Re:Security != Justice ?
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 1
You're right. He does. His logic just doesn't work out, though. He's very good at making his argument - but, from what I've seen, it ultimately leads off into the swamp.
I respectfully disagree. I find that his arguments are most compelling, and usually quite devastating - though they do go against those of the mainstream press. In any case, Mr. Chomsky can take care of his own in a debate, that's beside the point.
"People who don't know their a** from a hole in the ground." That sounds like a racist statement to me.
Please, demonstrate to me what is racist about that statement. It is a statement that you do not know what you are talking about, pure and simple. Race does not at _any_ point enter into the statement. It is not racist, sexist, religiously skewed, biased on account of age or sexual orientation. Hell, it doesn't even violate the ADA. It simply says "you don't know what you are talking about" and is equally applicable regardless of any of the above qualities. That you choose to interpret it as racist says more about _your_ agenda than anything else.
Okay, I think we misunderstood each other. You're saying I dont my a** from a hole in the ground...I though you meant the Chinese - you have to admit, in the context of the original post, it could be interpreted that way. Well, I retract my comment, then. It's certainly not racist to insult me (though not in very good form).
Hmmpf. 'Kay. Though they're _supposed_ to teach the basics of this stuff, and make it clear where to get more.
Well, since I'm self-taught, I don't know who you're referring to with "they". But I appreciate you not gloating over my mistake We can disagree over politics and stay civil at the same time - though that's not often the case on online forums!
"However, that still doesn't excuse the fact that the U.S. has voted against a resolution condemning the use of torture,"
I looked into it a bit. You should ask _why_ the US chose to vote against that particular resolution before complaining too loudly about it. The way it was written, it had several loopholes written into it to condone "liberation" groups who happened to have decided that blowing up airliners full of civilians was a dandy way to get their point across.
All that in the resolution against torture? I find your interpretation doubtful...Countries which have suffered from terrorism such as France, Italy and Egypt would not have voted for such a resolution if it had contained those loopholes. In any case, these loopholes could have been ironed out by further negotiations. Perhaps you can point me to those particular sections in the resolution that you feel were legally unsound? Or are you quoting someone else on these?
It does bring an interesting question, though: at what point do "liberation movements" go across the line and become "terrorists"? Don't forget that the British press described the american revolutionaries as "terrorists"...Personnally I think that as long as the targets are military, then it's okay, but attacking civilians is terrorism. After all, soldiers realize that, by choice, they are at risk of being killed by the enemy. But you can bet that those palestinians who attacked and killed Israeli soldiers will be labelled as terrorists, while the contras that terrorized Nicaragua in the 80's are still considered as "freedom fighters" by the old guard of the american right.
Also, a lot of other _good_ resolutions have been vetoed by other UNSC Permanent members. Do you know the _only_ reason the UN authorized a presence in Korea in 1950? Because the USSR had decided to boycott the UN shortly beforehand. D'you really think the UN would have authorized what wound up being authorized if the USSR had been in its seat?
Not that it would have mattered. The US would have gone in anyway
"as well as being found guilty by the World Court of unlawful use of force against Nicaragua,"
Almost every country that's done _anything_ internationally has been wracked up under those statutes.
Well, that's not quite true, it it? There actually have not been a lot of western democracies that have been found guilty of unlawful use of force against another country. France in Algeria, perhaps? Even then I'm not sure. And those that have don't even come close to the U.S. as far as "war by proxy" is concerned.
"The fact is, Nicaragua tried to use legal means to defend itself against unlawful agression, instead of retorting to terrorism (which is bad, we all agree)."
To a certain extent. To a certain extent they didn't. In 1988, they rolled over the border into Honduras.
They only did so after being denied justice, and in order to attack the death squads who launched their attack from across the border. Today, it is found quite acceptable by most of the contra supporters for Israel to do the same when Hamas or Islamic Jihad launch attacks from Palestine.
The Hondurans were scared enough that the US wound up deploying a 4 BN task force. Note also that Nicaragua was doing a lot more than just "defending itself" during that period.
A better way of saying it would be that the contras were about to be beaten, so the US sent in reinforcements in order to help their proxy military/terrorists. You're right though, Nicaragua was doing more than protecting itself: it was openly defying the U.S. dictatorial policies towards Central America, which of course was simply unacceptable! Cuba was enough of an embarassment already...
relative to the other players out there, are you willing to continue making the assertion that the US is the big bad bully?
Yes, it is by far the biggest, baddest bully. Of the bullies, it is also the only western democracy. If Joe Sixpack really knew what his country did in his name, I guess maybe things could change for the better - but Joe doesn't care.
As for the "it sets the rules, rigging them in its favor", every country does that, whenever it has the chance. Do you honestly think those stalwarts in the EU don't do it? Please! I recall reading an interesting description of how France manipulated Airbus and the EU to force an American company to divulge its avionics secrets
You are right in the economic sense - but as I recall we're talking about politics and military matters here. You know, foreign policy, terrorism, low-level conflicts, torture, the U.N... You're veering off in a totally different direction. Yes, in the economic sphere, nearly allcountries try to pull the covers over to their side. Once again, the U.S. pulls the hardest, but it's got some competition, and that's only fair - it's the name of the game, as they say.
As far as political/military matters are concerned, however, the U.S. is far above and beyond the rest. In that arena, no one compares to them as far as "setting the rules and rigging them in their own favor" is concerned.
That being said, given the chance, no other country has tried to create things like the IMF (currency/economic stability)
Hmmm...the IMF's record is less than stellar. The recent case of Argentina is a good example of that...
Look, we're obviously on opposite end of the spectrum on the matter. Shall we agree to disagree?
Peace.
Re:Security != Justice ?
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 1
You've been reading Chomsky, haven't you?
Among others. I'm quite an avid reader, and I like to read conservative sources as well as progressive ones. I like to make my own mind. What I like about Chomsky is that he always documents his writings - as compared to William F. Buckley, who, well, does not. I don't either, but for different reasons. My girlfriend is glaring at me as we speak, thinking I spend enough time in front of the computer as it is. Unfortunately, she is totally uninterested in politics! Oh well...a few more minutes!
No, nothing racist about it whatsoever.
"People who don't know their a** from a hole in the ground." That sounds like a racist statement to me.
You don't know what you're talking about, and you've just demonstrated it twice. Here, let me walk you through it.
Well, I admit you have me there. I guess I've been mistaken about this for quite a while, now.
However, that still doesn't excuse the fact that the U.S. has voted against a resolution condemning the use of torture, as well as being found guilty by the World Court of unlawful use of force against Nicaragua, then killing a resolution that would have forced countries to respect international law (not international mob rule, as you seem to think). The fact is, Nicaragua tried to use legal means to defend itself against unlawful agression, instead of retorting to terrorism (which is bad, we all agree). But the fact is that it doesn't matter if the U.S. is right or if it's wrong: by force of its might, it sets the rules, rigging them in its favor. Might makes right, the american way.
Re:Security != Justice ?
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 1
Nah. Places like Zimbabwe. Venezuela. Burma. Indonesia. Vietnam. Algeria. Congo.
So some non-democratic countries voted for it, big deal! How does that invalidate it? Well, it doesn't. The fact is, nearly all democratic countries voted in favor of it. Funny you should mention Venezuela and Indonesia, though, as these regime have been supported by the U.S. for almost three decades.
BTW - care to cough up a cite on that resolution?
No. Look it up yourself and prove me wrong.
How can you have China, for example, in the Secutiy Council? Easy, China is a nuclear power. That's how they got in the security council in the first place.
Cool! People who don't know their a** from a hole in the ground. You obviously don't have the faintest clue about what you speak. Care to try that one again?
