just imagine all the pain you have to go through to use your favorite P2P/game/whatever behind a NAT router
But you go through that pain only because your ISP wants you to. It would trivial for them to give you one or even several dedicated incoming ports and forward them to you. Multiply the current number of IPs we have by 32,000 if you're going to bring up that problem.
Is it a kludge? Sure. If you were going to redesign everything from scratch you would design something closer to IPv6. But until a new IP standard comes out which is truly backward compatible it's simply not going to be implemented. At least not for decades.
Syria had to close its borders? Could it be because of the millions of fleeing Iraqis, afraid that their homes were going to be bombed?
Well yeah, of course that was why. But don't you think that WMD could have been easily smuggled in during the time that the borders were opened, hidden from our spy cameras amoung the fleeing Iraqis?
Underground tunnels, pfft. We'd still see trucks taking stuff from stockpiles near Baghdad to places on the edges of Iraq. Nothing like that happened.
How do you know this?
What? What about the sophisticated satellites that supposedly can read license-plate numbers?
I've never seen evidence of such satellites.
The sat images that can tell a woman's cup size from space? Just because the administration screwed up, you're going to blame the hardware now?
Not at all. I'm not blaming anything. I'm just saying it's perfectly possible that these transfers took place and were missed. Seeing a woman's cup size doesn't tell you what's inside a covered truck. And that presumes that you're focused on the right place at the right time. And that there's enough light to see. And that the satellites are in the right position.
If spy satellites are so good at tracking things, why don't we know where Saddam is right now?
Speaking as a non-American, I think that the Iraq war made the Bush cabal, the Tony Blair cabal and several others look stupid.
To an open-minded, well reasoning person, perhaps. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've gotten the sense that many people outside the US (especially in the middle eastern countries) don't seem to take the time to distinguish our administration from us. There's certainly enough of the same happening over here, too. Resturants banning French Fries because of the actions of some in the French government.
When a new President comes in, is the whole Iraqi war going to be forgotten? Somehow I think resentment against the US will still be harbored. I think US power in the UN will continue to be diminished for long after Bush has left. Maybe I'm just over-pessimistic.
Is English your first language? I said "when it comes down to a question of trusting the former Iraqi regime and the current Bush one, I'll take Bush." Like you said, it doesn't always come down to such a black and white decision. Sometimes it does, though.
There is plenty of reason to believe this. There are documents, there are dump sites, there are eye witnesses. You choose to ignore that evidence and pretend that it does not exist.
Those documents, dump sites, and eye witnesses only cover a small fraction of the WMD that Iraq possessed.
If you claim that that a teaspoon of chemical agents is a bone fide threat to the United States then my house should be bombed by the United States.
I never said that any bone fide threat to the United States should be bombed by the United States.
Also please note that your link does not prove the existance of WMDs in Iraq just before the war.
You're right. It doesn't prove it. But it's evidence of it.
Nor does it prove that Iraq was about to use these weapons against the United States.
Get this through your thick skull. I never claimed they were.
You limitation is in thinking that those are your only choices. You somehow think that Either Bush is telling the truth or Saddam is.
Actually, you seem to be doing the same thing.
I submit to you that both of those people are lying to cover their asses. Both of them have continually lied to advance their own agenda. Both of them feel no moral or ethical obligation to their citizens and that both of them are on a religious jihad to kill the infidels.
If you don't care about internet software updating and maintaning that has a database, you don't care about this.
Hmm, well I do care about internet software updating and maintaining a database, but I don't care about this.
That would mean you don't have a system like apt, up2date, ports or any other software version atomation on any of your computers.
Umm, that would require 1) Slashdot to have described the patent properly, 2) The company to decide to enforce it, 3) The courts to agree, and 4) Them to stop me from downloading the software from download sites in other countries, just like I did with PGP when that was under patent restrictions.
Yes. The patent system is screwed up. But do we really need to have a story every day about every new piece of evidence that the patent system is screwed up?
When this company starts actually enforcing its patent, then maybe it'll justify a story. Probably not though. I'd wait until they actually win a case. Which will be never.
Did you identify with decisions made by the Clinton Administration (or other previous ones) in the same way?
Pretty much. The Clinton Administration was a lot more fun, though.
Are you indicating that to disagree with your government of the day is 'unamerican'? That it what it sounds like.
No. I disagree with my government of the day all the time. I also disagree with those who disagree with my government of the day all the time. That's what I'm doing right now.
