Dude. Why do you even try? TGK responds with some idiotic diatribe suggesting "blood thirsty terrorists" don't want to kill Americans and that Pres. Clinton had a good track record defending America against terrorism (TGK conveniently forgets several terrorists acts that happened during Pres. Clinton's time in office - dishonest?). TGK's post then gets a +5, Insightful.
Insightful! Wow. Slashdot is starting to get more and more like kuro5hin everyday. The libs are taking over another tech/geek website. Ahh... what am I saying. They took this place over a long time ago.
Dude... when will you learn? You cannot respond to alarmist anti-bush spewage and get anywhere on slashdot. Look... the parent got a "+3, Insightful". INSIGHTFUL? Why do you think that happened?....... Because the majority who visit (visit = post/mod) the forums on slashdot are from the left - regardless if they're from America, Europe, Russia, wherever - they're liberal.
When you respond to these kind of posts, more often than not you either 1) get personally attacked, 2) are told to stop reciting Fox News propoganda or 3) get no response what-so-ever. The 2nd one is particularly interesting for me because I don't have Fox News where I live (Japan), yet I'm told more often than not that I'm a drone of the Fox News Channel. Hmmm...
I only read the comments now just to see some of the more witty replies. Unfortunately, they're few and far between.
Actually... I'm not a speling nazi. It was a new word for me. I went and looked it up to get the... well, let's just say... the "official" meaning from a dictionary. Saw that you speled it wrong, so I figured I'd mention it.
I did notice all your other speling mistakes, but I'm not the kind to point out "it's" instead of "its", etc. But now that you've called me a speling nazi... oh yeah... I'll remember next time!
I'm not convinced the userid is an accurate reflection of slashdot "age". I've been around slashdot a long time, but I don't think my user id is accurate (583?!). Although... I could be wrong. It has been years and years... and I don't really remember when I signed up.
So true Finni. I feed and care for the perimeter security for a somewhat visible DoD organization. We've no VPNs. We don't do VPNs. All the many threats like this are exactly why.
Users want them... why? So than can access their home directory and the organizational shares. In order to do this with any sort of real security, you've got to use a VPN. So, you give them a VPN, personal firewall, and then firewall their ingress point. Sounds good, but you've still got to give them access to the protocols on the servers that are the most critical. SMB/NetBIOS to the DCs and the fileserver(s). Why even firewall if you've got to open these deadly protocols up.
Others tell me VPNs are secure. As far as I'm concerned, their just encrypted tunnels through my perimeter. I've got a pretty well locked down perimeter. Why in the world would I want to push my perimeter out to some remote laptop with only personal firewall software protecting it? I'm lucky I've been able to stem the tide this long, but I'm not sure how much longer I can.
I'm trying to push something like a share-point server to solve this "requirement". I could implement it in Linux with Apache and Samba, but Linux is sort of a worrisome word around the office thanks, in part, to SCO.
I live in Japan (not Tokyo though... and its not as "dense" here). Starting in Aug or Sept, YahooBB will be offering 26Mb/s for (from what I've been told) 300 yen more than their 12Mb/s service (which is about 3500 yen/month). I don't have YahooBB (I'm with NTT for static IP service that doesn't cost an arm and a leg), but many friends do. That BB phone is pretty damn cool (VoIP phone). No caps. No restrictions. Yes, they runs servers. Yes, they suck down things that would infringe on some FAT RICH bastard "Intellectual Property" rights...
Did I mention my sister-in-law has 100Mb/s FTTH (Fiber To The Home)? I think she only pays ~9000 yen a month (~$85). Granted, she gets no where near 100Mb/s, but I have sucked a torrent or two down for her... AT ~40Mb/s! I swear, I heard a sucking noise coming from her computer while they were downloading. HE HE HE. When I saw that, I almost divorced her sister (my wife) and married her.
Maybe it's just me in my druken state, but you lost me holmes. I'm guessing a good number of drunk and non-drunk/.ers are thinking the same thing (exempt are those of you who think you are better than the rest of us... you know who you are... fags...)....or... maybe you're not a native English speaker and I'm a drunk asshole (I had to think of that BTW).
