I mean that it's easier to work with databases than using perl's DBI modules. perl's DBI is more powerful and has more features, but qore's SQL integration is built-in to the language and therefore (by my definition "tighter").
There is a Datasource class that abstracts the database drivers from the language (there are currently MySQL 4.* and Oracle drivers). To execute a query and get the results, you just create an instance of the Datasource class (i.e. $ds = new Datasource(SQL::DSOracle); # for example), set the name, password and other login parameters, and then call the::select() method (i.e. $hash = $ds.select("select * from people");) and (assuming your table exists, etc:-)) you get a hash (the result columns) of lists (the rows) back (there is no binding, etc like with DBI).
There are also statements such as the "context" statement and expressions such as the "find" expression that make working with query results very easy and which provide the "tighter" SQL integration I was talking about. Additionally serializing and deserializing between XML strings and qore data structures is very easy and a nice feature when writing interfaces that work with XML data.
Those and other interesting features not found in perl could make it an alternative to programmers who want to check out something new and don't necessarily need the millions of libraries and modules etc that can be found with perl (or other established languages). Also qore programmers have the added benefit of getting their language feature requests implemented very quickly (due to the very small size of the user base!:-) )
If you were ever frustrated by perl's lack of a sane threading mobel, messy syntax, or lack of clean OO extensions, or needed tighter SQL integration, or TIBCO AE or XML integration (at the expense of a lot of other functionality:-)), you might want to check out a new language called qore.
Even compared to perl6, qore has cleaner object support (IMHO), also features exception handling, embedded logic support, and more. Qore has a syntax superficially similar to perl's (except for the OO parts), but less scripty and more like C++ or Java's syntax in some ways.
Anyway of course if has drawbacks compared to perl as well (it is a realtively new language), but, as it was designed to write interfaces in and to be fun and efficient to program in, some perl fans may still like it, as it also addresses some of the shortcomings of perl5 at least from my point of view, and, after reading this article, I believe it has advantages over perl6 still as well in some areas (can't comment on the threading model, because I couldn't find any reference to it in the article, but qore has a clean shared-everything threading model and the whole language is thread-safe - also qore data structures are very simple and powerful and it's very easy to serialize and deserialize data to and from XML strings, SQL queries, TIBCO AE messages, etc which makes it a good tool for interface development).
Most Austrians don't like his relatively recent conservative turn (in particular: statements about the death penalty & homosexuality, among others), but people here are still very proud of him for what he's accomplished - he made it very big time in the USA, which is cool.
Yeah, we've got them surrounded actually (except Switzerland): Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Rep., Germany, Italy, Slovenia - all NATO members bordering Austria.
But not Austria itself - no they are 'neutral' (yeah right).
Actually I live in Vienna so I should say we except I'm from a NATO country:-)
sorry, this article is a joke. I doubt if you even have to lie to get on the list (http://www.heise.de/newsticker/foren/go.shtml?rea d=1&msg_id=7544912&forum_id=74857).
If you can read German (if not use babelfish) here is a guy replying to the original German article (on heise online) complaining about how stupid the whole story is (he was also on the list as a student): http://www.heise.de/newsticker/foren/go .shtml?read =1&msg_id=7544912&forum_id=74857
not only was the list basically an open list but the members were notified in advance that the list's contents would be analyzed by Quintessenz and nobody complained.
I think the shocking thing here is to see how far Slashdot will go to sensationalize stupid bullshit to get more advertising hits.
Secondly this mailing list was/is an open list. The magical "hack" here was writing a script to get some historical postings that weren't easily accessed.
Also Quintessenz apparently notified the list that it was going to be analyzed and nobody complained (probably because it's an open list anyway).
This, like many other Slashdot stories lately (or is it just me?) is unbelievably overhyped bullshit.