My statment was that the Iraq war made us all, as Americans, look stupid. I don't see how that implies that disagreeing with the government is unamerican.
You are not alone. Nobody else seems to know either. Not the UN inspectors and not the US inspectors. Maybe that's because they don't exist.
Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't.
It seems silly to claim that something exists when there is no evidence for it don't you think?
Sure. But there is evidence for there being WMD. Knowing where something is and knowing whether or not something exists is two completely different things.
Taking a country to war on a presime of lies is a pretty evil offence in my book.
I guess. Do the ends ever justify the means? That's a whole different question which I'm torn over anyway.
If we could impeach a president for lying about his cock you'd think we can impeach one for lying about war don't you think?
Sure. Wasn't lying to congress one of the offenses Clinton was charged with?
"but the fact he's arguing that Saddam has had them in the apparently recent past and that this was and is a serious issue does not make him a blind Bush supporter or war-mongerer."
His insistance on this fact despite the lack of any evidence does make him deluded though.
So wait a second. You reject the fact that Saddam ever had weapons of mass destruction? Or you're saying they were all destroyed 10 years ago? Obviously I can't prove whether or not the later is true. The evidence that they had them recently is the fact that they had them 10 years ago, and there's no reason to believe they were all destroyed.
Iraq has had at least a decade of scrutiny by the US and the UN. We overflew them daily during both the Bush Sr, Clinton and Bush Jr administrations.
Nonsense. We overflew them in the no-fly zone (where they shot at us to try to kill us). We sent some drones past that, most likely, but that's hardly scrutiny. The US government can't even track anthrax spores which were held inside the United States and sent through the US post office. You think they can track them in a country which orders its military to kill US officials? No way.
After all that not one shred of evidence exists that UN had any WMDs let alone anything in quantity to threaten the US.
When passing the report to the Permanent Representative, I would propose to invite his particular attention, and through him that of the authorities in Baghdad, to three key aspects of the report: "all analytical data provided by the three laboratories were again considered conclusive and valid"; "the existence of VX degradation products conflicts with Iraq's declarations that the unilaterally destroyed special warheads had never been filled with chemical warfare agents"; and, the recommendations of the group of experts that the Special Commission invite Iraq "to explain first the origin and history of the fragments analysed by all three laboratories and then the presence of degradation products of nerve agents" and "to explain the presence of a compound known as VX stabilizer and its degradation product, and to provide more information on the Iraqi efforts during the period from mid-1988 to the end of 1990 to develop and produce VX by improved synthetic routes".
Now will you stop making such stupid claims?
As for whether Iraq had WMD in quantity to threaten the US. Well, they certainly had the quantity to threaten the US, as any quantity of WMD is enough to threaten the US. I don't think they were an actual threat, though, because they didn't have the ability to deploy those WMD on the US.
Why shouldn't Anthony's belief be challanged? Why shouldn't I presume that the only reason he believes this fact is because he unconditionally believes what this administration tells him? He has not even attempted to bother pointing to any evidence for his viewpoint whatsoever.
Iraq had WMD. They lied about those WMD over and over and over again. They claimed the weapons never existed, then we found out they lied, so they claimed they destroyed them, then we found out they lied, so they claimed the ones we found were the only ones, then we found out they lied, then they claimed our tests were incorrect, so we retested and found out they lied. They lied over and over and over again, so my respect for their statements is 0. Without evidence that the weapons were destroyed, I'm going to assume they still existed. My evidence is right here.
Most liberterians I know are rational people.
I have to disagree with you on that one.
I have a very hard time believing that Anthony is a libertarian.
Good. I'm not. Not even close. And if you read the AC's post you'd realize he never said I was. He
If you recall the UN inspection regime collected thousands of docouments and turned them over to the US, UN, Russia and a handful of other countries. Many of these documents dealt with the destruction of WMDs. It did not however account for 100% of the known WMDs which the iraqis claimed were destroyed but somehow lost the documentation.
The term "accuse" doesn't just mean "state impartially", it carries a notion of ethical or legal disapproval that both the speaker and the audience share.
So is it absurd for someone to "accuse" a convicted felon of possessing a handgun if he himself has a handgun?
If WMDs went into Syria, wouldnt people see? Doesnt the US monitor with spyplanes and satellites?
Yeah, and just as Desert Storm II was ready to begin we saw lots of traffic going from Iraq to Syria. So much in fact, that Syria had to close its borders. As for the underground tunnels, it's hard to know what exactly went on with them.