The DoD wastes so much IP space, it's sickening. Example: Yokota AB, Japan has a class B (/16). Last time I checked (a couple of years ago when I was their perimeter security guy), only ~4000 IP addresses responded to nmap. We were only using ~4000 out of ~65000 addresses!!! WTF? And you know what?!?! Misawa AB, Japan; Osan AB, S. Korea; Kunsan AB, S. Korea; etc. etc. etc. all have/16s too. The Navy, Army, and Marine Corps are just as wasteful. Not all bases/posts are like this, but many, many are.
They're getting better though. I had to jump through many hoops to get the DoD to give my customer a/23. The hoops were good hoops though - they wanted diagrams and usage charts to make sure we would use the requested IP space properly. They probably should have been doing this ages ago.
Can you show me in the Constitution/Bill of Rights where it says Americans have the right to privacy?
HINT: It doesn't. Now, there is the Privacy Act of 1974 (keep those SSN safe!) and the ECPA of 1986, but the Constitution/Bill of Rights... privacy is rather silent. Some have interpreted the First, Fourth and Fifth amendments as including privacy rights, but AFAIK, this is not very solid and really hasn't been flat-out tested in the Supreme Court.
There is no "right to privacy" in the same sense as the right of free speech or the right to bear arms. But... I'm no lawyer... just an American.
It's getting comon to Block all ICMP messages even though they are needed for things like packet size negotiation and error reporting.
I hate firewall admins that block all ICMP. I hate them. It should be legal to kill them... well... at least hurt them.
I work with the DoD. They use encryption devices quite a bit. These devices always request fragmentation (they need some room too you know). I don't know how many times I've pleaded with a firewall admin to let ICMP type 3 (code 4) through.
I'm starting to go bald and it's all ICMP's fault.
How many contractors have put in bids to rebuild Iraqi homes, hospitals and the like?
Please. Do you really think the American military is aiming for '. ..homes, hosiptals, and the like?' If you do, then I completely understand where you're coming from...
Oil on the other hand is why the US is attacking Iraq... rather that sorting out North Korea who are blatently being naughty (but luckily don't possess miles of oil miles).
Is this a double-standard or what? NO ONE, inluding the U.N., wants to touch N. Korea. Everyone wants the U.S. to deal with them alone. Japan simply wants to ignore it. S. Korea is ho-humming around and not really doing anything. China isn't sure it wants to lose it's only Communist 'ally' in the region (even though KJI is fucking crazy and China really doesn't like dealing with NK anymore)...
The U.S. has to screw around with the U.N. when oil is concerned, but they pretty much have to go it alone when it comes to a (probably) nuclear armed N. Korea. Yep. Double standard.
Your second two examples of 'proof' prove nothing. They're one-sided articles that simply obliges the reader to believe one party over the other. That's not proof.
As for the dossier... both the British and American governments have admitted it was bad intel. Hardly an example of doctoring facts.
Hopefully casualties will be as small as last time or smaller. ..
I think the number of friendly fire incidents will be much less this time. Some of the newer 'battle management systems' (for lack of a better phrase) are simply amazing. They can track units' locations down to battalion level. It's amazing. (I actually admin some of these on occasion.)
Legal or Illegal it doesn't matter its the right thing to do. Admittedly we are ignoring many other 'right things' for whatever reasons but that doesn't make this one less right.
Agreed. All countries in this world look after themselves the best. The other 'right things' in the world aren't getting the attention simply because nothing is in it for [fill in county of choice]. Perhaps someday, the Star Trek like utopia will come to pass.
We're never gunna solve this problem via slashdot. We need beer... and lots of it.
BTW are you really a French-Canadian Texan?
That would be just far too bizarre a coincidence.
Yep. I'm, as Texans say, a transplant (not born there) and my father's side is French-Canadian from New England (great great... grandad was from Canada).
Now this is friggin cool. We apparently disagree on this war, but we're having an intelligent, CALM discussion about it. I wish this could happen a little more often. So many folks (particularly on slashdot) like to keep thing deep in the muck of stupidity and sometimes plain cruelness. Thank you. Not bad for 'Scot'!
(Don't take that the wrong way. I just had to use 'Scot' and couldn't think of a better way. It's 2am here in Japan and I'm BEAT!)
What amazes me, in reference to 242, that this situation was allowed to continue for so long. According to 687 we should have gone back and destroyed Iraq's WMD program by force in 1998.
