my point. Your reasoning gives the Iraqi people an excuse to attack US civil buildings and not only militar targets. Basically, it's "hit where it hurts". Don't use this terrible logic that the US has a good reason to kill innocent, while the others don't have any reason at all to attack the US. It'll only make this kind of war go on and on. Try to understand that the pain the US is suffering now already happened at some place at the Mid-East, and it was caused by US military forces.
And the other point I was trying to make is that perhaps now is the time to rethink the US foreign policies. It has not come to this without a reason. The US has done things that offended groups of foreign people. They have hit back. It's all wrong.
Disclaimer: Of course, I'm assuming that the attacks were made by fundamentalists from Mid-East. I can't prove that. If they didn't do it, I take back all I said.
I'm very impressed with slashdot: I live in Brazil, and I got word of the attacks as soon as you posted the first news: ten minutes later a friend called and told me what I already knew. Now, think about it: I'm very far from NY (about 10-12 hours on a plane) and was reading news about it almost instantly. Most news sites on Brazil got overloaded too, so slashdot, for a while, was my only source of info... Congratulations to the slashdot team... you did a very cool job for the whole world!
When was the last time that the United States or Israel flew a plane loaded with jet fuel into an office building full of civilians?
You can't remember it? You're right. It never happened. But what happened was US military bombing civilian buildings in Iraq, killing several hundreds (thousands) of civilians. That you can forget? Of course! It wasn't home! You probably couldn't care less of what happens in Mid-East.
Remember, this was the first time a big attack occurred in a great city in the US. Pearl Harbour was far, and did not have any big building to be destroyed. New York and Washington attacks will have a far bigger effect on americans than WWII. It's much more closer to home.
I find all of this very amusing... But remember: the hijackers were prepared to die on the plane. What makes you think a crazy bastard prepared to crash a plane in the WTC would be intimidated by someone yelling "Shut up!"? Here's my view of a possible dialogue:
[hijacker] "I take this plane in the name of..."
[passenger] "Shut the hell up, you don't scare anyone. If you don't sit the hell down, I'm going to ram that freaking Koran down your throat!"
[hijacker kills the nearest person with lots of blood spill] "You're next if you don't shut up." (he can say that before you finish your sentence too).
I believe you are prepared to deal with something like this... But think about the rest of the passengers: 99% would shut up and try to deal with it. Unless something happens like in the 4th plane: as soon as the passengers knew it could crash on a big building they did something. And maybe (this is pure speculation) that's why it crashed on the country.
Re:Let's not forget...
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
This is silly. You KNOW the US attacked and killed innocent civilians (who perhaps were against Saddam) in Iraq in the Gulf War in 1991. So you're saying it's right if someone killed you because YOU didn't point your president and gave him up to butchery, because your silence would imply consent?
Basically it's always the same: if my government does things I'm not proud of we sigh and forget about it. But when the bad things happen to us, we want "justice" and "punishment" at all costs.
I'm sorry, but you're very wrong.
Re:Let's not forget...
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
You are absolutely right. But, unfortunately, president Bush doesn't think so.
One of the worst things I saw in the news after the attack was the president saying "People who conducted these acts, and those who harbor them, will be held accountable for their actions". This is terrible. It's almost like agreeing with the attacks. Think about it: if some group took responsability for the attack and issued a note to the US saying "We attacked you because you harbor our enemies", what could you say? It's an awful declaration.
Keep in mind that I'm deeply shocked by the attacks, and I don't, in any way, agree with this kind of terror. But attack and kill inoccent people because they live next to your enemy would just make you a terrorist too.
I think we're on the same track. But there are three things that still annoy me about your post, and, I guess, that you will not understand.
The first: People get annoyed when they see extravagant waste in America, even when they have no part of the resources being wasted. That's jealousy, and that's a root of hate.