Well, that's kind of a racist attitude, wouldn't you say? After all, they did invent the mother of all modern weapons: gunpowder! But the fact is I do know what I'm talking about, you don't. The five permanent members of the security councils (the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China) were, at the time, the only countries with nuclear capability. Or perhaps you have a better explanation?
Re:Security != Justice ?
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 1
And as I recall, it also clearly defined Israel as a terrorist state, and so the American government fought to kill it.
You recall wrong. The resolution did not define Israel (nor any other country) as a terrorist state. However, it probably would have defined some of the actions taken by the state of Israel as unlawful (which, in my opinion, they were). In any case, Israel is engaging in a targeted killing campaign, which could certainly be considered as terrorism, whatever the nature of their targets (what if they're intelligence happened to be wrong, and they killed an innoncent).
If it had anthing like the silly attempt to ban land mines in it, I would be glad that the US resisted it.
Why? Land mines are responsible for countless deaths and mutilations of civilians, including a high percentage of children. Their usefulness in this new era of warfare (hey, we're back on topic!) is dubious at best! But anyway this wasn't in the definition of terrorism that was proposed in the resolution - you're quite right in saying that the U.S. opposed it because of Israel, for it would have severely limited their abusive practices towards the palestinian people. I am not anti-Israel, by the way. I know that there are Israelis who are serious about peace, even though they are having a hard time these days...
If I don't support it, [the resolution against torture] it doesn't necessarally mean I am against the tag line, it means that there is something in there I don't like,
Well, you seem ready to reject the resolution out of hand, without knowing what was inside. It seems to me that you are buying into a tag line...the U.S. government's!
Nope, I do this on a daily basis. And still employed and free.
Tell that to Bill Maher, who almost lost his TV show because of the "new" political correctness! Or to employees of major TV networks, who were told to downplay civilian casualties in Afghanistan. Fortunately, I have enough faith in the common americans' love of free speech to think this kind of attitude will last for very long. As for global warming...perhaps it isn't true...but you are still in effect taking the decision for the rest of the world, exactly what you accuse the U.N. of trying to do with the U.S.! The fact is, it can't always be that the whole world is wrong, and that the U.S. is right...that's what I mean by saying that the U.S. needs to become a responsible citizen of the world. Otherwise the antagonism towards it will continue to grow.
Every govenment was setup to serve its own people.
Of course. The problem with the U.S. is the extent to which it impinges on other countries' internal policies in order to achieve its foreign policy goals.
Quake3 and UT are nearly 3 years old. RtCW is newer, but largely based on the same engine as Quake3.
None of these games take advantage of the features of a GeForce 3. You'd see very little difference between a GeForce 2 MX and a high-end GeForce 3 running these games.
No matter who old those games are, they are still widely played. And as far as RTCW is concerned, having a more powerful card does make a difference.
But I'm curious, which games would make owning a GF3 worthwhile, in your opinion? To me, RTCW is pretty much cutting edge...
Anyway, you'll be able to use that neat GF3 card to play Doom 3 when it comes out. Being an id game, it should run on Linux!
Re:Security != Justice ?
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 1
Well, coming from an Anonymous Coward, I don't really feel affected by this mindless drivel...
Why don't you get a user name and re-post if you've got any balls? You're the type that hung out with the bully, just because you were too afraid to oppose him.
There's a reason we have laws, you know. It's to stop people who would continue the cycle of violence by taking justice in their own hands. But obviously that's a concept that's waaaaay beyond you.
Climb down from that tree, you primate, and try to walk like a man!
Huh, because the rest of the world is getting incredibly pissed off at America's arrogance?
If a terrorist defies our hegemony then we can and will overthrow a government anywhere in the world.
I'm afraid that's a rather simplistic approach, but it does show how effective the U.S. propaganda machine is...
Just to repeat the point: this is not about actions taken since Sept. 11 - I'm personnally quite happy that the Taliban have been overthrown, even though I'm not sure how much the Northern Alliance's worth as a replacement. The point is that the U.S. foreign policy before Sept. 11 routinely gave support to dictatorships, turned a blind eye to genocides, supported the use of terror on civilian populations (did you know that the contras in Nicaragua had orders not to fight the Sandinistas, but rather to attack the farmers and ordinary villagers in order to erode their power base?), etc.
If I step back and look at this situation it does seem morally deplorable, but on the other hand I have lots of stuff, high-speed internet access, and enough security to get by.
Huh? That's a pretty selfish way of looking at the world! "How don't care if we're supporting Death Squads in Central America, as long as I've got my MTV..." How short-sighted...
Someone will need to find a better way of doing things first before the US significantly changes their foreign policy.
Well, that's simple: the US simply has to become a responsible global citizen, instead of the planet's #1 bully. I really don't see how that would prevent you from enjoying your high-speed internet access...
Re:Security != Justice ?
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The fact is: most of the UN members are bunch of representatives from non-democratic governments.
You mean, like Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Canada, India, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, South Africa (post-apartheid), to name some of them? Yes, these are all a bunch of undemocratic dictatorships! How DARE they vote for a resolution condemning torture.
So, I guess you support the U.S.'s decision not to support the resolution that would have banned torture...does that mean that you condone the use of torture?
BTW, the US has also blocked a U.N. resolution that would have defined what IS terrorism, even though the U.S. military manuals do define it as the use of force OR threat of use of force against civilians in order to attain political goals. Of course the U.S. would never agree to this, since it would put an end to their use of "low-intesity conflicts" around the world...
UN is a non-fucntional body. It is a mirage.
It is mainly so because of interference from the US. The fact is that the US, as the world's last superpower, would not allow any other authority but its own. Great way to make friends with the rest of the world, guys!
How can you have China, for example, in the Secutiy Council?
Easy, China is a nuclear power. That's how they got in the security council in the first place.
The same China that is non-democratic, that abuses its own citizens, that is a nest of corruption, that holds foreign land under military rule, that excludes foreign nationals to have rights...
That one exactly. You forgot to add: who's had "Most Favored Nation" status with the U.S. for quite a few years, now! The U.S. routinely supports foreign dictatorships, as long as they fall in line with american national interests. You're so keen to mention realpolitik, you should know this by now!
Note that the fact that it's happening doesn't make it right, and doesn't mean that we shouldn't denounce it. Don't underestimate the power of public opinion...after all, it's pretty much all that we have left as private citizens...
How do they dare (how do you dare) to support resolutions against democratic countries and elected governments?
Again, you ignore the fact that most democratic countries and elected governments voted in favor of these resolutions, and that the U.S. was usually isolated in voting against (although Israel nearly always votes with the U.S.). In any case, a resolution should be based on its merit, regardless of who supports it. The one I mentioned condemned torture - that doesn't seem too difficult of a moral choice, in my view. But perhaps you have a different view of this...
In the US you have the right to critisize your Government. You can vote them off from office if you do not like them. You can demonstrate against government policy. You can sue the government. Try that in a random country from the UN Council.
Yes, it's great for a citizen to be able to be able to criticize the U.S. government...though if you do that right now you could possibly lose your job or be labeled a traitor...
In any case, the U.S. doesn't have a monopoly on democracy. The U.N., whatever its faults may be, also remains an essential part of world diplomacy. One shouldn't dismiss it in such a way, even if one can lament about it's usual lack of effectiveness.
Chances are that, just thinking about this will be a sure passage to torture, inprisonement and possibly death.
Which is exactly what the resolution that the U.S. opposed was about. That, in addition to its cozying up with such brutal regimes as China, Turkey, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, etc. makes it an accomplice to crimes against that democracy you seem to nominally cherish.