Or, if prefer another viewpoint, and you too would like to join the ranks of NSA hackers - follow this secret link to the mailing list! http://www.biometrics.org/html/listserv.htm l
(but don't tell anyone I posted this link. I don't have a tinfoil hat... yet)
Actually it was: Unpatched windows: bad patched windows, unpatched Mac, unpatched Linux: good
reaafirming what almost every slashdotter wants to hear: windows is not as secure as UNIX, because, if I may go a little farther, most of us believe that this is due to the fact that Windows' design is not as clean, elegant, or transparent as UNIX's, and therefore the OS is harder to secure.
Even though this is not really news I would guess that the average computer user is not fully aware of these points.
I lived and worked in Montego Bay for 2 and a half years, and (I know this may sound terrible, since you were trying to be honest) the biggest mistake you made was trying to get an extension to your tourist visa.
If you would have just overstayed your tourist visa and left later (unless things have changed a lot since I was there) chances are that you would not have had any problems whatsoever.
well as an American I personally don't think there should be any restrictions on living & working between the US and Canada - I think that the US and Canada should follow the EU model....
Actually yeah I was scared of what might happen. It's irrational but when I heard that he was an Iraqi I was scared. When I told him that I was from the states I didn't know how he would react. My first instinct was to get away from the guy and not talk to him or have anything to do with him.
However he needed help and didn't know what to do and seemed like a reasonable and nice guy so I helped him.
And I'm not a pacifist. I don't think that you can equate simply not wanting innocent civilians to die and pacifism.
The guy understood the US perspective, at least I believe he did. At the start of the conversation, I wanted to cut through the politics, and hopefully find common ground on human issues at least on a basic level. There we had no problem.
Anyway when we talked about the sanctions, he said that Iraq started building up its infrastructure and along with that started doing all kinds of research, both good and bad. The bad research was of course research into biological weapons of mass destruction. That "bad research" and the invasion of Kuwait are the causes of the sanctions according to him. This is also my view.
Actually though he came out with a lot of conspiracy theories, he said that maybe the CIA was behind the terrorist activity in the states and other stuff like that. I find that a very far-fetched and unreasonable idea. I told him that in my opinion that's not possible. He also said that he suspected CIA manipulation with the Kuwait invasion. I told him that I had heard the same rumors, but that in the end Saddam was responsible for his decisions (and that anyway I don't know that he wasn't manipulated, but I don't believe he was).
This guy doesn't represent the average Iraqi. He doesn't hate Americans either, although I don't think he in general likes our government very much. If we would have had more time to talk about the sanctions and why the Iraqi people were suffering (i.e. is it Saddam's fault or our fault), then I would have had something more interesting to write about.
You told us neither one, and also wove your opinion and assumptions into what he said, and never used a direct quote or paraphrase.
Anyway I can't remember any exact words he said, therefore you get no nice quotes. Are you trying to say I don't tell a good story? Gee I'm really sorry.
My point is very simple: that the US is not alone in the world, needs its friends and allies, particularly in the war against terrorism. If there is any action where poor innocent thrid-world civilians are killed in "sensitive" countries then we might lose some of these friends and allies, and we might inspire more terrorism and more hatred. I also think it's wrong. To you that's pacifism, as a "non-pacifist" after your definition you see the deaths of innocent civilians as a necessary evil if I understand you correctly. In a standard war I would agree, but this is hardly a standard war, and should not turn into one -- and won't turn into one if we handle the situation correctly.
At least now we know you're a pacifist and don't understand that the Secretary of State can do nothing in a war except influence the top-level decisions.
I do understand that Colin Powel isn't going to supplant the Sec. of Defense or the president or his NSA. However I think that he's got the right ideas for building international support and taking into consideration the human factor which is key to whatever we do. I would like it if Rumsfeld and the rest would take his lead and find consensus on his point of view.
Obviously you disagree.
At any rate I'm in this with the rest of the country and I will back the president, even if he makes what I see to be the wrong decision.