The UN has clearly (here and in Kosovo) been demonstrated to be toothless. It amazes me that the original Gulf war had UN backing not that this one doesn't.
I couldn't agree more. If the U.N. AND their member states (inluding the U.S.) took care of business in the beginning, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Don't forget the situation in N. Korea. The U.N. won't even touch it. That SUCKS. (I keep up with this situation daily. I live in Japan and am a consultant for United States Forces Japan.)
Your comments on 1441 are correct. But I think mine are too. So, we're just two shmucks talking about this. Imagine what a couple of International Law lawyers could do with it. I think the thing was written to appease too many damn factions. It says everything, yet it says nothing. I feel the U.S., Britian, and other supporting parties are justified... whether 'legally' or not. I've got a few friends over there and am very worried about them. I just hope that if any of them do bite it, they get it from a bullet and not VX, Anthrax, or [fill in Saddam's deadly nasty of choice].
Man it's late. I need to go to bed. I'm not sure what it does, but I've just marked you 'friend' in my slashdot preferences.
I didn't know that about the chapters. Amazing how ill informed we all are about international politics even when said politics are a manifest risk to our own lives.
Yeah. I was spouting off one day about 242 when someone enlightened me.
If 242 isn't chapter VII then it bloody ought to be. If Israels illegal occupation of Palestine had been ended in 1967 as Iraqs occupation of Kuwait was ended the WTC would probably still be standing.
. ..
The cause of these attacks was Israel.
I agree with your sentiment on 242, but not the WTC. I used to think so, but upon further reading, I've since changed my mind. The Isreal-Palestine situation is one big fucking mess that never should have gotten this far out of control. However, no one, including the Muslim states and al Queda, gives a shit about the Palestines. It's simply a convenient banner for different groups (Muslim or not) to raise. If the Palestine conflict were resolved peacefully today (I mean Israelis and Palestines having pinics together), al Queda would still be blowing shit up. That's what they do. There is a great article about Palestine as symbol in the Jan/Feb 2003 Foriegn Affairs magazine (Page 19 - hey... I found the artcile).
A bit like Texans don't like to be lumped in with the rest of America. Or, God forbid, calling a Canadian an American....
Hey... I'm a Texan and my last name is Canadian-French. Damn. Am I even American? HE HE HE
1441 requires the isssue to be brought back before the security council should Iraq fail to comply. This has not happened.
I went back and re-read 1441. It does say that (para. 11 and 12). However, it does not say the member states cannot enforce the resolutions as called on by resolution 678 which was recalled in 1441. Specifically - "Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area. ..".
It seems pretty clear to me that this war is legal. I guess it all depends on how one interprets it?
Thanks for not jumping down my throat with a bunch of idiocy. A couple of ACs (go figure) below in this thread couldn't help themselves. Seriously... thanks.
You know, I hear a lot about U.N. Resolution 242 and its not being enforced. 242 is a chapter VI resolution (chapter VI of the U.N. charter). Resolution 242's "enforcement" is actually up to the parties involved in the dispute (Palestine and Israel). The member states have no obligation to enforce it.
The resolutions pertaining to Iraq are all (I think all) chapter VII resolutions. The member states are obliged to enforce these resolutions.
I didn't know this until a few months ago. I never understood why 242 was never complied with and thought it rather odd that they could get away with it. Now I understand. Chapter VI resolutions are simply the U.N.'s opinion on how a dispute should be settled amongst the parties (my understanding anyway).
BTW, I said 'Brit' out of habit, I guess. I noticed you put puke in parentheses after it. Is that bad? Should I have used Englishman or British or something else instead? Just wondering?
Now not only do I have to sit back and watch my government join in on an illegal war. ..
I'm not attempting to bash or ridicule you. I'm not trying to be confrontational. I'm just curious what a "normal" person thinks (normal being NOT a talking head on TV or in the print media). Why do you (a Brit I'm assuming) think this war is illegal?
I've tried to talk to a few Europeans (a Brit, two French guys, and a German) about this war, but they were quickly in my face and angry. Then again, we were in a pub... and drinking... alot...