Be real. Accept the fact that realpolitik rule the world. This is not an utopy. This is Real Planet Earth, not a Star Trek Federation of some sort.
Oh, but I do understand the workings of realpolitik! I have often debated with idealistic PoliSci student about how you need to understand how the world works before trying to change it. You, on the other hand, seem to think that there's nothing we can do except exercise a nearly-meaningless right to vote once every two years or so...As I said, just because governments (even the U.S.'s) are corrupt, doesn't mean we shouldn't denounce corruption and injustice, and strive to make this world a better place. Otherwise, we might as well all just give in and renounce democracy altogether!
Being real doesn't necessarily mean becoming a cynic. The important thing is that the U.S.'s foreign policy is unjust, and concerned only with American interests. This creates a world where it is increasingly isolated, its allies going along more out of fear than respect. That is not a healthy situation.
While I think every reasonable human being agrees that Sept. 11 was a horrible crime of terror, if you take a broader view of things, most foreign policy/military U.S. initiatives since WWII have NOT been about fighting extremism, but rather about expanding America's influence and furthering its own national interests, often to the detriment of other parts of the world.
This has led the U.S. to be one of the few countries to not sign a U.N. declaration banning the use of torture, as well as having the dubious distinction of being the ONLY country to have been both recognized guilty of "unlawful use of force" (which one could argue is tantamount to terrorism) by the World Court AND to have vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution calling on states to observe international law.
The problem is, the U.S. foreign policy game keeps catching up with it: Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, as despicable as they are, were once allies of the U.S., armed and trained by members of its special forces. I think it's time for the U.S. to stop wanting to be one nation above all others, and to become a real, equal partner in the community of nations. That requires renouncing some of the global tactics it has practiced over the past 50 years. One thing it certainly not involves is more hi-tech gadgetry to exert its unilateral will on the rest of the world with less risks to its own armed forces!
And before someone comes along saying that I'm trying to belittle or excuse what happened to the WTC victims: it seems to me that YOU are the ones who are betraying the memory of those innocent victims by using their tragic deaths to further your own political agenda and justify decades of abusive foreign policy. Sept. 11 was a terrible, terrible crime against humanity, but it does not wash away America's own criminal behavior abroad. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Wow! 17 Minutes! Say, Syberghost, do you have any suggestions for winning lottery numbers?
(By the way, the "flame" portion of this multi-message joke got modded down unfairly. It should be brought back up for humor's sake. Humor is good. It makes me feel tingly all over. Seriously.)
Now, I saw you say that you were a separatist, which therefore makes you an official kook
There's no need to insult me just because you don't share the same political beliefs as I do. You don't know what I have to say about the subject, and yet you've already categorized me, figured me out. Unfortunately this is not the time nor the place for me to enlighten you about what I really think. Anyway, I don't talk about that subject anymore on newsgroups - believe me, I've done more than my share a couple of years ago! But if you're ever in the MTL region and would not mind a spirited but friendly debate on the question, above a couple of pints of Guiness, then I'd be more than happy to oblige.
On the other points you make, you are correct (and much more civilized than BluedemonX). I wasn't up to speed on the CanWest acquisition - to tell you the truth these days I've been reading more along the lines of Haaretz, the Jerusalem Post, ZNet, San Jose Mercury News and the Washington Post web site. I realize I should pay more attention to what's going on in my own backyard!
I also must admit I know more about the US spy agencies than the Canadian ones! But as high as their budget is, I'm sure it still pales in comparison to the collective budget of the CIA, FBI, NSA and DIA...not to mention all the intelligence gathered by the DoD as part of the war effort!!! But I agree, it's not that much better here (just a little bit!)
In moder poll-taking, great care is taken (at least in theory) to select a wide and varied sample supposed to represent a snapshot of society as a whole (the smaller the sample, the bigger the error margin).
In Internet polls, however, the voting is on a voluntary basis, by people who themselves come across the interactive poll. In other words, people who already have an interest in the issue. The sample is therefore quite distorted (and that's not taking into account other issues such as multiple voting and hacking).
Imagine how results would vary if two identical polls ("Do you use Linux at home?") were posted on msn.com and Slashdot?
That is not evil American bad aggressive foreign policy, it's self defense.
You miss the point entirely. When mention was made of aggressive foreign policy, it wasn't about the attack on Afghanistan, but about events that took place before sept. 11.
Viet-Nam. Laos. Cambodia. Nicaragua. El Salvador. Guatemala. Grenada. Tacit support of genocide in East Timor. Of Kurds in Turkey (and Iraq!). Of Palestinians in Israel. Don't ask me, ask the whole wide world! The U.S. is one of the only country to vote against a U.N. resolution against torture. To vote down another resolution that said that countries should submit to international law. The global policeman, indeed. But who will police the police? Not you, obviously. And you wonder why so many people throughout the world hate what the U.S. has come to represent! Open your eyes, travel a little, and stop reading that godawful National Post! Until then, there's little I can do for you. Ciao!
BTW "Tu quoque" is latin, not french. It means "you too", which in the context where you put it doesn't mean a thing.
No, actually you're presenting opinions as facts to support your broad argument that Canada sucks. Well, as the american say: whatever. I've argued with enough people during two years on Usenet to know that this is going nowher. Goodbye troll!
I worked in deepwoods Quebec for a while.
Ah, yes, and that gives you the needed insight to judge an entire society, right? So, if I stay for a while in a redneck town down south that features the occasionnal cross-burning, then I guess I could say that americans are racist, violent bigots, right?
Then again, seeing as you're implying in your post that the collective IQ of Canadians is lower-than-average, I guess you are a bigot! And a troll. Goodbye!
RE: Oh, now I'm a liar, am I? Well, I don't see the point in continuing this discussion after this post, troll. I'll just state the following: as a WHOLE, our air is CLEANER, and while Hamilton, Ontario is certainly less polluted than Vermont, Los Angeles is a lot more polluted than Toronto or Montreal.
Ontario is MORE polluted than Vermont.
Typo. Of course, Ontario is MORE polluted than Vermont. Still, the rest of my point holds.I did notice you didn't try to refute it. Smart move.
Uh, dude, you made THAT one too easy. I'll refrain. But it's tough.
Gee, I don't know, after all I am winning this argument, and in a language that is not my own. I guess it does make me kinda smart, doesn't it?
Nice to know you, troll. Now go and hide, the sun is coming.
(And just to answer something you said in another reply: countries do have the right to defend themselves. This has nothing to do with the fact that the US has an aggressive foreign policy, which in turn is not validated by the fact that innocent people died in the WTC. You're confusing three different issues here. Stop making a fool of yourself...in any case, I don't think no one's left on this thread but us, and I've lost enough time on this as it is. As I said, I've spent enough time debating on political newsgroups to know when I'm arguing with someone who's only interested in pursuing his own agenda, and matter-of-factly resorts to ethnic slurs and broad generalizations. J'ai pas que ça à foutre. Salut!)
It is a reasoned argument. A troll is a deliberate attempt just to piss someone else off - and although I'm being abrasive, I'm actually discussing the point. Which conveiently gets ignored the moment I make a half decent one.
Nah, you don't make a point, you present arguments as facts, while taking a derogatory tone. In my book that's a troll. Plus I think you keep modding yourself up!
In terms of racial slurs, sorry but the French Canadians aren't a separate race. Oh, I'm sorry, you believe you're the ubermensch PURE LAINE RACE, right? Superior to those other people, you're the REAL PEOPLE of Quebec, as Parizeau says?
You're right, I should have said ethnic slur instead. There is in fact only one race of man. My humanist/buddhist philosophy would prevent me from thinking otherwise anyway.