This may be slightly OT, but I'm going to post this anyway.
Here is a section from a letter I wrote to someone very close to me. It's regarding a dinner I had with someone this weekend. I got trapped in Milan when my flight was cancelled and I met a nice gentleman from the Middle East and we ended up having an interesting conversation over dinner when they herded us into the dining room for our complementary meal. He turned out to be an Iraqi. I'm an American. The person I wrote to is very conservative and was scared I was being "recruited" by this guy and told me to start getting my news from Fox News (for those who don't know a very conservative news source in the States):
...
I cannot be "recruited" by anyone. However I do think that people who don't like to think for themselves and take a certain point of view just because it's given out by a certain group that they affiliate with are at a much higher risk for being "recruited" because they are basically already brainwashed themselves. Therefore it should be easier to brainwash them the "other way" than someone who likes to actually understand issues and form his/her own opinions based on informing him/herself.
As a general rule I think it's necessary to understand people's points of view for there to be any sort of solution to any problem, and that if you start thinking with your emotions then whatever conclusions you draw will not necessarily be very "fair".
If you see all Iraqis as evil terrorists then I don't think you are thinking very clearly. Right now their population is suffering and when innocent civilians suffer it's wrong. Who's at fault is another matter. I tend to think it's Saddam. Arabs seem to see it as being the USA, even though it's the UN that has imposed the sanctions (obviously with very strong US support). And anyway I am not an expert but my understanding is that Iraq should be able to get all the food and medicine and other supplies it needs with the "oil for food" program. But that doesn't change the fact that the Arabs see the suffering there and children dying there as being our fault: they see a huge injustice caused by the USA. They don't see it as Saddam's fault. But the fact is when innocent civilians suffer and die like they are in Iraq it is wrong. And if Arabs see it as being our fault, then it's also easy to understand why they would have negative feelings towards us. That's called understanding the other side.
In general it's obvious that we need to improve relations with the Arab world. Obviously terrorists and their supporting networks are legitimate targets for any kind of action.
But in this "war" there are two problems with harming innocent civlians. The first is that it of course is wrong. If you look at another human being and say that it's acceptable that he or she die because he got in the way of a bullet, a bomb, or a cruise missile and its terrorist target then in order to not be a hypocrite you have to say that it's OK if you also are killed in the same way for the same reason. If you can say this then I would say that you have less respect for life than I do. Secondly, if innocent civilians start dying then more Arabs will feel wronged by us and will start hating us. Those Arabs who already hate us will hate us more and feel more justified in hating us, and those who do not hate us and maybe even like and support us will start hating us. This will cause more terrorism, and for what? For killing some innocent civilians? Is that worth it? I don't think so. Clearly if we look at what we're trying to accomplish, to eliminate terrorism in the world, then this is a step which will take us in the wrong direction.
Is this a war of civilizations? Is this Islam vs. The West? It clearly should not be, but may turn out to be depending on how we react. Anybody who sees it that way is not only playing directly into the hands of people like Bin Laden, but is just as ignorant and closeminded as the stereotype they say represents the other side.
If you see people as being inferior because they are poorer (i.e. Afghanis == dispensible because Afghanis == dirt poor) then you have bought into the whole "money == human worth" attitude which is a horrible value system to adopt.
Those are my personal opinions. That Iraqi guy did not change my mind on anything. I have had those views since before I talked to him. Don't worry about that guy. I will never see him again. However he was an interesting guy and it was an interesting conversation.
Also, regarding accessing Fox News on the internet, I will look at what they have to say. I expect them to give out the conservative US point of view so I can read that site and understand what conservative Americans are thinking. But for me the international opinion is very important. In this issue it's critical, so I'll continue to get my news from all over the place to try and maintain a reasonable and fair and objective as possible view of the situation based on facts and my own principles and not emotions.
And like I said before, because I do that, and because I consider myself a person that's difficult to lie to, I think worrying about me being "recruited" is pointless.