Remember those circled stockpile locations on Colin's map? Do you really think the US is not going to watch where stuff goes?
Obviously either that intelligence was incorrect or we missed it.
Wouldn't a herd of trucks and trailers going from one country to another perk up somebody's attention?
I'm sure somebody noticed. But there's not a whole lot of detail you can get with spy satellites.
I don't know. I don't care. I wasn't talking about the program. I was talking about the WMD (that stands for weapons of mass destruction, note the lack of the word program).
Since an attack on America was imminent by Iraq they must have not only had tons of WMDs but also means to transporting them to the US so where are the missiles or ships?
I never said anything about an attack on America being imminent either. Way to jump to conclusions.
But there wasn't much he could tell them, not that he could prove, at least. Just before the war, he recalls, the chiefs at the mic had told people like him involved in the weapons program to hand over some of their documents and burn the rest. "They didn't realize at that time the Americans would insist on every single document," he says. "They thought the (U.S.) attacks would come and that would be it." When in the years after the war U.N. inspectors kept demanding a paper trail, the superiors got nervous. They "started asking us for the documents they had told us to destroy. They were desperate. They even offered to buy any documents we may have hidden."
I thought we were talking something large scale like missiles.
Yeah, cause the Iraq/Syrian border is so secure that the fucking leader of Iraq couldn't get something large scale like missles across it. Give me a fucking break. Where is Saddam? Is he in Iraq? Is he in Syria? Is he dead? Or did he never exist in the first place?
So, what would be the point of smuggling something like that into Syria?
To make us look stupid. Saddam escapes, takes the weapons with him, waits a few years for the U.S. to be condemned by the international community, then returns. It's not very likely to work, but Saddam didn't really have much other choice, did he?
What is the use of having WMDs if you are not going to use them?
It's questioning like that which brought this war about in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
just imagine all the pain you have to go through to use your favorite P2P/game/whatever behind a NAT router
But you go through that pain only because your ISP wants you to. It would trivial for them to give you one or even several dedicated incoming ports and forward them to you. Multiply the current number of IPs we have by 32,000 if you're going to bring up that problem.
Is it a kludge? Sure. If you were going to redesign everything from scratch you would design something closer to IPv6. But until a new IP standard comes out which is truly backward compatible it's simply not going to be implemented. At least not for decades.
If IPv6 was a reality today i would put many machines with a public IP address that today are behind NAT.
Yeah, but a minor curiosity for a few geeks isn't enough to justify switching the entire world's routers.
The need for IPv6 is _not_ shortage of IPv4 addresses, but you find it in the extra features in IPv6 (Build-in security, Automated addressing, etc).
And why exactly do we _need_ these features? Haven't they already been implemented just fine in higher level protocols.
The only one that's really nice is multicasting, and that's already available as an IPv4 add-on.
it's the delivery device (cigarettes) that's the problem.
So why does chewing tobacco cause cancer? Seriously, I'd like to know.
Wow. That post just screamed troll, but after a quick search it seems the story is actually true!
Syria had to close its borders? Could it be because of the millions of fleeing Iraqis, afraid that their homes were going to be bombed?
Well yeah, of course that was why. But don't you think that WMD could have been easily smuggled in during the time that the borders were opened, hidden from our spy cameras amoung the fleeing Iraqis?
Underground tunnels, pfft. We'd still see trucks taking stuff from stockpiles near Baghdad to places on the edges of Iraq. Nothing like that happened.
How do you know this?
What? What about the sophisticated satellites that supposedly can read license-plate numbers?
I've never seen evidence of such satellites.
The sat images that can tell a woman's cup size from space? Just because the administration screwed up, you're going to blame the hardware now?
Not at all. I'm not blaming anything. I'm just saying it's perfectly possible that these transfers took place and were missed. Seeing a woman's cup size doesn't tell you what's inside a covered truck. And that presumes that you're focused on the right place at the right time. And that there's enough light to see. And that the satellites are in the right position.
If spy satellites are so good at tracking things, why don't we know where Saddam is right now?
Speaking as a non-American, I think that the Iraq war made the Bush cabal, the Tony Blair cabal and several others look stupid.
To an open-minded, well reasoning person, perhaps. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've gotten the sense that many people outside the US (especially in the middle eastern countries) don't seem to take the time to distinguish our administration from us. There's certainly enough of the same happening over here, too. Resturants banning French Fries because of the actions of some in the French government.