That's the whole damn point! If people stopped wasting resources just because they *can* waste it, we would get much better understanding and much less jealousy. This applies to *people* too, not only countries. One of the reasons that we brazilians have high levels of urban violence is the huge difference between the poor and the rich. It is a violent statement when, for example, a family of 4 people has 6 cars in their garages, and their neighbour can't buy one for themselves. It rubs in the face of the poor people the whole "I can and you can't" thing. Only because of unnecessary waste. That's the old concept of economic oppression. We have a system (the screwed capitalism we see in the world nowadays) that allows huge waste of resources while others suffer the lack of the same resources. And, the same system concedes more power to those wasting more, which increases waste, and there you have a huge snowball growing downhill. And, even worst, this system allows those who can waste the solemn excuse of "it's not my problem if you're poor", even when it is. Or even when you can do something to help and you choose not to.
The second thing:
I think we both know governments and companies dare. But Brazil hardly qualifies as one of the world's poorest countries -- stop and think: is your country poorer for the business you do with Americans? Has your life been poorer for our presence in the world? No! Through trade, and scientific and cultural exchanges, our countries have worked together for mutual benefit.
I will answer that with an example: what would you think about any country if they, somehow, imposed a deal (economic/political/scientific/cultural) which would end being bad for americans (I'm being very generic, on purpose). Wouldn't you think "they can't do that to us", even if the damage caused by this deal wouldn't end up affect your own private life, but of others in the US? Well, welcome to a third world. We sometimes have to sit and watch an american company take our resources even when they don't need to do that. Just because they can do it. That's economic oppression, again. Please, don't think that all deals are bad for Brazil. Some of them are really good for us, some are good for both. My point is, most are not. We end up giving more than taking, and that's wrong, because we need more. This can stop economic development of a country like Brazil, but wouldn't do any good to the US. Some goes to waste, because the US can waste.
All I'm saying is that the US is in a position where you could be more helpful to a lot of nations, and help preventing lots of bad things. But sometimes we see the opposite. That, to some people, causes the damned hate we are arguing about.
The last, thing thing:
Hatred may breed hatred, but the lesson of the second world war is that it is possible to locate, track down, and annihilate certain evils.
Really? Neo-nazism (skinheads) in Europe don't exist? I'm sorry you feel that way, because you got it wrongly. IMO, the lesson learned was that racism, when taken to those extremes, end up in nothing but war and destruction. This lesson has reduced racist groups in almost all of Europe to a very feeble minority. But it hasn't changed the rest of the world. We have very active racism in Mid-east (Israel against Muslins). And this is very off-topic.
Now, the problem is that some people (the attackers of the WTC) discovered ways to use the system they supposedly are fighting against to their purposes. IMO, the biggest meaning of the attack is "you can have a rich and powerful nation, but it takes only some of our people to make a huge mess in your own house, using your own things". To answer that, you can say, "we'll crush you like bugs". Or, We will destroy [you] so that [you] will not have an opportunity to perform another evil such as this. But will the US destroy all anti-americans? All of them? 100%? That's hard to say. I really hope that destroying is used as a last resource. If you pardon my innocence, I really hope things like that stop happening not because of destruction or retaliation, but as a consequence of construction of better relations. And I don't think that only as a humanitarian and altruist person. I think that because I really don't believe anyone can destroy them all.
I believe that because I exist, and take up resources, that others might see me as a means to an end...
Now I can agree with you. Others can seek to do harm to you after they see you take up resources. This is as subjective as it can get. Of course, anyone seeing you doing anything can find it offensive and retaliate. This is very different from "I exist and this is a reason for others to hate me".
..being rich, successful, and motivated carries a stigma. [...]This is called jealousy, or envy, and I defy you to show that such evil doesn't exist in the human heart, in whatever measure (large or small)
I believe jealousy exists only if the person suffering it cannot achieve the envied objective. If you give means (or help) to a person to achieve things he/she envies, it becomes an aspiration, which is always desirable. Now, I cannot assume the attack to the WTC occurred because of jealousy. This is an awful irrational conclusion.
...Do you know how much we trade with the poorest countries in the world? How *little* presence and resources we draw from the poorest countries? Our trade with the 30 or 40 poorest countries in the world comprimses a negligible portion of our economy...