Slashdot Mirror
Dude. Why do you even try? TGK responds with some idiotic diatribe suggesting "blood thirsty terrorists" don't want to kill Americans and that Pres. Clinton had a good track record defending America against terrorism (TGK conveniently forgets several terrorists acts that happened during Pres. Clinton's time in office - dishonest?). TGK's post then gets a +5, Insightful.
Insightful! Wow. Slashdot is starting to get more and more like kuro5hin everyday. The libs are taking over another tech/geek website. Ahh... what am I saying. They took this place over a long time ago.
Dude... when will you learn? You cannot respond to alarmist anti-bush spewage and get anywhere on slashdot. Look... the parent got a "+3, Insightful". INSIGHTFUL? Why do you think that happened? ....... Because the majority who visit (visit = post/mod) the forums on slashdot are from the left - regardless if they're from America, Europe, Russia, wherever - they're liberal.
When you respond to these kind of posts, more often than not you either 1) get personally attacked, 2) are told to stop reciting Fox News propoganda or 3) get no response what-so-ever. The 2nd one is particularly interesting for me because I don't have Fox News where I live (Japan), yet I'm told more often than not that I'm a drone of the Fox News Channel. Hmmm...
I only read the comments now just to see some of the more witty replies. Unfortunately, they're few and far between.
". . .so pretty much every ISP will NAT you."
That's just not true. I've lived here for 7 years and gone through my share of ISP. I don't know of a single ISP that NATs.
Actually... I'm not a speling nazi. It was a new word for me. I went and looked it up to get the... well, let's just say... the "official" meaning from a dictionary. Saw that you speled it wrong, so I figured I'd mention it.
I did notice all your other speling mistakes, but I'm not the kind to point out "it's" instead of "its", etc. But now that you've called me a speling nazi... oh yeah... I'll remember next time!
Ummm... don't you mean schadenfreude (with an "r")?
While I respect your relatively low user id #
I'm not convinced the userid is an accurate reflection of slashdot "age". I've been around slashdot a long time, but I don't think my user id is accurate (583?!). Although... I could be wrong. It has been years and years... and I don't really remember when I signed up.
Mobile-user VPN has the same risks.
So true Finni. I feed and care for the perimeter security for a somewhat visible DoD organization. We've no VPNs. We don't do VPNs. All the many threats like this are exactly why.
Users want them... why? So than can access their home directory and the organizational shares. In order to do this with any sort of real security, you've got to use a VPN. So, you give them a VPN, personal firewall, and then firewall their ingress point. Sounds good, but you've still got to give them access to the protocols on the servers that are the most critical. SMB/NetBIOS to the DCs and the fileserver(s). Why even firewall if you've got to open these deadly protocols up.
Others tell me VPNs are secure. As far as I'm concerned, their just encrypted tunnels through my perimeter. I've got a pretty well locked down perimeter. Why in the world would I want to push my perimeter out to some remote laptop with only personal firewall software protecting it? I'm lucky I've been able to stem the tide this long, but I'm not sure how much longer I can.
I'm trying to push something like a share-point server to solve this "requirement". I could implement it in Linux with Apache and Samba, but Linux is sort of a worrisome word around the office thanks, in part, to SCO.
I live in Japan (not Tokyo though... and its not as "dense" here). Starting in Aug or Sept, YahooBB will be offering 26Mb/s for (from what I've been told) 300 yen more than their 12Mb/s service (which is about 3500 yen/month). I don't have YahooBB (I'm with NTT for static IP service that doesn't cost an arm and a leg), but many friends do. That BB phone is pretty damn cool (VoIP phone). No caps. No restrictions. Yes, they runs servers. Yes, they suck down things that would infringe on some FAT RICH bastard "Intellectual Property" rights...
Did I mention my sister-in-law has 100Mb/s FTTH (Fiber To The Home)? I think she only pays ~9000 yen a month (~$85). Granted, she gets no where near 100Mb/s, but I have sucked a torrent or two down for her... AT ~40Mb/s! I swear, I heard a sucking noise coming from her computer while they were downloading. HE HE HE. When I saw that, I almost divorced her sister (my wife) and married her.
". . . the military isn't allowed to single-source anything. . ."
That's not true. The military CAN do single-source purchases, they just have to justify it. My clients do it all the time.
WTF? How is the parent post "Insightful"? It must be the Bush bash. Throw in a slam on Bush and you're suddenly insightful.
WTF are you talking about?