...
Anyway I hope that most Americans agree with me and that Colin Powell will be allowed to take the lead in whatever reaction the US makes with its old and new allies in the "war" on terrorism.
Otherwise the situation will escalate to a real war, and in that war there will be no "good" side and "bad" side; both sides will be wrong.
Listen, dude, the original poster was saying that we Americans are hobbits.
Of course you may be a hobbit with us as well, and we are glad to have you, but I think you misunderstood the post a bit.
Also, I think you and the rest of the world should wait to judge the USA by our actions. Our leaders are all over TV right now telling everyone to be tolerant and that this will be a long term effort against terrorism and that no quick reaction will solve the problem.
Of course my government might do simething stupid and invade Afghanistan, but with all the "military experts" (including Americans) saying how pointless it would be, not to mentioned attacking a super-poor collection of starving Afghanis being morally, let's say, bad, I believe that they'll find some other way to solve the situation. I mean, there are some good people advising Bush, and I'm sure that they see clearly that to win the war on terrorism that we (the West) will have to make better relations with the Islamic world, and kicking Afghanistan when it couldn't get any lower just because one rich Saudi terrorist leader hides there wouldn't exactly help.
Of course my government could prove me wrong, but I believe they will not.
Regarding the poll results, a lot of emotional things were said, but I don't believe that Americans want to punish just anybody around the world. I'm sure that those who responded that way were meaning that it would be anyone guilty of terrorist acts and mass-murder, but possibly not the WTC and pentagon events. OK, yes that's not really nice but if you put it in the context of an emotional reaction then you can understand.
I've been really shook up about it myself.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean that it's easier to work with databases than using perl's DBI modules. perl's DBI is more powerful and has more features, but qore's SQL integration is built-in to the language and therefore (by my definition "tighter").
::select() method (i.e. $hash = $ds.select("select * from people");) and (assuming your table exists, etc :-)) you get a hash (the result columns) of lists (the rows) back (there is no binding, etc like with DBI).
:-) )
There is a Datasource class that abstracts the database drivers from the language (there are currently MySQL 4.* and Oracle drivers). To execute a query and get the results, you just create an instance of the Datasource class (i.e. $ds = new Datasource(SQL::DSOracle); # for example), set the name, password and other login parameters, and then call the
There are also statements such as the "context" statement and expressions such as the "find" expression that make working with query results very easy and which provide the "tighter" SQL integration I was talking about. Additionally serializing and deserializing between XML strings and qore data structures is very easy and a nice feature when writing interfaces that work with XML data.
Those and other interesting features not found in perl could make it an alternative to programmers who want to check out something new and don't necessarily need the millions of libraries and modules etc that can be found with perl (or other established languages). Also qore programmers have the added benefit of getting their language feature requests implemented very quickly (due to the very small size of the user base!
david
If you were ever frustrated by perl's lack of a sane threading mobel, messy syntax, or lack of clean OO extensions, or needed tighter SQL integration, or TIBCO AE or XML integration (at the expense of a lot of other functionality :-)), you might want to check out a new language called qore.
n t.q/
:-) )
david
Even compared to perl6, qore has cleaner object support (IMHO), also features exception handling, embedded logic support, and more. Qore has a syntax superficially similar to perl's (except for the OO parts), but less scripty and more like C++ or Java's syntax in some ways.
It's even possible to write pure OO programs in qore (the program is a class), like:
http://qore.sourceforge.net/examples/xml-rpc-clie
Anyway of course if has drawbacks compared to perl as well (it is a realtively new language), but, as it was designed to write interfaces in and to be fun and efficient to program in, some perl fans may still like it, as it also addresses some of the shortcomings of perl5 at least from my point of view, and, after reading this article, I believe it has advantages over perl6 still as well in some areas (can't comment on the threading model, because I couldn't find any reference to it in the article, but qore has a clean shared-everything threading model and the whole language is thread-safe - also qore data structures are very simple and powerful and it's very easy to serialize and deserialize data to and from XML strings, SQL queries, TIBCO AE messages, etc which makes it a good tool for interface development).