Check your numbers. I live in Brazil. We have imported, thourgh all our history, much more from the US than we exported. Some years ago, some politicians opposing the government showed that Brazil signed trade deals to import pacifiers (the one babies like) as a condition for exporting rice. In simple words, it's "Yes we will buy you food if you buy our toys". This happens all over Latin America. American companies use all the commercial power available to obtain economic advantages here. Things your government wouldn't dream of doing inside the US.
And now we must make sure that people back off this program, this war, that they have chosen to make upon us in our workplaces and our homes.
Sure. But please don't use the argument "if we make them fear us, they'll back off". It won't happen. The attacks prove that a dozen (or so) people can cause a lot of destruction.
I agree we should look at where we are unnecessarily offending people. Like any great and influential country, we have a habit of that. But I think we should also vigorously combat those who hate us, and who hate the peace and prosperity of our world.
I agree 100% with you on that. That's exactly my point. But the first thing to combat is the cause to the hate, not the hate itself (which, I repeat, we must combat). The US needs to find a way to stop offending other people unnecessarily.
Indeed, often the failure to use force shows weakness and invites further contempt and hate, for it shows that hating us is a safe occupation.
I don't think so. You don't stop hate showing more hate. You can create fear, but the hate will remain until it grows bigger than the fear. And then things happen again. You stop hate showing that hate is useless. It achieves nothing good. It only produces more hate.
Because we exist as human beings, there will be people who seek to do us harm.
I refuse to believe that our simple existence is bound to create enemies ourselves. We do not live in a world with constant clan-like fighting. Do you really believe that some stranger seeks to do harm you just because you exist?
Because we are a wealthy country, there will be people who seek to do us harm. Because we seek to bring prosperity and trade to others, there will be those who seek to do us harm.
Now this is interesting: do you really believe that the US is a wealthy country without harming other countries? Or are all trade/economic/political decisions made always thinking about what would be the result to other countries? Remember, just months ago, president Bush said he wouldn't sign a deal for reducing pollution because it could harm the US industry. Basically, it's "I don't care what will happen to the world, if it will give us any trouble".
This is a basic principle of capitalism: if you want to be rich, the first thing you should forget is that the poor exist. In the current state of world's economy, rich nations like the US depend on the poorness of third world countries.
Who has challenged America military on the open field since 1991?
What's the point in doing that? What did the US achieve in the Gulf War? Saddam still exists and still is a threat to the world. And war, today, isn't necessary in the open field. Look at yestedays acts: there was absolutely no military weaponry envolved. No troops, tanks, military air fighters. Just four comercial airplanes.
IMO, the first thing that should be done (of course, after attending the horrible aftermath of the incidents), rationally speaking, is think about why would someone do that to the US. Please don't come with the "they're all nuts" answer. Unless you can prove that there is a severe case of madness spreading on the world, and the first symptom is "hate against the US". IMO, there are too many "anti-american" movements today to think that it's the work of some crazy radicals. Remember, these radicals need funding and support, and it always come from non-radical groups.
Please, do not make the horrible terrorism that happened a mental-diseased case. It's far much more than that.
I was just wondering... If George W. Bush != Bush Administration, would that imply that Bill Gates != Microsoft? Yet, anything said against Microsoft here on Slashdot is taken directly against Bill Gates.
So here's my point: George W. Bush is the head administrator of the Bush Administration. He's in charge. So, if something as big as this did not pass on his desk at the White House, something is wrong. And I'm not even saying that the decision is right or wrong. I'm just stating that it's clearly something that the president whould be aware of before it was announced.
Just as an add-on to the discussion: I live in south Brazil, in a city called Porto Alegre. Our city has been administrated in the last 15 years by a leftist party.
The salaries the city hall pays to teachers that work in schools under the city administration are among the highest in the public function. Believe me, they pay more money to elementary school teachers than public university teachers (which is under federal administration). The result is as in the article assumption: we have teachers with doctorate in elementary school here. It pays better.
So what you're saying is that new drug research can only be done by big drug companies (because it costs million (billions?)), and that if these companies don't get their "deserved" profit (because other companies will violate their patents and make money), they're going to stop developing new drugs (and thus stop increasing their profits)?