/.ers are thinking the same thing (exempt are those of you who think you are better than the rest of us... you know who you are... fags...). ...or... maybe you're not a native English speaker and I'm a drunk asshole (I had to think of that BTW).
Maybe it's just me in my druken state, but you lost me holmes. I'm guessing a good number of drunk and non-drunk
The DoD wastes so much IP space, it's sickening. Example: Yokota AB, Japan has a class B (/16). Last time I checked (a couple of years ago when I was their perimeter security guy), only ~4000 IP addresses responded to nmap. We were only using ~4000 out of ~65000 addresses!!! WTF? And you know what?!?! Misawa AB, Japan; Osan AB, S. Korea; Kunsan AB, S. Korea; etc. etc. etc. all have /16s too. The Navy, Army, and Marine Corps are just as wasteful. Not all bases/posts are like this, but many, many are.
They're getting better though. I had to jump through many hoops to get the DoD to give my customer a /23. The hoops were good hoops though - they wanted diagrams and usage charts to make sure we would use the requested IP space properly. They probably should have been doing this ages ago.
You just HAD to mention President Bush. He's the reason for all of our woes. It's not like this has been going on since 1998 or anything.
<rant style="mild">
Can you show me in the Constitution/Bill of Rights where it says Americans have the right to privacy?
HINT: It doesn't. Now, there is the Privacy Act of 1974 (keep those SSN safe!) and the ECPA of 1986, but the Constitution/Bill of Rights... privacy is rather silent. Some have interpreted the First, Fourth and Fifth amendments as including privacy rights, but AFAIK, this is not very solid and really hasn't been flat-out tested in the Supreme Court.
There is no "right to privacy" in the same sense as the right of free speech or the right to bear arms. But... I'm no lawyer... just an American.
</rant>
I hate firewall admins that block all ICMP. I hate them. It should be legal to kill them... well... at least hurt them.
I work with the DoD. They use encryption devices quite a bit. These devices always request fragmentation (they need some room too you know). I don't know how many times I've pleaded with a firewall admin to let ICMP type 3 (code 4) through.
I'm starting to go bald and it's all ICMP's fault.
Wow. That was so FUCKING intuitive. How could I have not known that?
Please. Do you really think the American military is aiming for '. . .homes, hosiptals, and the like?' If you do, then I completely understand where you're coming from...
Oil on the other hand is why the US is attacking Iraq... rather that sorting out North Korea who are blatently being naughty (but luckily don't possess miles of oil miles).Is this a double-standard or what? NO ONE, inluding the U.N., wants to touch N. Korea. Everyone wants the U.S. to deal with them alone. Japan simply wants to ignore it. S. Korea is ho-humming around and not really doing anything. China isn't sure it wants to lose it's only Communist 'ally' in the region (even though KJI is fucking crazy and China really doesn't like dealing with NK anymore)...
The U.S. has to screw around with the U.N. when oil is concerned, but they pretty much have to go it alone when it comes to a (probably) nuclear armed N. Korea. Yep. Double standard.
Your second two examples of 'proof' prove nothing. They're one-sided articles that simply obliges the reader to believe one party over the other. That's not proof.
As for the dossier... both the British and American governments have admitted it was bad intel. Hardly an example of doctoring facts.
Please.
I think the number of friendly fire incidents will be much less this time. Some of the newer 'battle management systems' (for lack of a better phrase) are simply amazing. They can track units' locations down to battalion level. It's amazing. (I actually admin some of these on occasion.)
Legal or Illegal it doesn't matter its the right thing to do. Admittedly we are ignoring many other 'right things' for whatever reasons but that doesn't make this one less right.Agreed. All countries in this world look after themselves the best. The other 'right things' in the world aren't getting the attention simply because nothing is in it for [fill in county of choice]. Perhaps someday, the Star Trek like utopia will come to pass.
We're never gunna solve this problem via slashdot. We need beer... and lots of it.
BTW are you really a French-Canadian Texan?That would be just far too bizarre a coincidence.
Yep. I'm, as Texans say, a transplant (not born there) and my father's side is French-Canadian from New England (great great ... grandad was from Canada).