Anyway, here are some links:
http://qore.sourceforge.net/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/qore/
(disclaimer: I am the author of the language
you have a point, but FWIW: Iranians are not arabs and don't look like arabs.
Most Austrians don't like his relatively recent conservative turn (in particular: statements about the death penalty & homosexuality, among others), but people here are still very proud of him for what he's accomplished - he made it very big time in the USA, which is cool.
Yeah, we've got them surrounded actually (except Switzerland):
:-)
Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Rep., Germany, Italy, Slovenia - all NATO members bordering Austria.
But not Austria itself - no they are 'neutral' (yeah right).
Actually I live in Vienna so I should say we except I'm from a NATO country
sorry, this article is a joke. I doubt if you even have to lie to get on the list (http://www.heise.de/newsticker/foren/go.shtml?rea d=1&msg_id=7544912&forum_id=74857).
o .shtml?read =1&msg_id=7544912&forum_id=74857
If you can read German (if not use babelfish) here is a guy replying to the original German article (on heise online) complaining about how stupid the whole story is (he was also on the list as a student):
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/foren/g
not only was the list basically an open list but the members were notified in advance that the list's contents would be analyzed by Quintessenz and nobody complained.
I think the shocking thing here is to see how far Slashdot will go to sensationalize stupid bullshit to get more advertising hits.
Austria's not a member of NATO.
m l
Secondly this mailing list was/is an open list. The magical "hack" here was writing a script to get some historical postings that weren't easily accessed.
Also Quintessenz apparently notified the list that it was going to be analyzed and nobody complained (probably because it's an open list anyway).
This, like many other Slashdot stories lately (or is it just me?) is unbelievably overhyped bullshit.
Or, if prefer another viewpoint, and you too would like to join the ranks of NSA hackers - follow this secret link to the mailing list!
http://www.biometrics.org/html/listserv.ht
(but don't tell anyone I posted this link. I don't have a tinfoil hat... yet)
Actually it was:
Unpatched windows: bad
patched windows, unpatched Mac, unpatched Linux: good
reaafirming what almost every slashdotter wants to hear: windows is not as secure as UNIX, because, if I may go a little farther, most of us believe that this is due to the fact that Windows' design is not as clean, elegant, or transparent as UNIX's, and therefore the OS is harder to secure.
Even though this is not really news I would guess that the average computer user is not fully aware of these points.
http://switch.atdmt.com/action/apple_death_ray
you are incorrect. when you are thrown in gaol then you are gaoled. When you are thrown in jail, then you are jailed.
Got it?
I lived and worked in Montego Bay for 2 and a half years, and (I know this may sound terrible, since you were trying to be honest) the biggest mistake you made was trying to get an extension to your tourist visa.
If you would have just overstayed your tourist visa and left later (unless things have changed a lot since I was there) chances are that you would not have had any problems whatsoever.
Anyway, interesting story...
well as an American I personally don't think there should be any restrictions on living & working between the US and Canada - I think that the US and Canada should follow the EU model....
you're a fucking idiot
Actually yeah I was scared of what might happen. It's irrational but when I heard that he was an Iraqi I was scared. When I told him that I was from the states I didn't know how he would react. My first instinct was to get away from the guy and not talk to him or have anything to do with him.
However he needed help and didn't know what to do and seemed like a reasonable and nice guy so I helped him.
And I'm not a pacifist. I don't think that you can equate simply not wanting innocent civilians to die and pacifism.
The guy understood the US perspective, at least I believe he did. At the start of the conversation, I wanted to cut through the politics, and hopefully find common ground on human issues at least on a basic level. There we had no problem.
