I sincerely wish we could change history to get rid of clean nuclear power, if it meant we didn't kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians with atomic weapons.
We cannot entertain the threat that Canada's new missile technology poses.
Canada, you must immediately relent to weapons inspections. Your aggression will not be tolerated.
It sucks, for sure. At least under Saddam they have had near autonomy for the last ten plus years.
"and christians?"
Is there even 100 christians there, excluding the occupational force?
"A shiite government will opress them"
How do you know that? Have you seen a Shiite government in action before?
It is possible they will oppress the Kurds and Christians to some effect, but I would give them the benefit of the doubt for the time being.
In any case, they should be allowed to make whatever government they damn well please, they constitute just shy of 70% of the Iraqi population.
In any case, the oppression administered by a Shiite government will be less than that suffered under Saddam. If you feel that insecure about it, make an empty threat...
I agree with your accusation that thoecracies are a bad idea, but I do not allow my prejudices (which is exactly what they are, dont butter yourself up) to interfere with a just international law. The Shiites have the right to self determination, as do the Kurds.
Religion is not the root of all conflicts, although I wish it were that easy. Any casual look at history can drive home the fact that many non-theist nations have caused a lot of troubles in the past: United States, Indonesia, France, Britain, Russia, blah blah.
The real problem lies in intolerances - theist and otherwise. Create a Kurd state and a Palestinian state, support the Iranian youth, stop giving the Sauds any money, and I bet you 95% of problems in the Middle East would be done away with. Of course... economic security in the region depends on political instability, so a resolution is unlikely.
"No, I am saying that leaving the whole governemnt up to the Shiite is insanely stupid and would create a regime as opressive as the baath party."
Regardless of what you intend to say, it also necessarily means that you disapprove of letting the Shiites, which are by far the majority of the Iraqi population, run the country.
Whatever government they choose to craft may very well be repressive, but it likely will not be as oppressive as the Baath regime, and it will have one very obvious and empowering difference: It will support rather than oppress the majority of the Iraqi people.
"I consider religion to be the source of most problems in the world so I scoff at the idea of a theocratic governement being a good thing in Iraq."
They do not share your views. To enforce your views on them (and that's exactly what is happening), is only going to create more anti-American sentiment. Flies in the face of common sense if we take the War on Terror seriously (which I doubt a lot of people do any more).
"I was merely pointing out that your source was crap."
I dont know, and am not checking, if I posted it in response to you, but check my past comments, and I clarified the source. The one I originally posted was condensed to the relevant points. The full conversation is linked in one of my comments.
You say he concurs that Glaspie said "We have no opinion."
It is only logical to also assume that she was told to say that, to spread the... gospel of the US.
It is also only logical to assume that the US knew Iraq was amassing forces for an invasion of Kuwait, and that it was a very real possibility, given the economic situation.
Therefore, the most logical conclusion is that Glaspie said that statement with the intention of letting Saddam know that any aggression against Kuwaut would be tolerated.
Saddam of course would believe the US, given that the US supplied him with most of his nonconventional weaponry.
How you come to the conclusion that there is no sinister motive is less a logical conclusion than it is a desire to believe the US can do no evil.
Interesting, I can't rule out that it was only the Baath party that released that information. But, see this link as well: Link. There are a great many more sources if you google.
Even if what you say is correct, and Glaspie said the US 'had no opinion', that is actually not different at all. It was the main point of my post. They didn't outright say "Go ahead and attack," obviously. But saying "We won't interfere" is in no way any better.
Keep in mind also that the US undoubtibly had knowledge that Iraq was amassing troops in the area, and to say such a thing as 'we have no opinion' then they knew that they would protect Kuwaits sovereignty, is essentially a set up.
Woodward's position is the same as that website's.
I am sure the Kurds, sunni, and christian Iraqi's have something to say about this? Leaving Iraq to the mullahs would be worse than never having invaded at all.
What? So, you are basically saying "democracy is only good if it serves the minority that we approve of? That's not democracy. That's not even self-determination. That is the same practice America is notorious for: installing subservient puppet regimes. One would think that if you really wanted to change the way the Arab world feels about you, you would change the way you treat the Arab world.
Yeah, good source
It is very reliable. It is part of a much longer conversation, edited down to the parts where the two of them, Hussein and Glaspie, talked about the Kuwaiti 'problem.'
This conversation most certainly did happen. Use google, and you can pull up 108,000 sources confirming it, the reporters' inquiries, the question dodging, etcetera.
Who else is around in that country to make that decision?
The Shiite Muslim majority who have been protesting for the US to leave since 3 days after capitulation?
Hey, we don't want to spend our tax dollars to rebuild a country that got fucked up on account of the stupidity of its former leader.