But I see you're as intent on demonizing separatists as well as Canada in general. Funny, I know a lot of separatists, but NONE of them believe in the superiority of a so-called Quebecois race. If anything, Quebecois have traditionally thought the opposite, that they were somehow inferior to others (perhaps because anglo-montrealers kept telling them they were up until the 60s...). I get a feeling you're letting Conrad Black speak through you again... Out, vile demon, OUT!!!
RE:Our health care and tuition fees are STILL cheaper,
Compare my insurance rates to what half my income in taxes would be. Any questions? Didn't think so.
Again, a very mature way of debating...typical of a Troll. Fact is, not half of our taxes go for Health Care. And the great, great majority of the population seems to think that our Health Care is a lot superior to that of the states (a view shared by many american as well), so I guess you could say that it suits us fine, i.e. we're ready to pay a bit more so that we can stay in good health, as well as those less fortunate than us (oh, but you don't really care about these "freeloaders", right?)
RE: our air is STILL cleaner,
That is an outright LIE. MANY parts of Canada are more polluted than their American counterparts! Ontario in particular has VILE air.
Oh, now I'm a liar, am I? Well, I don't see the point in continuing this discussion after this post, troll. I'll just state the following: as a WHOLE, our air is CLEANER, and while Hamilton, Ontario is certainly less polluted than Vermont, Los Angeles is a lot more polluted than Toronto or Montreal. See, troll, I think the pollution has gotten to your brain...quick, wash it some more with a fresh copy of The National Post!
Yeah, those low taxes and high paying jobs are taking away all our best and brightest! GRRR!!!!
Well, I'm still here, ain't I? So that proves you wrong!
Judging from your last line, can I conclude that you really ARE a Canadian, right? (Don't answer, I'm not continuing this conversation anyway...)
Well, that explains a lot! For those who don't know, The National Post is one of Canada's most conservative newspapers. It is owned by Conrad Black, a man who despises Chretien bechause he prevented him from becoming a British Lord (I despise Chretien too, but for different reasons). It seems Black has a fondness for the "good old days" of colonial rule...Black's name is also synonym with "concentration of the press" in Canada, a fact that BluedemonX here doesn't seem to think is inconsistent with freedom of speech. Let's just say that his brain is probably one of the cleanest of the people around here...
By the way, BluedemonX, it's in really poor taste to bring in the victims of the WTC into this...the fact is that their deaths does not give an automatic seal of approval to U.S. foreign policy. In other words, two wrongs don't make a right (even though that would help your personal agenda!)
Now run along before I call in SantoX to kick your butt!!!
Oh, I get it, you're a Troll! Why, silly me! I thought you were actually trying to have a reasoned argument!
C'mon, you can tell me, you're really Canadian and ashamed of it, right? That's okay, you don't have to resort to misrepresenting the truth and spewing forth racial slur, you known (i.e. backyard wrestling in Beauharnois)...even though you're really the only canuck that says "aboot", there's no reason to hate your own kind so much! Come back to us, son, we love you, eh?
Meanwhile...
Our health care and tuition fees are STILL cheaper, our air is STILL cleaner, our murder rate is STILL lower, the NSA is STILL snooping on you AS YOU READ THIS (I know, they just told me) and Montreal babes are STILL the hottest on the planet, end of the line.
RE: Well, I think they do that in the States now, too!
Think? Try getting facts.
You first, troll! C'mon, give us your facts! I dare ya!
Note to rational beings out there: I actually have nothing against Americans, all of those that I've met I've really gotten along great with...but I do have issues with american foreign policy. Meanwhile, the EFF rocks and the EFC's site looks like they need a LOT of donations, very soon!
Free, universal health care, lower tuition fees, free highways (no toll booths!!!) and lower rent for nicer appartments...
government regulation
Cleaner environment, easier recourse against abusive landlords/corporations/institutions, few guns all around...
lack of opportunity
Eh?
no free speech
Okay, it's marginally less well-protected here than in the states...yet our media is a lot freer from corporate meddling (well, CBC/SRC is, anyway...) and the charter of rights and freedom is still a pretty good safeguard on protecting free speech. The same problem as in the states, though: access to the distribution channels so what you SAY can actually be HEARD...
no right to self defense
You mean the right to bear arms? Look at it this way: you guys have the highest murder rate in the world. Guns kill people. People without guns just beat each other silly, occasionally stab each other - but they usually get to see the next day.
big brother government database on all citizens
Okay, that's disturbing...but at least we don't give our taxes to an agency that routinely eavesdrop on its citizens AND those of other countries (Echelon, anyone?). Don't you think they have secret databases of their own, mmh?
and what's more the postal service opens and photocopies a certain percentage of mail without a warrant as a matter of policy
Well, I think they do that in the States now, too!
RE: but...
Shouldn't that be "boot"?
No, it shouldn't. I really don't know where Americans got this notion that anglo-canadians pronounce "about" like "aboot". I lived in Toronto for two years and went across Canada in 1986 (I'm a franco-canadian myself) and never once heard it pronounced like this. I guess it shows how much you REALLY know about Canada. (They do say "eh" all the time, though!:-)
More to the point, what does Canada-bashing have to do with the current subject, anyway? I'm the separatist here, I'll do the bashing, thank you very much!
I personally thought it was pretty funny, especially the part about not telling where the error took place, possibly in New Zealand. And it really hasn't been done in the mainstream press, as the article header makes a point of precising.
Ultimately, MS doesn't care about selling games. They want to control the connection between the internet and your TV(/toaster/etc/etc). They want to preserve the OS monopoly through any evolution of what is the now the computer.
You're probably right, however they have a long way to go before they can achieve this. Sony and Nintendo are not going to go away, and they too are eyeing the set-top box potential market (I say potential because I'm not even certain if such a product has much of a future). The fact is, there are a lot of players in that field, and Microsoft isn't in the lead.
As far as running Linux on the Xbox, AFAIK the stripped donw version is on a flash ROM, which could conceivably be replaced by a LILO-type bootloader...from what I've heard, hacking the Xbox is quite a feat (MS has built a lot of safeguards in it) but a lot of people are working on it, so we should see some interesting things in the future...
Linux and Xbox are not incompatible
on
XBox Defects Draw Ire
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It may suck for all you Linux lovers to have to admit this, but Micro$oft put togther a nice machine in the XBOX.
Actually, the two are totally unrelated. I am very pro-Linux on the desktop, because in my opinion it is a superior OS to Windows, and because MS has a monopoly their (I don't like monopolies). However, MS doesn't have a monopoly in the console world, far from it. So in that sense it really is the outsider in that very different market. So there really is no reason why a Linux "lover" couldn't or shouldn't own an Xbox.
Anyway, I'm getting an Xbox + Halo next week and playing it on the internet through my Linux LAN, proof that the two can coexist...
Also, I may try one day to put Linux on my Xbox (when it will be reasonably safe to do so... it's still quite an expensive toy to mess around with).
I agree with you about how almost every implementation of communism has failed but the truth is we'll never know if the original idea would have worked or not, since Marx intended it for an industrialized society and not an agrarian one (i.e. Germany or England instead of Russia). Now, of course, it's historically too late and we're at a different place altogether.
I disagree about you take on Atheism, though. It is entirely possible to be both an atheist and a humanist. In fact, the true humanist should be in it not for some sort of payback in the afterlife, but simply for the goodness of it...
I mean, look at it this way: some buddhists are atheists - though not in the traditional sense, I'll give you that!
Slashdot Mirror
You're right. He does. His logic just doesn't work out, though. He's very good at making his argument - but, from what I've seen, it ultimately leads off into the swamp.