I don't think so. IMO, drug companies that have huge profits (and they have huge profits, believe me) can easily handle this. If they can't, it's about time to move R&D of new drugs out of the companies, to, say, universities.
Sometimes making money isn't the most important issue.
As I read the comments here on Slashdot, somethings hits me...
Do you really think that the pharm industry is going bad and needs this money?
Besides, do you really believe that they're the only people on Earth that can do R&D of drugs? Or that the profit they have is used solemnly only for R&D?
This industry is making money on several drugs they didn't research or develop... That, I suppose is right?
I don't intend to say everything is wrong in the industry, but they can spare some bucks to a poor country to save some lives. I'm not even saying that we should never pay for royalties in drugs, but the price should take account the affordability of the people buying it. Saying "I did the research, so I'm entitled to charge whatever I want to" isn't what I would call being nice.
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct. I should have said "for the first time in recent history".
As 65% of all Brazilians with income more than US$ 2000 always walksequipped with gun...
This may be true. But keep in mind the the percentage of the Brazilian population with income more than US$ 2000 is roughly 5%. That's right. Only 5% of Brazilian have a monthly income superior to US$ 2000. So, your 65% become something like 3% of the total population.
OUR COUNTRY WAS ATTACKED on its own soil!
...and hoping and giving them stuff has failed. It's time to punish the evil with consequences for evil acts, no matter the casualties.
Exactly. For the first time in history, two big cities in the US were attacked. Now, there's something interesting about it: the US has played first role in the bigger wars in the past 50 years, and none of these wars were fought on american soil. Think about it for a moment.
Remember the $40M the US gave the Taliban this year? Well, maybe this should be a reason to review the US foreign policy.
Why is it so hard to some people to understand that the recent attacks were a direct retaliation made to the US by the terrorists? Please, I beg you to think about it and understand that the US has already caused lots of casualties in Mid-East countries, and that those casualties are the main cause of the terrorism we saw last tuesday.
Read this letter from an Afghani-American, and try to understand why bombing Afghanistan is useless.
Terrorism is not dominant in the islamic countries. It's a product of radical groups, spread all over the world. The best way to make them stop attacking the US, is make them stop wanting to do it. And not by fear, but by reason.
You still miss the point. You're assuming that all of the US foreign actions are altruistic. They're not. What the US does to other countries is not democratic and wouldn't be accepted by americans if they cared about it.
About Hitler: the US entered the war only after they were attacked. Before that, there was no support at all to Europe. And I guess WWII was a bigger issue.
I know that the US conducts itself better than any other country. The US is the biggest economic/military power in the world. But, unfortunately, it does not conducts itself very well outside the US. You have proof of that now, after the attacks.
So are you claiming it was a terrible thing to help Kuwait?
I never said that. What I said is that the US has bombed civil buildings before.
Are you saying that US did bombard innocent civilians on purpose and if not do you know any other way of conducting warfare without causing occasional civilian casualties.
This is my point. Your reasoning gives the Iraqi people an excuse to attack US civil buildings and not only militar targets. Basically, it's "hit where it hurts". Don't use this terrible logic that the US has a good reason to kill innocent, while the others don't have any reason at all to attack the US. It'll only make this kind of war go on and on. Try to understand that the pain the US is suffering now already happened at some place at the Mid-East, and it was caused by US military forces.
And the other point I was trying to make is that perhaps now is the time to rethink the US foreign policies. It has not come to this without a reason. The US has done things that offended groups of foreign people. They have hit back. It's all wrong.
Disclaimer:
Of course, I'm assuming that the attacks were made by fundamentalists from Mid-East. I can't prove that. If they didn't do it, I take back all I said.
I'm very impressed with slashdot: I live in Brazil, and I got word of the attacks as soon as you posted the first news: ten minutes later a friend called and told me what I already knew.
Now, think about it: I'm very far from NY (about 10-12 hours on a plane) and was reading news about it almost instantly. Most news sites on Brazil got overloaded too, so slashdot, for a while, was my only source of info...