Oooh, boy. Do you really think it was Saddam's fault? Yes, he was a fairly cruel (not even particularly cruel) leader, but remember that he was also the only Iraqi leader, and in fact the only leader in the entire Middle East to cast aside all the blind Muslim law and doctrine, and established a very prosperous welfare state. They had health care that rivalled your own.
Then came Iran, and he mistakenly thought he could attack amidst the new Islamic threat rising, and expand his Pax Arabia vision (a good one, in my opinion. Much better than the "so weak you cant do shit" version the US prefers). He was wrong.
All his neighbors had lent him large sums, and he had to repay, but all the oil derricks were destroyed. Then, Kuwait and the Sauds sold his debts to the IMF (or maybe World Bank, I dont recall which one), resulting in huge interest hikes. Basically, he was sold out by his neighbors.
And here's the best part. His country was weakened, but he knew he could take Kuwait, and utilize their oil to rebuild. Note that they had previously destroyed his credit. If you don't think revenge is a sufficient cause, I suggest you take a look at all the French's mustard unsold at the supermarket next time you go shopping, and think a bit harder.
So, he was planning to attack Iraq, and the US knew this. April Glaspie, the US ambassador to Iraq, greenlighted the fucking invasion. She basically said "We won't do a thing, have your way." Link.
So, who is stupid? Saddam for taking the word of the people who had so far been his good allies (billions of dollars worth of chemical, biological and conventional weapons), or the US for basically backstabbing him, for reasons unclear. I personally think it was an example. Of what the US could do to any Arab nation there, but, that's just me. You no doubt of course think that Saddam sealed his own fate when Satan inhabited his body and shot fire from his arse, igniting the Shiite neighborhoods of Basra.
May as well buy their oil and let them use the money to rebuild their own shit the way they want it.
Hahahaha, the way they want it!? LMAO!
In case, you haven't noticed, American firms have been getting all the contracts, and they are more expensive than hiring local, or even Uzbecki firms to do the same work. They can spend it the way they want, of course. As long as they spend it in America.
So, instead of spending xxx million to repair all of Iraq, they have to shell out xxx million to repair the sewage system. Brilliant. Could corporate welfare be any better than this?
("Free to turn in their previously legal firearms ") For the protection of our troops/liberators (or SS/Occupiers whatever you would like to believe).
Hmmm. Apparently then, they dont have the choice to, in your own words, "make a choice" on their government.
Tell me, if they appreciate your imposed democracy, why would you worry about those guns?
I agree with the other stuff. You do need to enforce law while the transition takes place. However, I doubt that America will allow a transition to another Shariah government to happen easily.
I'm just hoping that Iraq doesn't turn into another Afghanistan. Forgotten, abandoned, exploited. Hopefully, and doubtfully, the media has a longer attention span.
All you people who can't keep a Windows 2k or XP box running for longer than 2 days have something wrong with you.
Either you are lying, which I think is entirely plausible. Linus users generally seem to me to be about 60% as neurotic and obsessive as Mac users. You guy's should form a religion - you already have the frighteningly blind faith.
Or you are unable to learn how to install a driver correctly in windows, which has got to be something to the tenth magnitude easier than in Linux, which I think is implausible.
My Win2k box goes for weeks at a time without a reset. And yeah, I run applications on it; games, 3D modelling tools, CAD package, many other CPU and system intensive programs.
And furthermore, I by no means consider myself a technologically elite person. I can replace all my own hardware, install all my own software and keep that software updated, but I don't have the need or desire to learn how to use the Linus command line, or write custom assembly for my Radeon.
What I am basically saying is that if you are unable to run a stable Windows system, it is entirely yours, or the people who use your computers' fault. You cant blame MS, cause no one I personally know has had these problems since WinME.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess you drew your sig in MS Paint?
There is quite a large difference between giving something away and selling it for cheap.
The intention of that bill was to provide drugs at cost, not for free.
I sincerely wish we could change history to get rid of clean nuclear power, if it meant we didn't kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians with atomic weapons.
I hope what I am saying comes across...
I'm interested in what you mean by 'bottom line'?
Also, if I am not mistaken, the US recently sdtruck down an otherwise unanimous GA decision to give drugs to poor nations for cost.
It's like giving them money to buy things, then making those things as expensive as possible.
Just about all of the industrialized ones, if you take away the aid that you give Israel from the equation.
We cannot entertain the threat that Canada's new missile technology poses. Canada, you must immediately relent to weapons inspections. Your aggression will not be tolerated.
"If full use of SOHO cannot be regained, it will set space weather forcasting back 20 years."
Well, that's fine. There are more important things.
Like Michael posting an article that set slashdot proof reading back to grade 3.
"What about the sunni"
Shiites like Sunni.