I respectfully disagree. I find that his arguments are most compelling, and usually quite devastating - though they do go against those of the mainstream press. In any case, Mr. Chomsky can take care of his own in a debate, that's beside the point.
"People who don't know their a** from a hole in the ground." That sounds like a racist statement to me.
Please, demonstrate to me what is racist about that statement. It is a statement that you do not know what you are talking about, pure and simple. Race does not at _any_ point enter into the statement. It is not racist, sexist, religiously skewed, biased on account of age or sexual orientation. Hell, it doesn't even violate the ADA. It simply says "you don't know what you are talking about" and is equally applicable regardless of any of the above qualities. That you choose to interpret it as racist says more about _your_ agenda than anything else.
Okay, I think we misunderstood each other. You're saying I dont my a** from a hole in the ground...I though you meant the Chinese - you have to admit, in the context of the original post, it could be interpreted that way. Well, I retract my comment, then. It's certainly not racist to insult me (though not in very good form).
Hmmpf. 'Kay. Though they're _supposed_ to teach the basics of this stuff, and make it clear where to get more.
Well, since I'm self-taught, I don't know who you're referring to with "they". But I appreciate you not gloating over my mistake We can disagree over politics and stay civil at the same time - though that's not often the case on online forums!
"However, that still doesn't excuse the fact that the U.S. has voted against a resolution condemning the use of torture,"
I looked into it a bit. You should ask _why_ the US chose to vote against that particular resolution before complaining too loudly about it. The way it was written, it had several loopholes written into it to condone "liberation" groups who happened to have decided that blowing up airliners full of civilians was a dandy way to get their point across.
All that in the resolution against torture? I find your interpretation doubtful...Countries which have suffered from terrorism such as France, Italy and Egypt would not have voted for such a resolution if it had contained those loopholes. In any case, these loopholes could have been ironed out by further negotiations. Perhaps you can point me to those particular sections in the resolution that you feel were legally unsound? Or are you quoting someone else on these?
It does bring an interesting question, though: at what point do "liberation movements" go across the line and become "terrorists"? Don't forget that the British press described the american revolutionaries as "terrorists"...Personnally I think that as long as the targets are military, then it's okay, but attacking civilians is terrorism. After all, soldiers realize that, by choice, they are at risk of being killed by the enemy. But you can bet that those palestinians who attacked and killed Israeli soldiers will be labelled as terrorists, while the contras that terrorized Nicaragua in the 80's are still considered as "freedom fighters" by the old guard of the american right.
Also, a lot of other _good_ resolutions have been vetoed by other UNSC Permanent members. Do you know the _only_ reason the UN authorized a presence in Korea in 1950? Because the USSR had decided to boycott the UN shortly beforehand. D'you really think the UN would have authorized what wound up being authorized if the USSR had been in its seat?
Not that it would have mattered. The US would have gone in anyway
"as well as being found guilty by the World Court of unlawful use of force against Nicaragua,"
Almost every country that's done _anything_ internationally has been wracked up under those statutes.
Well, that's not quite true, it it? There actually have not been a lot of western democracies that have been found guilty of unlawful use of force against another country. France in Algeria, perhaps? Even then I'm not sure. And those that have don't even come close to the U.S. as far as "war by proxy" is concerned.
"The fact is, Nicaragua tried to use legal means to defend itself against unlawful agression, instead of retorting to terrorism (which is bad, we all agree)."
To a certain extent. To a certain extent they didn't. In 1988, they rolled over the border into Honduras.
They only did so after being denied justice, and in order to attack the death squads who launched their attack from across the border. Today, it is found quite acceptable by most of the contra supporters for Israel to do the same when Hamas or Islamic Jihad launch attacks from Palestine.
The Hondurans were scared enough that the US wound up deploying a 4 BN task force. Note also that Nicaragua was doing a lot more than just "defending itself" during that period.
A better way of saying it would be that the contras were about to be beaten, so the US sent in reinforcements in order to help their proxy military/terrorists. You're right though, Nicaragua was doing more than protecting itself: it was openly defying the U.S. dictatorial policies towards Central America, which of course was simply unacceptable! Cuba was enough of an embarassment already...
relative to the other players out there, are you willing to continue making the assertion that the US is the big bad bully?
Yes, it is by far the biggest, baddest bully. Of the bullies, it is also the only western democracy. If Joe Sixpack really knew what his country did in his name, I guess maybe things could change for the better - but Joe doesn't care.
As for the "it sets the rules, rigging them in its favor", every country does that, whenever it has the chance. Do you honestly think those stalwarts in the EU don't do it? Please! I recall reading an interesting description of how France manipulated Airbus and the EU to force an American company to divulge its avionics secrets
You are right in the economic sense - but as I recall we're talking about politics and military matters here. You know, foreign policy, terrorism, low-level conflicts, torture, the U.N... You're veering off in a totally different direction. Yes, in the economic sphere, nearly allcountries try to pull the covers over to their side. Once again, the U.S. pulls the hardest, but it's got some competition, and that's only fair - it's the name of the game, as they say.
As far as political/military matters are concerned, however, the U.S. is far above and beyond the rest. In that arena, no one compares to them as far as "setting the rules and rigging them in their own favor" is concerned.
That being said, given the chance, no other country has tried to create things like the IMF (currency/economic stability)
Hmmm...the IMF's record is less than stellar. The recent case of Argentina is a good example of that...
Look, we're obviously on opposite end of the spectrum on the matter. Shall we agree to disagree?
Peace.
You've been reading Chomsky, haven't you?
Among others. I'm quite an avid reader, and I like to read conservative sources as well as progressive ones. I like to make my own mind. What I like about Chomsky is that he always documents his writings - as compared to William F. Buckley, who, well, does not. I don't either, but for different reasons. My girlfriend is glaring at me as we speak, thinking I spend enough time in front of the computer as it is. Unfortunately, she is totally uninterested in politics! Oh well...a few more minutes!
No, nothing racist about it whatsoever.
"People who don't know their a** from a hole in the ground." That sounds like a racist statement to me.
You don't know what you're talking about, and you've just demonstrated it twice. Here, let me walk you through it.
Well, I admit you have me there. I guess I've been mistaken about this for quite a while, now.
However, that still doesn't excuse the fact that the U.S. has voted against a resolution condemning the use of torture, as well as being found guilty by the World Court of unlawful use of force against Nicaragua, then killing a resolution that would have forced countries to respect international law (not international mob rule, as you seem to think). The fact is, Nicaragua tried to use legal means to defend itself against unlawful agression, instead of retorting to terrorism (which is bad, we all agree). But the fact is that it doesn't matter if the U.S. is right or if it's wrong: by force of its might, it sets the rules, rigging them in its favor. Might makes right, the american way.
Nah. Places like Zimbabwe. Venezuela. Burma. Indonesia. Vietnam. Algeria. Congo.
So some non-democratic countries voted for it, big deal! How does that invalidate it? Well, it doesn't. The fact is, nearly all democratic countries voted in favor of it. Funny you should mention Venezuela and Indonesia, though, as these regime have been supported by the U.S. for almost three decades.
BTW - care to cough up a cite on that resolution?
No. Look it up yourself and prove me wrong.
How can you have China, for example, in the Secutiy Council? Easy, China is a nuclear power. That's how they got in the security council in the first place.
Cool! People who don't know their a** from a hole in the ground. You obviously don't have the faintest clue about what you speak. Care to try that one again?
Well, that's kind of a racist attitude, wouldn't you say? After all, they did invent the mother of all modern weapons: gunpowder! But the fact is I do know what I'm talking about, you don't. The five permanent members of the security councils (the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China) were, at the time, the only countries with nuclear capability. Or perhaps you have a better explanation?