When a new President comes in, is the whole Iraqi war going to be forgotten? Somehow I think resentment against the US will still be harbored. I think US power in the UN will continue to be diminished for long after Bush has left. Maybe I'm just over-pessimistic.
You said that you did trust and believe bush.
Is English your first language? I said "when it comes down to a question of trusting the former Iraqi regime and the current Bush one, I'll take Bush." Like you said, it doesn't always come down to such a black and white decision. Sometimes it does, though.
Anyway this is going nowhere.
I'll drink to that.
There is plenty of reason to believe this. There are documents, there are dump sites, there are eye witnesses. You choose to ignore that evidence and pretend that it does not exist.
Those documents, dump sites, and eye witnesses only cover a small fraction of the WMD that Iraq possessed.
If you claim that that a teaspoon of chemical agents is a bone fide threat to the United States then my house should be bombed by the United States.
I never said that any bone fide threat to the United States should be bombed by the United States.
Also please note that your link does not prove the existance of WMDs in Iraq just before the war.
You're right. It doesn't prove it. But it's evidence of it.
Nor does it prove that Iraq was about to use these weapons against the United States.
Get this through your thick skull. I never claimed they were.
You limitation is in thinking that those are your only choices. You somehow think that Either Bush is telling the truth or Saddam is.
Actually, you seem to be doing the same thing.
I submit to you that both of those people are lying to cover their asses. Both of them have continually lied to advance their own agenda. Both of them feel no moral or ethical obligation to their citizens and that both of them are on a religious jihad to kill the infidels.
And I'd agree.
I don't believe you.
IHBT. IHL. HAND.
If you don't care about internet software updating and maintaning that has a database, you don't care about this.
Hmm, well I do care about internet software updating and maintaining a database, but I don't care about this.
That would mean you don't have a system like apt, up2date, ports or any other software version atomation on any of your computers.
Umm, that would require 1) Slashdot to have described the patent properly, 2) The company to decide to enforce it, 3) The courts to agree, and 4) Them to stop me from downloading the software from download sites in other countries, just like I did with PGP when that was under patent restrictions.
No, the world wide web is not limited to port 80.
Yes. The patent system is screwed up. But do we really need to have a story every day about every new piece of evidence that the patent system is screwed up?
When this company starts actually enforcing its patent, then maybe it'll justify a story. Probably not though. I'd wait until they actually win a case. Which will be never.
Did you identify with decisions made by the Clinton Administration (or other previous ones) in the same way?
Pretty much. The Clinton Administration was a lot more fun, though.
Are you indicating that to disagree with your government of the day is 'unamerican'? That it what it sounds like.
No. I disagree with my government of the day all the time. I also disagree with those who disagree with my government of the day all the time. That's what I'm doing right now.
My statment was that the Iraq war made us all, as Americans, look stupid. I don't see how that implies that disagreeing with the government is unamerican.
You are not alone. Nobody else seems to know either. Not the UN inspectors and not the US inspectors. Maybe that's because they don't exist.
Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't.
It seems silly to claim that something exists when there is no evidence for it don't you think?
Sure. But there is evidence for there being WMD. Knowing where something is and knowing whether or not something exists is two completely different things.
Taking a country to war on a presime of lies is a pretty evil offence in my book.
I guess. Do the ends ever justify the means? That's a whole different question which I'm torn over anyway.
If we could impeach a president for lying about his cock you'd think we can impeach one for lying about war don't you think?
Sure. Wasn't lying to congress one of the offenses Clinton was charged with?
Your point is?
My point is that important objects of interest can move without being detected by the United States.
When you say To make us look stupid, you are identifying yourself with that crew in the White House. That is your choice.
Nope, I'm identifying myself as an American. And yes, that is my choice.
"but the fact he's arguing that Saddam has had them in the apparently recent past and that this was and is a serious issue does not make him a blind Bush supporter or war-mongerer."
His insistance on this fact despite the lack of any evidence does make him deluded though.
So wait a second. You reject the fact that Saddam ever had weapons of mass destruction? Or you're saying they were all destroyed 10 years ago? Obviously I can't prove whether or not the later is true. The evidence that they had them recently is the fact that they had them 10 years ago, and there's no reason to believe they were all destroyed.
Iraq has had at least a decade of scrutiny by the US and the UN. We overflew them daily during both the Bush Sr, Clinton and Bush Jr administrations.