"kurds"
EVERYONE opresses the Kurds. Yes, everyone.
It sucks, for sure. At least under Saddam they have had near autonomy for the last ten plus years.
"and christians?"
Is there even 100 christians there, excluding the occupational force?
"A shiite government will opress them"
How do you know that? Have you seen a Shiite government in action before?
It is possible they will oppress the Kurds and Christians to some effect, but I would give them the benefit of the doubt for the time being.
In any case, they should be allowed to make whatever government they damn well please, they constitute just shy of 70% of the Iraqi population.
In any case, the oppression administered by a Shiite government will be less than that suffered under Saddam. If you feel that insecure about it, make an empty threat...
I agree with your accusation that thoecracies are a bad idea, but I do not allow my prejudices (which is exactly what they are, dont butter yourself up) to interfere with a just international law. The Shiites have the right to self determination, as do the Kurds.
Religion is not the root of all conflicts, although I wish it were that easy. Any casual look at history can drive home the fact that many non-theist nations have caused a lot of troubles in the past: United States, Indonesia, France, Britain, Russia, blah blah.
The real problem lies in intolerances - theist and otherwise. Create a Kurd state and a Palestinian state, support the Iranian youth, stop giving the Sauds any money, and I bet you 95% of problems in the Middle East would be done away with. Of course... economic security in the region depends on political instability, so a resolution is unlikely.
"No, I am saying that leaving the whole governemnt up to the Shiite is insanely stupid and would create a regime as opressive as the baath party."
Regardless of what you intend to say, it also necessarily means that you disapprove of letting the Shiites, which are by far the majority of the Iraqi population, run the country.
Whatever government they choose to craft may very well be repressive, but it likely will not be as oppressive as the Baath regime, and it will have one very obvious and empowering difference: It will support rather than oppress the majority of the Iraqi people.
"I consider religion to be the source of most problems in the world so I scoff at the idea of a theocratic governement being a good thing in Iraq."
They do not share your views. To enforce your views on them (and that's exactly what is happening), is only going to create more anti-American sentiment. Flies in the face of common sense if we take the War on Terror seriously (which I doubt a lot of people do any more).
"I was merely pointing out that your source was crap."
I dont know, and am not checking, if I posted it in response to you, but check my past comments, and I clarified the source. The one I originally posted was condensed to the relevant points. The full conversation is linked in one of my comments.
Uhhh, no.
You say he concurs that Glaspie said "We have no opinion."
It is only logical to also assume that she was told to say that, to spread the... gospel of the US.
It is also only logical to assume that the US knew Iraq was amassing forces for an invasion of Kuwait, and that it was a very real possibility, given the economic situation.
Therefore, the most logical conclusion is that Glaspie said that statement with the intention of letting Saddam know that any aggression against Kuwaut would be tolerated.
Saddam of course would believe the US, given that the US supplied him with most of his nonconventional weaponry.
How you come to the conclusion that there is no sinister motive is less a logical conclusion than it is a desire to believe the US can do no evil.
Interesting, I can't rule out that it was only the Baath party that released that information. But, see this link as well: Link. There are a great many more sources if you google.
Even if what you say is correct, and Glaspie said the US 'had no opinion', that is actually not different at all. It was the main point of my post. They didn't outright say "Go ahead and attack," obviously. But saying "We won't interfere" is in no way any better.
Keep in mind also that the US undoubtibly had knowledge that Iraq was amassing troops in the area, and to say such a thing as 'we have no opinion' then they knew that they would protect Kuwaits sovereignty, is essentially a set up.
Woodward's position is the same as that website's.
I am sure the Kurds, sunni, and christian Iraqi's have something to say about this? Leaving Iraq to the mullahs would be worse than never having invaded at all.
What? So, you are basically saying "democracy is only good if it serves the minority that we approve of? That's not democracy. That's not even self-determination. That is the same practice America is notorious for: installing subservient puppet regimes. One would think that if you really wanted to change the way the Arab world feels about you, you would change the way you treat the Arab world.
Yeah, good source
It is very reliable. It is part of a much longer conversation, edited down to the parts where the two of them, Hussein and Glaspie, talked about the Kuwaiti 'problem.'
Here is the full link: Click me!
This conversation most certainly did happen. Use google, and you can pull up 108,000 sources confirming it, the reporters' inquiries, the question dodging, etcetera.
Who else is around in that country to make that decision?
The Shiite Muslim majority who have been protesting for the US to leave since 3 days after capitulation?
Hey, we don't want to spend our tax dollars to rebuild a country that got fucked up on account of the stupidity of its former leader.