Now this is friggin cool. We apparently disagree on this war, but we're having an intelligent, CALM discussion about it. I wish this could happen a little more often. So many folks (particularly on slashdot) like to keep thing deep in the muck of stupidity and sometimes plain cruelness. Thank you. Not bad for 'Scot'!
(Don't take that the wrong way. I just had to use 'Scot' and couldn't think of a better way. It's 2am here in Japan and I'm BEAT!)
What amazes me, in reference to 242, that this situation was allowed to continue for so long. According to 687 we should have gone back and destroyed Iraq's WMD program by force in 1998.
The UN has clearly (here and in Kosovo) been demonstrated to be toothless. It amazes me that the original Gulf war had UN backing not that this one doesn't.
I couldn't agree more. If the U.N. AND their member states (inluding the U.S.) took care of business in the beginning, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Don't forget the situation in N. Korea. The U.N. won't even touch it. That SUCKS. (I keep up with this situation daily. I live in Japan and am a consultant for United States Forces Japan.)
Your comments on 1441 are correct. But I think mine are too. So, we're just two shmucks talking about this. Imagine what a couple of International Law lawyers could do with it. I think the thing was written to appease too many damn factions. It says everything, yet it says nothing. I feel the U.S., Britian, and other supporting parties are justified... whether 'legally' or not. I've got a few friends over there and am very worried about them. I just hope that if any of them do bite it, they get it from a bullet and not VX, Anthrax, or [fill in Saddam's deadly nasty of choice].
Man it's late. I need to go to bed. I'm not sure what it does, but I've just marked you 'friend' in my slashdot preferences.
Yeah. I was spouting off one day about 242 when someone enlightened me.
If 242 isn't chapter VII then it bloody ought to be. If Israels illegal occupation of Palestine had been ended in 1967 as Iraqs occupation of Kuwait was ended the WTC would probably still be standing.. .
The cause of these attacks was Israel.
I agree with your sentiment on 242, but not the WTC. I used to think so, but upon further reading, I've since changed my mind. The Isreal-Palestine situation is one big fucking mess that never should have gotten this far out of control. However, no one, including the Muslim states and al Queda, gives a shit about the Palestines. It's simply a convenient banner for different groups (Muslim or not) to raise. If the Palestine conflict were resolved peacefully today (I mean Israelis and Palestines having pinics together), al Queda would still be blowing shit up. That's what they do. There is a great article about Palestine as symbol in the Jan/Feb 2003 Foriegn Affairs magazine (Page 19 - hey... I found the artcile).
A bit like Texans don't like to be lumped in with the rest of America. Or, God forbid, calling a Canadian an American....Hey... I'm a Texan and my last name is Canadian-French. Damn. Am I even American? HE HE HE
I went back and re-read 1441. It does say that (para. 11 and 12). However, it does not say the member states cannot enforce the resolutions as called on by resolution 678 which was recalled in 1441. Specifically - "Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area. . .".
It seems pretty clear to me that this war is legal. I guess it all depends on how one interprets it?
Thanks for not jumping down my throat with a bunch of idiocy. A couple of ACs (go figure) below in this thread couldn't help themselves. Seriously... thanks.
You know, I hear a lot about U.N. Resolution 242 and its not being enforced. 242 is a chapter VI resolution (chapter VI of the U.N. charter). Resolution 242's "enforcement" is actually up to the parties involved in the dispute (Palestine and Israel). The member states have no obligation to enforce it.
The resolutions pertaining to Iraq are all (I think all) chapter VII resolutions. The member states are obliged to enforce these resolutions.
I didn't know this until a few months ago. I never understood why 242 was never complied with and thought it rather odd that they could get away with it. Now I understand. Chapter VI resolutions are simply the U.N.'s opinion on how a dispute should be settled amongst the parties (my understanding anyway).
BTW, I said 'Brit' out of habit, I guess. I noticed you put puke in parentheses after it. Is that bad? Should I have used Englishman or British or something else instead? Just wondering?
I'm not attempting to bash or ridicule you. I'm not trying to be confrontational. I'm just curious what a "normal" person thinks (normal being NOT a talking head on TV or in the print media). Why do you (a Brit I'm assuming) think this war is illegal?
I've tried to talk to a few Europeans (a Brit, two French guys, and a German) about this war, but they were quickly in my face and angry. Then again, we were in a pub... and drinking... alot...
gauthier@mindless.com if you want.