Congratulations to the slashdot team... you did a very cool job for the whole world!
When was the last time that the United States or Israel flew a plane loaded with jet fuel into an office building full of civilians?
You can't remember it? You're right. It never happened. But what happened was US military bombing civilian buildings in Iraq, killing several hundreds (thousands) of civilians. That you can forget? Of course! It wasn't home! You probably couldn't care less of what happens in Mid-East.
Remember, this was the first time a big attack occurred in a great city in the US. Pearl Harbour was far, and did not have any big building to be destroyed. New York and Washington attacks will have a far bigger effect on americans than WWII. It's much more closer to home.
I find all of this very amusing... But remember: the hijackers were prepared to die on the plane. What makes you think a crazy bastard prepared to crash a plane in the WTC would be intimidated by someone yelling "Shut up!"? Here's my view of a possible dialogue:
[hijacker] "I take this plane in the name of..."
[passenger] "Shut the hell up, you don't scare anyone. If you don't sit the hell down, I'm going to ram that freaking Koran down your throat!"
[hijacker kills the nearest person with lots of blood spill] "You're next if you don't shut up." (he can say that before you finish your sentence too).
I believe you are prepared to deal with something like this... But think about the rest of the passengers: 99% would shut up and try to deal with it. Unless something happens like in the 4th plane: as soon as the passengers knew it could crash on a big building they did something. And maybe (this is pure speculation) that's why it crashed on the country.
This is silly. You KNOW the US attacked and killed innocent civilians (who perhaps were against Saddam) in Iraq in the Gulf War in 1991. So you're saying it's right if someone killed you because YOU didn't point your president and gave him up to butchery, because your silence would imply consent?
Basically it's always the same: if my government does things I'm not proud of we sigh and forget about it. But when the bad things happen to us, we want "justice" and "punishment" at all costs.
I'm sorry, but you're very wrong.
You are absolutely right. But, unfortunately, president Bush doesn't think so.
One of the worst things I saw in the news after the attack was the president saying "People who conducted these acts, and those who harbor them, will be held accountable for their actions". This is terrible. It's almost like agreeing with the attacks. Think about it: if some group took responsability for the attack and issued a note to the US saying "We attacked you because you harbor our enemies", what could you say? It's an awful declaration.
Keep in mind that I'm deeply shocked by the attacks, and I don't, in any way, agree with this kind of terror. But attack and kill inoccent people because they live next to your enemy would just make you a terrorist too.
I think we're on the same track. But there are three things that still annoy me about your post, and, I guess, that you will not understand.
The first:
People get annoyed when they see extravagant waste in America, even when they have no part of the resources being wasted. That's jealousy, and that's a root of hate.
That's the whole damn point! If people stopped wasting resources just because they *can* waste it, we would get much better understanding and much less jealousy. This applies to *people* too, not only countries.
One of the reasons that we brazilians have high levels of urban violence is the huge difference between the poor and the rich. It is a violent statement when, for example, a family of 4 people has 6 cars in their garages, and their neighbour can't buy one for themselves. It rubs in the face of the poor people the whole "I can and you can't" thing. Only because of unnecessary waste. That's the old concept of economic oppression. We have a system (the screwed capitalism we see in the world nowadays) that allows huge waste of resources while others suffer the lack of the same resources. And, the same system concedes more power to those wasting more, which increases waste, and there you have a huge snowball growing downhill. And, even worst, this system allows those who can waste the solemn excuse of "it's not my problem if you're poor", even when it is. Or even when you can do something to help and you choose not to.
The second thing:
I think we both know governments and companies dare. But Brazil hardly qualifies as one of the world's poorest countries -- stop and think: is your country poorer for the business you do with Americans? Has your life been poorer for our presence in the world? No! Through trade, and scientific and cultural exchanges, our countries have worked together for mutual benefit.