Oooh, boy. Do you really think it was Saddam's fault? Yes, he was a fairly cruel (not even particularly cruel) leader, but remember that he was also the only Iraqi leader, and in fact the only leader in the entire Middle East to cast aside all the blind Muslim law and doctrine, and established a very prosperous welfare state. They had health care that rivalled your own.
Then came Iran, and he mistakenly thought he could attack amidst the new Islamic threat rising, and expand his Pax Arabia vision (a good one, in my opinion. Much better than the "so weak you cant do shit" version the US prefers). He was wrong.
All his neighbors had lent him large sums, and he had to repay, but all the oil derricks were destroyed. Then, Kuwait and the Sauds sold his debts to the IMF (or maybe World Bank, I dont recall which one), resulting in huge interest hikes. Basically, he was sold out by his neighbors.
And here's the best part. His country was weakened, but he knew he could take Kuwait, and utilize their oil to rebuild. Note that they had previously destroyed his credit. If you don't think revenge is a sufficient cause, I suggest you take a look at all the French's mustard unsold at the supermarket next time you go shopping, and think a bit harder.
So, he was planning to attack Iraq, and the US knew this. April Glaspie, the US ambassador to Iraq, greenlighted the fucking invasion. She basically said "We won't do a thing, have your way." Link.
So, who is stupid? Saddam for taking the word of the people who had so far been his good allies (billions of dollars worth of chemical, biological and conventional weapons), or the US for basically backstabbing him, for reasons unclear. I personally think it was an example. Of what the US could do to any Arab nation there, but, that's just me. You no doubt of course think that Saddam sealed his own fate when Satan inhabited his body and shot fire from his arse, igniting the Shiite neighborhoods of Basra.
May as well buy their oil and let them use the money to rebuild their own shit the way they want it.
Hahahaha, the way they want it!? LMAO!
In case, you haven't noticed, American firms have been getting all the contracts, and they are more expensive than hiring local, or even Uzbecki firms to do the same work. They can spend it the way they want, of course. As long as they spend it in America.
So, instead of spending xxx million to repair all of Iraq, they have to shell out xxx million to repair the sewage system. Brilliant. Could corporate welfare be any better than this?
("Free to turn in their previously legal firearms ") For the protection of our troops/liberators (or SS/Occupiers whatever you would like to believe).
Hmmm. Apparently then, they dont have the choice to, in your own words, "make a choice" on their government.
Tell me, if they appreciate your imposed democracy, why would you worry about those guns?
I agree with the other stuff. You do need to enforce law while the transition takes place. However, I doubt that America will allow a transition to another Shariah government to happen easily.
I'm just hoping that Iraq doesn't turn into another Afghanistan. Forgotten, abandoned, exploited. Hopefully, and doubtfully, the media has a longer attention span.
All you people who can't keep a Windows 2k or XP box running for longer than 2 days have something wrong with you.
Either you are lying, which I think is entirely plausible. Linus users generally seem to me to be about 60% as neurotic and obsessive as Mac users. You guy's should form a religion - you already have the frighteningly blind faith.
Or you are unable to learn how to install a driver correctly in windows, which has got to be something to the tenth magnitude easier than in Linux, which I think is implausible.
My Win2k box goes for weeks at a time without a reset. And yeah, I run applications on it; games, 3D modelling tools, CAD package, many other CPU and system intensive programs.
And furthermore, I by no means consider myself a technologically elite person. I can replace all my own hardware, install all my own software and keep that software updated, but I don't have the need or desire to learn how to use the Linus command line, or write custom assembly for my Radeon.
What I am basically saying is that if you are unable to run a stable Windows system, it is entirely yours, or the people who use your computers' fault. You cant blame MS, cause no one I personally know has had these problems since WinME.
Take the fans out of your computer, it wo
I think many Mac gamers are so resentful of Valve they'll probably refuse to touch the sequel even if it's ported and it's a great game.
A bunch of Mac Gamers won't buy the next game? Who's that, like 14 people in Saskatoon, Canada?
These things come from the Middle East! And South Asia!
It all makes sense now!!!
This war isn't about liberty, or oil! Its about SPIDERS!
Is Steven King a good singer? He always seems like such an uptight guy.
Is he mellow and meek?
Or does he rage?
I nominate the Anime Email as the best SB email.
If you disagree you are a big fat idiot.
Which of course brings up the phenomenon of sensationalization. If news isn't exciting, it doesn't get airtime.
If there was no violence, it would not even make that little scroller bar on the bottom of CCN Headline News.
It's kind of self defeating. Media either focuses on violence and sensationalism, or doesn't focus at all.
...and mind-numbing digital toil, like writing software code...
Well, this one time I downloaded a porn and it had some pretty sweet rock in the background.
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but shut the hell up.
It has already been leaked.
Download it in QT format here.
You mean, you don't like the music video?
Have a peek.