And as I recall, it also clearly defined Israel as a terrorist state, and so the American government fought to kill it.
You recall wrong. The resolution did not define Israel (nor any other country) as a terrorist state. However, it probably would have defined some of the actions taken by the state of Israel as unlawful (which, in my opinion, they were). In any case, Israel is engaging in a targeted killing campaign, which could certainly be considered as terrorism, whatever the nature of their targets (what if they're intelligence happened to be wrong, and they killed an innoncent).
If it had anthing like the silly attempt to ban land mines in it, I would be glad that the US resisted it.
Why? Land mines are responsible for countless deaths and mutilations of civilians, including a high percentage of children. Their usefulness in this new era of warfare (hey, we're back on topic!) is dubious at best! But anyway this wasn't in the definition of terrorism that was proposed in the resolution - you're quite right in saying that the U.S. opposed it because of Israel, for it would have severely limited their abusive practices towards the palestinian people. I am not anti-Israel, by the way. I know that there are Israelis who are serious about peace, even though they are having a hard time these days...
If I don't support it, [the resolution against torture] it doesn't necessarally mean I am against the tag line, it means that there is something in there I don't like,
Well, you seem ready to reject the resolution out of hand, without knowing what was inside. It seems to me that you are buying into a tag line...the U.S. government's!
Nope, I do this on a daily basis. And still employed and free.
Tell that to Bill Maher, who almost lost his TV show because of the "new" political correctness! Or to employees of major TV networks, who were told to downplay civilian casualties in Afghanistan. Fortunately, I have enough faith in the common americans' love of free speech to think this kind of attitude will last for very long. As for global warming...perhaps it isn't true...but you are still in effect taking the decision for the rest of the world, exactly what you accuse the U.N. of trying to do with the U.S.! The fact is, it can't always be that the whole world is wrong, and that the U.S. is right...that's what I mean by saying that the U.S. needs to become a responsible citizen of the world. Otherwise the antagonism towards it will continue to grow.
Every govenment was setup to serve its own people.
Of course. The problem with the U.S. is the extent to which it impinges on other countries' internal policies in order to achieve its foreign policy goals.
Quake3 and UT are nearly 3 years old. RtCW is newer, but largely based on the same engine as Quake3.
None of these games take advantage of the features of a GeForce 3. You'd see very little difference between a GeForce 2 MX and a high-end GeForce 3 running these games.
No matter who old those games are, they are still widely played. And as far as RTCW is concerned, having a more powerful card does make a difference.
But I'm curious, which games would make owning a GF3 worthwhile, in your opinion? To me, RTCW is pretty much cutting edge...
Anyway, you'll be able to use that neat GF3 card to play Doom 3 when it comes out. Being an id game, it should run on Linux!
Well, coming from an Anonymous Coward, I don't really feel affected by this mindless drivel...
Why don't you get a user name and re-post if you've got any balls? You're the type that hung out with the bully, just because you were too afraid to oppose him.
There's a reason we have laws, you know. It's to stop people who would continue the cycle of violence by taking justice in their own hands. But obviously that's a concept that's waaaaay beyond you.
Climb down from that tree, you primate, and try to walk like a man!
And why shouldn't the US continue this behavior?
Huh, because the rest of the world is getting incredibly pissed off at America's arrogance?
If a terrorist defies our hegemony then we can and will overthrow a government anywhere in the world.
I'm afraid that's a rather simplistic approach, but it does show how effective the U.S. propaganda machine is...
Just to repeat the point: this is not about actions taken since Sept. 11 - I'm personnally quite happy that the Taliban have been overthrown, even though I'm not sure how much the Northern Alliance's worth as a replacement. The point is that the U.S. foreign policy before Sept. 11 routinely gave support to dictatorships, turned a blind eye to genocides, supported the use of terror on civilian populations (did you know that the contras in Nicaragua had orders not to fight the Sandinistas, but rather to attack the farmers and ordinary villagers in order to erode their power base?), etc.
If I step back and look at this situation it does seem morally deplorable, but on the other hand I have lots of stuff, high-speed internet access, and enough security to get by.
Huh? That's a pretty selfish way of looking at the world! "How don't care if we're supporting Death Squads in Central America, as long as I've got my MTV..." How short-sighted...
Someone will need to find a better way of doing things first before the US significantly changes their foreign policy.
Well, that's simple: the US simply has to become a responsible global citizen, instead of the planet's #1 bully. I really don't see how that would prevent you from enjoying your high-speed internet access...
The fact is: most of the UN members are bunch of representatives from non-democratic governments.
You mean, like Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Canada, India, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, South Africa (post-apartheid), to name some of them? Yes, these are all a bunch of undemocratic dictatorships! How DARE they vote for a resolution condemning torture.
So, I guess you support the U.S.'s decision not to support the resolution that would have banned torture...does that mean that you condone the use of torture?
BTW, the US has also blocked a U.N. resolution that would have defined what IS terrorism, even though the U.S. military manuals do define it as the use of force OR threat of use of force against civilians in order to attain political goals. Of course the U.S. would never agree to this, since it would put an end to their use of "low-intesity conflicts" around the world...
UN is a non-fucntional body. It is a mirage.
It is mainly so because of interference from the US. The fact is that the US, as the world's last superpower, would not allow any other authority but its own. Great way to make friends with the rest of the world, guys!
How can you have China, for example, in the Secutiy Council?
Easy, China is a nuclear power. That's how they got in the security council in the first place.
The same China that is non-democratic, that abuses its own citizens, that is a nest of corruption, that holds foreign land under military rule, that excludes foreign nationals to have rights...
That one exactly. You forgot to add: who's had "Most Favored Nation" status with the U.S. for quite a few years, now! The U.S. routinely supports foreign dictatorships, as long as they fall in line with american national interests. You're so keen to mention realpolitik, you should know this by now!
Note that the fact that it's happening doesn't make it right, and doesn't mean that we shouldn't denounce it. Don't underestimate the power of public opinion...after all, it's pretty much all that we have left as private citizens...
How do they dare (how do you dare) to support resolutions against democratic countries and elected governments?
Again, you ignore the fact that most democratic countries and elected governments voted in favor of these resolutions, and that the U.S. was usually isolated in voting against (although Israel nearly always votes with the U.S.). In any case, a resolution should be based on its merit, regardless of who supports it. The one I mentioned condemned torture - that doesn't seem too difficult of a moral choice, in my view. But perhaps you have a different view of this...
In the US you have the right to critisize your Government. You can vote them off from office if you do not like them. You can demonstrate against government policy. You can sue the government. Try that in a random country from the UN Council.
Yes, it's great for a citizen to be able to be able to criticize the U.S. government...though if you do that right now you could possibly lose your job or be labeled a traitor...
In any case, the U.S. doesn't have a monopoly on democracy. The U.N., whatever its faults may be, also remains an essential part of world diplomacy. One shouldn't dismiss it in such a way, even if one can lament about it's usual lack of effectiveness.
Chances are that, just thinking about this will be a sure passage to torture, inprisonement and possibly death.
Which is exactly what the resolution that the U.S. opposed was about. That, in addition to its cozying up with such brutal regimes as China, Turkey, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, etc. makes it an accomplice to crimes against that democracy you seem to nominally cherish.
Be real. Accept the fact that realpolitik rule the world. This is not an utopy. This is Real Planet Earth, not a Star Trek Federation of some sort.