I will answer that with an example: what would you think about any country if they, somehow, imposed a deal (economic/political/scientific/cultural) which would end being bad for americans (I'm being very generic, on purpose). Wouldn't you think "they can't do that to us", even if the damage caused by this deal wouldn't end up affect your own private life, but of others in the US? Well, welcome to a third world. We sometimes have to sit and watch an american company take our resources even when they don't need to do that. Just because they can do it. That's economic oppression, again. Please, don't think that all deals are bad for Brazil. Some of them are really good for us, some are good for both. My point is, most are not. We end up giving more than taking, and that's wrong, because we need more. This can stop economic development of a country like Brazil, but wouldn't do any good to the US. Some goes to waste, because the US can waste.
All I'm saying is that the US is in a position where you could be more helpful to a lot of nations, and help preventing lots of bad things. But sometimes we see the opposite. That, to some people, causes the damned hate we are arguing about.
The last, thing thing:
Hatred may breed hatred, but the lesson of the second world war is that it is possible to locate, track down, and annihilate certain evils.
Really? Neo-nazism (skinheads) in Europe don't exist? I'm sorry you feel that way, because you got it wrongly. IMO, the lesson learned was that racism, when taken to those extremes, end up in nothing but war and destruction. This lesson has reduced racist groups in almost all of Europe to a very feeble minority. But it hasn't changed the rest of the world. We have very active racism in Mid-east (Israel against Muslins). And this is very off-topic.
Now, the problem is that some people (the attackers of the WTC) discovered ways to use the system they supposedly are fighting against to their purposes. IMO, the biggest meaning of the attack is "you can have a rich and powerful nation, but it takes only some of our people to make a huge mess in your own house, using your own things". To answer that, you can say, "we'll crush you like bugs". Or, We will destroy [you] so that [you] will not have an opportunity to perform another evil such as this. But will the US destroy all anti-americans? All of them? 100%? That's hard to say. I really hope that destroying is used as a last resource. If you pardon my innocence, I really hope things like that stop happening not because of destruction or retaliation, but as a consequence of construction of better relations. And I don't think that only as a humanitarian and altruist person. I think that because I really don't believe anyone can destroy them all.
I believe that because I exist, and take up resources, that others might see me as a means to an end...
..being rich, successful, and motivated carries a stigma. [...]This is called jealousy, or envy, and I defy you to show that such evil doesn't exist in the human heart, in whatever measure (large or small)
...Do you know how much we trade with the poorest countries in the world? How *little* presence and resources we draw from the poorest countries? Our trade with the 30 or 40 poorest countries in the world comprimses a negligible portion of our economy...
Now I can agree with you. Others can seek to do harm to you after they see you take up resources. This is as subjective as it can get. Of course, anyone seeing you doing anything can find it offensive and retaliate. This is very different from "I exist and this is a reason for others to hate me".
I believe jealousy exists only if the person suffering it cannot achieve the envied objective. If you give means (or help) to a person to achieve things he/she envies, it becomes an aspiration, which is always desirable.
Now, I cannot assume the attack to the WTC occurred because of jealousy. This is an awful irrational conclusion.
Check your numbers. I live in Brazil. We have imported, thourgh all our history, much more from the US than we exported. Some years ago, some politicians opposing the government showed that Brazil signed trade deals to import pacifiers (the one babies like) as a condition for exporting rice. In simple words, it's "Yes we will buy you food if you buy our toys". This happens all over Latin America. American companies use all the commercial power available to obtain economic advantages here. Things your government wouldn't dream of doing inside the US.
And now we must make sure that people back off this program, this war, that they have chosen to make upon us in our workplaces and our homes.
Sure. But please don't use the argument "if we make them fear us, they'll back off". It won't happen. The attacks prove that a dozen (or so) people can cause a lot of destruction.
I agree we should look at where we are unnecessarily offending people. Like any great and influential country, we have a habit of that. But I think we should also vigorously combat those who hate us, and who hate the peace and prosperity of our world.
I agree 100% with you on that. That's exactly my point. But the first thing to combat is the cause to the hate, not the hate itself (which, I repeat, we must combat). The US needs to find a way to stop offending other people unnecessarily.
Indeed, often the failure to use force shows weakness and invites further contempt and hate, for it shows that hating us is a safe occupation.