Anyway when we talked about the sanctions, he said that Iraq started building up its infrastructure and along with that started doing all kinds of research, both good and bad. The bad research was of course research into biological weapons of mass destruction. That "bad research" and the invasion of Kuwait are the causes of the sanctions according to him. This is also my view.
Actually though he came out with a lot of conspiracy theories, he said that maybe the CIA was behind the terrorist activity in the states and other stuff like that. I find that a very far-fetched and unreasonable idea. I told him that in my opinion that's not possible. He also said that he suspected CIA manipulation with the Kuwait invasion. I told him that I had heard the same rumors, but that in the end Saddam was responsible for his decisions (and that anyway I don't know that he wasn't manipulated, but I don't believe he was).
This guy doesn't represent the average Iraqi. He doesn't hate Americans either, although I don't think he in general likes our government very much. If we would have had more time to talk about the sanctions and why the Iraqi people were suffering (i.e. is it Saddam's fault or our fault), then I would have had something more interesting to write about.
You told us neither one, and also wove your opinion and assumptions into what he said, and never used a direct quote or paraphrase.
Anyway I can't remember any exact words he said, therefore you get no nice quotes. Are you trying to say I don't tell a good story? Gee I'm really sorry.
My point is very simple: that the US is not alone in the world, needs its friends and allies, particularly in the war against terrorism. If there is any action where poor innocent thrid-world civilians are killed in "sensitive" countries then we might lose some of these friends and allies, and we might inspire more terrorism and more hatred. I also think it's wrong. To you that's pacifism, as a "non-pacifist" after your definition you see the deaths of innocent civilians as a necessary evil if I understand you correctly. In a standard war I would agree, but this is hardly a standard war, and should not turn into one -- and won't turn into one if we handle the situation correctly.
At least now we know you're a pacifist and don't understand that the Secretary of State can do nothing in a war except influence the top-level decisions.
I do understand that Colin Powel isn't going to supplant the Sec. of Defense or the president or his NSA. However I think that he's got the right ideas for building international support and taking into consideration the human factor which is key to whatever we do. I would like it if Rumsfeld and the rest would take his lead and find consensus on his point of view.
Obviously you disagree.
At any rate I'm in this with the rest of the country and I will back the president, even if he makes what I see to be the wrong decision.
David Nichols
This may be slightly OT, but I'm going to post this anyway.
Here is a section from a letter I wrote to someone very close to me. It's regarding a dinner I had with someone this weekend. I got trapped in Milan when my flight was cancelled and I met a nice gentleman from the Middle East and we ended up having an interesting conversation over dinner when they herded us into the dining room for our complementary meal. He turned out to be an Iraqi. I'm an American. The person I wrote to is very conservative and was scared I was being "recruited" by this guy and told me to start getting my news from Fox News (for those who don't know a very conservative news source in the States):
...
I cannot be "recruited" by anyone. However I do think that people who don't like to think for themselves and take a certain point of view just because it's given out by a certain group that they affiliate with are at a much higher risk for being "recruited" because they are basically already brainwashed themselves. Therefore it should be easier to brainwash them the "other way" than someone who likes to actually understand issues and form his/her own opinions based on informing him/herself.
As a general rule I think it's necessary to understand people's points of view for there to be any sort of solution to any problem, and that if you start thinking with your emotions then whatever conclusions you draw will not necessarily be very "fair".
If you see all Iraqis as evil terrorists then I don't think you are thinking very clearly. Right now their population is suffering and when innocent civilians suffer it's wrong. Who's at fault is another matter. I tend to think it's Saddam. Arabs seem to see it as being the USA, even though it's the UN that has imposed the sanctions (obviously with very strong US support). And anyway I am not an expert but my understanding is that Iraq should be able to get all the food and medicine and other supplies it needs with the "oil for food" program. But that doesn't change the fact that the Arabs see the suffering there and children dying there as being our fault: they see a huge injustice caused by the USA. They don't see it as Saddam's fault. But the fact is when innocent civilians suffer and die like they are in Iraq it is wrong. And if Arabs see it as being our fault, then it's also easy to understand why they would have negative feelings towards us. That's called understanding the other side.