Nonsense. We overflew them in the no-fly zone (where they shot at us to try to kill us). We sent some drones past that, most likely, but that's hardly scrutiny. The US government can't even track anthrax spores which were held inside the United States and sent through the US post office. You think they can track them in a country which orders its military to kill US officials? No way.
After all that not one shred of evidence exists that UN had any WMDs let alone anything in quantity to threaten the US.
I assume you mean Iraq, not UN? Here's evidence that Iraq had WMDs:
Now will you stop making such stupid claims?
As for whether Iraq had WMD in quantity to threaten the US. Well, they certainly had the quantity to threaten the US, as any quantity of WMD is enough to threaten the US. I don't think they were an actual threat, though, because they didn't have the ability to deploy those WMD on the US.
Why shouldn't Anthony's belief be challanged? Why shouldn't I presume that the only reason he believes this fact is because he unconditionally believes what this administration tells him? He has not even attempted to bother pointing to any evidence for his viewpoint whatsoever.
Iraq had WMD. They lied about those WMD over and over and over again. They claimed the weapons never existed, then we found out they lied, so they claimed they destroyed them, then we found out they lied, so they claimed the ones we found were the only ones, then we found out they lied, then they claimed our tests were incorrect, so we retested and found out they lied. They lied over and over and over again, so my respect for their statements is 0. Without evidence that the weapons were destroyed, I'm going to assume they still existed. My evidence is right here.
Most liberterians I know are rational people.
I have to disagree with you on that one.
I have a very hard time believing that Anthony is a libertarian.
Good. I'm not. Not even close. And if you read the AC's post you'd realize he never said I was. He
If you recall the UN inspection regime collected thousands of docouments and turned them over to the US, UN, Russia and a handful of other countries. Many of these documents dealt with the destruction of WMDs. It did not however account for 100% of the known WMDs which the iraqis claimed were destroyed but somehow lost the documentation.
That's all I'm saying. Thank you.
How did they get the WMDs without a program to manufacture them?
They had a program. They (clearly) don't have a program any more.
WHere did they store the WMDs? How were they planning on deploying the WMDs?
If I knew this I certainly wouldn't be telling you.
George Bush said that and so did Dick Cheny and Colin Powell. Apparently you think they were lying.
Of course they were lying.
The term "accuse" doesn't just mean "state impartially", it carries a notion of ethical or legal disapproval that both the speaker and the audience share.
So is it absurd for someone to "accuse" a convicted felon of possessing a handgun if he himself has a handgun?
In what way does the link you provide or the passage you quote prove that Saddam had/has weapons of mass destruction?
It doesn't.
Here is what Hans Blix the guy in charge of the weapons program had to say.
I see no mention of "written records" of the destruction of the WMD. Are you admitting you made that up, or do you want to try again?
Why is everyone so quick to jump on Syria?
Geography.
If WMDs went into Syria, wouldnt people see? Doesnt the US monitor with spyplanes and satellites?
Yeah, and just as Desert Storm II was ready to begin we saw lots of traffic going from Iraq to Syria. So much in fact, that Syria had to close its borders. As for the underground tunnels, it's hard to know what exactly went on with them.
Remember those circled stockpile locations on Colin's map? Do you really think the US is not going to watch where stuff goes?
Obviously either that intelligence was incorrect or we missed it.
Wouldn't a herd of trucks and trailers going from one country to another perk up somebody's attention?
I'm sure somebody noticed. But there's not a whole lot of detail you can get with spy satellites.
Where is the program?
I don't know. I don't care. I wasn't talking about the program. I was talking about the WMD (that stands for weapons of mass destruction, note the lack of the word program).
Since an attack on America was imminent by Iraq they must have not only had tons of WMDs but also means to transporting them to the US so where are the missiles or ships?
I never said anything about an attack on America being imminent either. Way to jump to conclusions.
There are written records of the destruction.
Wrong. Here's my source:
Now where's yours?
Without a trace?
I thought we were talking something large scale like missiles.
Yeah, cause the Iraq/Syrian border is so secure that the fucking leader of Iraq couldn't get something large scale like missles across it. Give me a fucking break. Where is Saddam? Is he in Iraq? Is he in Syria? Is he dead? Or did he never exist in the first place?
So, what would be the point of smuggling something like that into Syria?
To make us look stupid. Saddam escapes, takes the weapons with him, waits a few years for the U.S. to be condemned by the international community, then returns. It's not very likely to work, but Saddam didn't really have much other choice, did he?
What is the use of having WMDs if you are not going to use them?
It's questioning like that which brought this war about in the first place.