I don't think so. You don't stop hate showing more hate. You can create fear, but the hate will remain until it grows bigger than the fear. And then things happen again. You stop hate showing that hate is useless. It achieves nothing good. It only produces more hate.
I'm sorry, but this is too much:
Because we exist as human beings, there will be people who seek to do us harm.
I refuse to believe that our simple existence is bound to create enemies ourselves. We do not live in a world with constant clan-like fighting. Do you really believe that some stranger seeks to do harm you just because you exist?
Because we are a wealthy country, there will be people who seek to do us harm. Because we seek to bring prosperity and trade to others, there will be those who seek to do us harm.
Now this is interesting: do you really believe that the US is a wealthy country without harming other countries? Or are all trade/economic/political decisions made always thinking about what would be the result to other countries? Remember, just months ago, president Bush said he wouldn't sign a deal for reducing pollution because it could harm the US industry. Basically, it's "I don't care what will happen to the world, if it will give us any trouble".
This is a basic principle of capitalism: if you want to be rich, the first thing you should forget is that the poor exist. In the current state of world's economy, rich nations like the US depend on the poorness of third world countries.
Who has challenged America military on the open field since 1991?
What's the point in doing that? What did the US achieve in the Gulf War? Saddam still exists and still is a threat to the world. And war, today, isn't necessary in the open field. Look at yestedays acts: there was absolutely no military weaponry envolved. No troops, tanks, military air fighters. Just four comercial airplanes.
IMO, the first thing that should be done (of course, after attending the horrible aftermath of the incidents), rationally speaking, is think about why would someone do that to the US. Please don't come with the "they're all nuts" answer. Unless you can prove that there is a severe case of madness spreading on the world, and the first symptom is "hate against the US". IMO, there are too many "anti-american" movements today to think that it's the work of some crazy radicals. Remember, these radicals need funding and support, and it always come from non-radical groups.
Please, do not make the horrible terrorism that happened a mental-diseased case. It's far much more than that.
I was just wondering... If George W. Bush != Bush Administration, would that imply that Bill Gates != Microsoft?
Yet, anything said against Microsoft here on Slashdot is taken directly against Bill Gates.
So here's my point: George W. Bush is the head administrator of the Bush Administration. He's in charge. So, if something as big as this did not pass on his desk at the White House, something is wrong. And I'm not even saying that the decision is right or wrong. I'm just stating that it's clearly something that the president whould be aware of before it was announced.
Just my 2 cents,
Bradasch
Just as an add-on to the discussion: I live in south Brazil, in a city called Porto Alegre. Our city has been administrated in the last 15 years by a leftist party.
The salaries the city hall pays to teachers that work in schools under the city administration are among the highest in the public function. Believe me, they pay more money to elementary school teachers than public university teachers (which is under federal administration). The result is as in the article assumption: we have teachers with doctorate in elementary school here. It pays better.
So what you're saying is that new drug research can only be done by big drug companies (because it costs million (billions?)), and that if these companies don't get their "deserved" profit (because other companies will violate their patents and make money), they're going to stop developing new drugs (and thus stop increasing their profits)?
I don't think so. IMO, drug companies that have huge profits (and they have huge profits, believe me) can easily handle this. If they can't, it's about time to move R&D of new drugs out of the companies, to, say, universities.
Sometimes making money isn't the most important issue.
As I read the comments here on Slashdot, somethings hits me...
Do you really think that the pharm industry is going bad and needs this money?
Besides, do you really believe that they're the only people on Earth that can do R&D of drugs? Or that the profit they have is used solemnly only for R&D?
This industry is making money on several drugs they didn't research or develop... That, I suppose is right?
I don't intend to say everything is wrong in the industry, but they can spare some bucks to a poor country to save some lives. I'm not even saying that we should never pay for royalties in drugs, but the price should take account the affordability of the people buying it. Saying "I did the research, so I'm entitled to charge whatever I want to" isn't what I would call being nice.
Sometimes things aren't only about profit.
Guilherme Bradasch