Oh, but I do understand the workings of realpolitik! I have often debated with idealistic PoliSci student about how you need to understand how the world works before trying to change it. You, on the other hand, seem to think that there's nothing we can do except exercise a nearly-meaningless right to vote once every two years or so...As I said, just because governments (even the U.S.'s) are corrupt, doesn't mean we shouldn't denounce corruption and injustice, and strive to make this world a better place. Otherwise, we might as well all just give in and renounce democracy altogether!
Being real doesn't necessarily mean becoming a cynic. The important thing is that the U.S.'s foreign policy is unjust, and concerned only with American interests. This creates a world where it is increasingly isolated, its allies going along more out of fear than respect. That is not a healthy situation.
While I think every reasonable human being agrees that Sept. 11 was a horrible crime of terror, if you take a broader view of things, most foreign policy/military U.S. initiatives since WWII have NOT been about fighting extremism, but rather about expanding America's influence and furthering its own national interests, often to the detriment of other parts of the world.
This has led the U.S. to be one of the few countries to not sign a U.N. declaration banning the use of torture, as well as having the dubious distinction of being the ONLY country to have been both recognized guilty of "unlawful use of force" (which one could argue is tantamount to terrorism) by the World Court AND to have vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution calling on states to observe international law.
The problem is, the U.S. foreign policy game keeps catching up with it: Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, as despicable as they are, were once allies of the U.S., armed and trained by members of its special forces. I think it's time for the U.S. to stop wanting to be one nation above all others, and to become a real, equal partner in the community of nations. That requires renouncing some of the global tactics it has practiced over the past 50 years. One thing it certainly not involves is more hi-tech gadgetry to exert its unilateral will on the rest of the world with less risks to its own armed forces!
And before someone comes along saying that I'm trying to belittle or excuse what happened to the WTC victims: it seems to me that YOU are the ones who are betraying the memory of those innocent victims by using their tragic deaths to further your own political agenda and justify decades of abusive foreign policy. Sept. 11 was a terrible, terrible crime against humanity, but it does not wash away America's own criminal behavior abroad. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Of course, you realize than can only mean one thing: FNORD
Wow! 17 Minutes! Say, Syberghost, do you have any suggestions for winning lottery numbers?
(By the way, the "flame" portion of this multi-message joke got modded down unfairly. It should be brought back up for humor's sake. Humor is good. It makes me feel tingly all over. Seriously.)
Now, I saw you say that you were a separatist, which therefore makes you an official kook
There's no need to insult me just because you don't share the same political beliefs as I do. You don't know what I have to say about the subject, and yet you've already categorized me, figured me out. Unfortunately this is not the time nor the place for me to enlighten you about what I really think. Anyway, I don't talk about that subject anymore on newsgroups - believe me, I've done more than my share a couple of years ago! But if you're ever in the MTL region and would not mind a spirited but friendly debate on the question, above a couple of pints of Guiness, then I'd be more than happy to oblige.
On the other points you make, you are correct (and much more civilized than BluedemonX). I wasn't up to speed on the CanWest acquisition - to tell you the truth these days I've been reading more along the lines of Haaretz, the Jerusalem Post, ZNet, San Jose Mercury News and the Washington Post web site. I realize I should pay more attention to what's going on in my own backyard!
I also must admit I know more about the US spy agencies than the Canadian ones! But as high as their budget is, I'm sure it still pales in comparison to the collective budget of the CIA, FBI, NSA and DIA...not to mention all the intelligence gathered by the DoD as part of the war effort!!! But I agree, it's not that much better here (just a little bit!)
Archie Steel, your non-kooky separatist friend
In moder poll-taking, great care is taken (at least in theory) to select a wide and varied sample supposed to represent a snapshot of society as a whole (the smaller the sample, the bigger the error margin).
In Internet polls, however, the voting is on a voluntary basis, by people who themselves come across the interactive poll. In other words, people who already have an interest in the issue. The sample is therefore quite distorted (and that's not taking into account other issues such as multiple voting and hacking).
Imagine how results would vary if two identical polls ("Do you use Linux at home?") were posted on msn.com and Slashdot?
That is not evil American bad aggressive foreign policy, it's self defense.
You miss the point entirely. When mention was made of aggressive foreign policy, it wasn't about the attack on Afghanistan, but about events that took place before sept. 11.
Viet-Nam. Laos. Cambodia. Nicaragua. El Salvador. Guatemala. Grenada. Tacit support of genocide in East Timor. Of Kurds in Turkey (and Iraq!). Of Palestinians in Israel. Don't ask me, ask the whole wide world! The U.S. is one of the only country to vote against a U.N. resolution against torture. To vote down another resolution that said that countries should submit to international law. The global policeman, indeed. But who will police the police? Not you, obviously. And you wonder why so many people throughout the world hate what the U.S. has come to represent! Open your eyes, travel a little, and stop reading that godawful National Post! Until then, there's little I can do for you. Ciao!
BTW "Tu quoque" is latin, not french. It means "you too", which in the context where you put it doesn't mean a thing.
I'm presenting facts as arguments
No, actually you're presenting opinions as facts to support your broad argument that Canada sucks. Well, as the american say: whatever. I've argued with enough people during two years on Usenet to know that this is going nowher. Goodbye troll!
I worked in deepwoods Quebec for a while.
Ah, yes, and that gives you the needed insight to judge an entire society, right? So, if I stay for a while in a redneck town down south that features the occasionnal cross-burning, then I guess I could say that americans are racist, violent bigots, right?
Then again, seeing as you're implying in your post that the collective IQ of Canadians is lower-than-average, I guess you are a bigot! And a troll. Goodbye!
RE: Oh, now I'm a liar, am I? Well, I don't see the point in continuing this discussion after this post, troll. I'll just state the following: as a WHOLE, our air is CLEANER, and while Hamilton, Ontario is certainly less polluted than Vermont, Los Angeles is a lot more polluted than Toronto or Montreal.
Ontario is MORE polluted than Vermont.
Typo. Of course, Ontario is MORE polluted than Vermont. Still, the rest of my point holds.I did notice you didn't try to refute it. Smart move.
Uh, dude, you made THAT one too easy. I'll refrain. But it's tough.
Gee, I don't know, after all I am winning this argument, and in a language that is not my own. I guess it does make me kinda smart, doesn't it?
Nice to know you, troll. Now go and hide, the sun is coming.
(And just to answer something you said in another reply: countries do have the right to defend themselves. This has nothing to do with the fact that the US has an aggressive foreign policy, which in turn is not validated by the fact that innocent people died in the WTC. You're confusing three different issues here. Stop making a fool of yourself...in any case, I don't think no one's left on this thread but us, and I've lost enough time on this as it is. As I said, I've spent enough time debating on political newsgroups to know when I'm arguing with someone who's only interested in pursuing his own agenda, and matter-of-factly resorts to ethnic slurs and broad generalizations. J'ai pas que ça à foutre. Salut!)
It is a reasoned argument. A troll is a deliberate attempt just to piss someone else off - and although I'm being abrasive, I'm actually discussing the point. Which conveiently gets ignored the moment I make a half decent one.
Nah, you don't make a point, you present arguments as facts, while taking a derogatory tone. In my book that's a troll. Plus I think you keep modding yourself up!
In terms of racial slurs, sorry but the French Canadians aren't a separate race. Oh, I'm sorry, you believe you're the ubermensch PURE LAINE RACE, right? Superior to those other people, you're the REAL PEOPLE of Quebec, as Parizeau says?
You're right, I should have said ethnic slur instead. There is in fact only one race of man. My humanist/buddhist philosophy would prevent me from thinking otherwise anyway.