In general it's obvious that we need to improve relations with the Arab world. Obviously terrorists and their supporting networks are legitimate targets for any kind of action.
But in this "war" there are two problems with harming innocent civlians. The first is that it of course is wrong. If you look at another human being and say that it's acceptable that he or she die because he got in the way of a bullet, a bomb, or a cruise missile and its terrorist target then in order to not be a hypocrite you have to say that it's OK if you also are killed in the same way for the same reason. If you can say this then I would say that you have less respect for life than I do. Secondly, if innocent civilians start dying then more Arabs will feel wronged by us and will start hating us. Those Arabs who already hate us will hate us more and feel more justified in hating us, and those who do not hate us and maybe even like and support us will start hating us. This will cause more terrorism, and for what? For killing some innocent civilians? Is that worth it? I don't think so. Clearly if we look at what we're trying to accomplish, to eliminate terrorism in the world, then this is a step which will take us in the wrong direction.
Is this a war of civilizations? Is this Islam vs. The West? It clearly should not be, but may turn out to be depending on how we react. Anybody who sees it that way is not only playing directly into the hands of people like Bin Laden, but is just as ignorant and closeminded as the stereotype they say represents the other side.
If you see people as being inferior because they are poorer (i.e. Afghanis == dispensible because Afghanis == dirt poor) then you have bought into the whole "money == human worth" attitude which is a horrible value system to adopt.
Those are my personal opinions. That Iraqi guy did not change my mind on anything. I have had those views since before I talked to him. Don't worry about that guy. I will never see him again. However he was an interesting guy and it was an interesting conversation.
Also, regarding accessing Fox News on the internet, I will look at what they have to say. I expect them to give out the conservative US point of view so I can read that site and understand what conservative Americans are thinking. But for me the international opinion is very important. In this issue it's critical, so I'll continue to get my news from all over the place to try and maintain a reasonable and fair and objective as possible view of the situation based on facts and my own principles and not emotions.
And like I said before, because I do that, and because I consider myself a person that's difficult to lie to, I think worrying about me being "recruited" is pointless.
...
Anyway I hope that most Americans agree with me and that Colin Powell will be allowed to take the lead in whatever reaction the US makes with its old and new allies in the "war" on terrorism.
Otherwise the situation will escalate to a real war, and in that war there will be no "good" side and "bad" side; both sides will be wrong.
David Nichols
Listen, dude, the original poster was saying that we Americans are hobbits. Of course you may be a hobbit with us as well, and we are glad to have you, but I think you misunderstood the post a bit. Also, I think you and the rest of the world should wait to judge the USA by our actions. Our leaders are all over TV right now telling everyone to be tolerant and that this will be a long term effort against terrorism and that no quick reaction will solve the problem. Of course my government might do simething stupid and invade Afghanistan, but with all the "military experts" (including Americans) saying how pointless it would be, not to mentioned attacking a super-poor collection of starving Afghanis being morally, let's say, bad, I believe that they'll find some other way to solve the situation. I mean, there are some good people advising Bush, and I'm sure that they see clearly that to win the war on terrorism that we (the West) will have to make better relations with the Islamic world, and kicking Afghanistan when it couldn't get any lower just because one rich Saudi terrorist leader hides there wouldn't exactly help. Of course my government could prove me wrong, but I believe they will not. Regarding the poll results, a lot of emotional things were said, but I don't believe that Americans want to punish just anybody around the world. I'm sure that those who responded that way were meaning that it would be anyone guilty of terrorist acts and mass-murder, but possibly not the WTC and pentagon events. OK, yes that's not really nice but if you put it in the context of an emotional reaction then you can understand. I've been really shook up about it myself.