But I see you're as intent on demonizing separatists as well as Canada in general. Funny, I know a lot of separatists, but NONE of them believe in the superiority of a so-called Quebecois race. If anything, Quebecois have traditionally thought the opposite, that they were somehow inferior to others (perhaps because anglo-montrealers kept telling them they were up until the 60s...). I get a feeling you're letting Conrad Black speak through you again... Out, vile demon, OUT!!!
RE:Our health care and tuition fees are STILL cheaper,
Compare my insurance rates to what half my income in taxes would be. Any questions? Didn't think so.
Again, a very mature way of debating...typical of a Troll. Fact is, not half of our taxes go for Health Care. And the great, great majority of the population seems to think that our Health Care is a lot superior to that of the states (a view shared by many american as well), so I guess you could say that it suits us fine, i.e. we're ready to pay a bit more so that we can stay in good health, as well as those less fortunate than us (oh, but you don't really care about these "freeloaders", right?)
RE: our air is STILL cleaner,
That is an outright LIE. MANY parts of Canada are more polluted than their American counterparts! Ontario in particular has VILE air.
Oh, now I'm a liar, am I? Well, I don't see the point in continuing this discussion after this post, troll. I'll just state the following: as a WHOLE, our air is CLEANER, and while Hamilton, Ontario is certainly less polluted than Vermont, Los Angeles is a lot more polluted than Toronto or Montreal. See, troll, I think the pollution has gotten to your brain...quick, wash it some more with a fresh copy of The National Post!
Yeah, those low taxes and high paying jobs are taking away all our best and brightest! GRRR!!!!
Well, I'm still here, ain't I? So that proves you wrong!
Judging from your last line, can I conclude that you really ARE a Canadian, right? (Don't answer, I'm not continuing this conversation anyway...)
RE:I'd be interested to hear your source on this.
The National Post.
Well, that explains a lot! For those who don't know, The National Post is one of Canada's most conservative newspapers. It is owned by Conrad Black, a man who despises Chretien bechause he prevented him from becoming a British Lord (I despise Chretien too, but for different reasons). It seems Black has a fondness for the "good old days" of colonial rule...Black's name is also synonym with "concentration of the press" in Canada, a fact that BluedemonX here doesn't seem to think is inconsistent with freedom of speech. Let's just say that his brain is probably one of the cleanest of the people around here...
By the way, BluedemonX, it's in really poor taste to bring in the victims of the WTC into this...the fact is that their deaths does not give an automatic seal of approval to U.S. foreign policy. In other words, two wrongs don't make a right (even though that would help your personal agenda!)
Now run along before I call in SantoX to kick your butt!!!
Silly troll...
Oh, I get it, you're a Troll! Why, silly me! I thought you were actually trying to have a reasoned argument!
C'mon, you can tell me, you're really Canadian and ashamed of it, right? That's okay, you don't have to resort to misrepresenting the truth and spewing forth racial slur, you known (i.e. backyard wrestling in Beauharnois)...even though you're really the only canuck that says "aboot", there's no reason to hate your own kind so much! Come back to us, son, we love you, eh?
Meanwhile...
Our health care and tuition fees are STILL cheaper, our air is STILL cleaner, our murder rate is STILL lower, the NSA is STILL snooping on you AS YOU READ THIS (I know, they just told me) and Montreal babes are STILL the hottest on the planet, end of the line.
RE: Well, I think they do that in the States now, too!
Think? Try getting facts.
You first, troll! C'mon, give us your facts! I dare ya!
Note to rational beings out there: I actually have nothing against Americans, all of those that I've met I've really gotten along great with...but I do have issues with american foreign policy. Meanwhile, the EFF rocks and the EFC's site looks like they need a LOT of donations, very soon!
High taxes
:-)
Free, universal health care, lower tuition fees, free highways (no toll booths!!!) and lower rent for nicer appartments...
government regulation
Cleaner environment, easier recourse against abusive landlords/corporations/institutions, few guns all around...
lack of opportunity
Eh?
no free speech
Okay, it's marginally less well-protected here than in the states...yet our media is a lot freer from corporate meddling (well, CBC/SRC is, anyway...) and the charter of rights and freedom is still a pretty good safeguard on protecting free speech. The same problem as in the states, though: access to the distribution channels so what you SAY can actually be HEARD...
no right to self defense
You mean the right to bear arms? Look at it this way: you guys have the highest murder rate in the world. Guns kill people. People without guns just beat each other silly, occasionally stab each other - but they usually get to see the next day.
big brother government database on all citizens
Okay, that's disturbing...but at least we don't give our taxes to an agency that routinely eavesdrop on its citizens AND those of other countries (Echelon, anyone?). Don't you think they have secret databases of their own, mmh?
and what's more the postal service opens and photocopies a certain percentage of mail without a warrant as a matter of policy
Well, I think they do that in the States now, too!
RE: but...
Shouldn't that be "boot"?
No, it shouldn't. I really don't know where Americans got this notion that anglo-canadians pronounce "about" like "aboot". I lived in Toronto for two years and went across Canada in 1986 (I'm a franco-canadian myself) and never once heard it pronounced like this. I guess it shows how much you REALLY know about Canada. (They do say "eh" all the time, though!
More to the point, what does Canada-bashing have to do with the current subject, anyway? I'm the separatist here, I'll do the bashing, thank you very much!
I personally thought it was pretty funny, especially the part about not telling where the error took place, possibly in New Zealand. And it really hasn't been done in the mainstream press, as the article header makes a point of precising.
Ultimately, MS doesn't care about selling games. They want to control the connection between the internet and your TV(/toaster/etc/etc). They want to preserve the OS monopoly through any evolution of what is the now the computer.
You're probably right, however they have a long way to go before they can achieve this. Sony and Nintendo are not going to go away, and they too are eyeing the set-top box potential market (I say potential because I'm not even certain if such a product has much of a future). The fact is, there are a lot of players in that field, and Microsoft isn't in the lead.
As far as running Linux on the Xbox, AFAIK the stripped donw version is on a flash ROM, which could conceivably be replaced by a LILO-type bootloader...from what I've heard, hacking the Xbox is quite a feat (MS has built a lot of safeguards in it) but a lot of people are working on it, so we should see some interesting things in the future...
It may suck for all you Linux lovers to have to admit this, but Micro$oft put togther a nice machine in the XBOX.
Actually, the two are totally unrelated. I am very pro-Linux on the desktop, because in my opinion it is a superior OS to Windows, and because MS has a monopoly their (I don't like monopolies). However, MS doesn't have a monopoly in the console world, far from it. So in that sense it really is the outsider in that very different market. So there really is no reason why a Linux "lover" couldn't or shouldn't own an Xbox.
Anyway, I'm getting an Xbox + Halo next week and playing it on the internet through my Linux LAN, proof that the two can coexist... Also, I may try one day to put Linux on my Xbox (when it will be reasonably safe to do so... it's still quite an expensive toy to mess around with).
I agree with you about how almost every implementation of communism has failed but the truth is we'll never know if the original idea would have worked or not, since Marx intended it for an industrialized society and not an agrarian one (i.e. Germany or England instead of Russia). Now, of course, it's historically too late and we're at a different place altogether.
I disagree about you take on Atheism, though. It is entirely possible to be both an atheist and a humanist. In fact, the true humanist should be in it not for some sort of payback in the afterlife, but simply for the goodness of it...
I mean, look at it this way: some buddhists are atheists - though not in the traditional sense, I'll give you that!
I'm not familiar with Singapore's political climate, but I figure they're probably not into state capitalism...just good ol' corporations.
Communism is the exploitation of man by man. With capitalism, it's the reverse...
Anybody knows if the japanese eye shop is in the original novel? That would be one more indication that Philip K. Dick truly is God.