"Supporters of the war keep changing the topic. Sometimes it's about what a bad person Saddam Hussein is, sometimes it's about terrorism, sometimes it's about WMDs, and now it's about what he might (probably will?) do to the Kurds if the no-fly zone was scrapped?"
Have you considered that it's all of the above?
The US is also invading a UN member nation without the explicit authorization of the Security Council. Do you realize that?
And your point is? Abdicating its right to defend itself from threat from abroad to the UN, however, would be a crime. The UN is a joke. See here for a good editorial on the subject.
Yes. They're called smart bombs. Ever heard of GPS? Of course there will be some destruction of buildings. Presumably that's where the Iraqi leaders are holed up. You might want to think twice, or just think, before calling someone an idiot.
Yes. You've describe yet another reason to go into Iraq. They've abused the food for oil program by taking money meant for starving people and keeping it for themselves (Iraqi govt.). This is another violation of UN resolutions.
The concept that might makes right is not morally right either. You must first develop a rational objective philosophy to guide your actions. Such a philosophy, although too time-consuming to develop here, respects the individual rights of others, and requires a govt that promotes these right. Read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand for a thorough explanation.
No, because such a position implies that dictatorships are morally equal to democracies. That's like saying criminals have the same rights as citizens. Your use of moral relativism is very common these days, and undermines rational thought. As for your domestic cases file sharing and tampering with copyright are illegal, so they should be investigated as criminals. You don't have the freedom to violate another's freedoms. I don't know why you mention Skylarov. He didn't even go to trial. To draw an analogy, a person can say 2+2=4, while another can say 2+2=5. Both can't be right, but by your arguement, they both are.
A govt. that rules through force and suppresses the freedom of its people is not a legitimate govt. Claiming that govt. has the same rights as a govt. that protects the rights of its citizens is irrational. A person who abuses his rights is a criminal, and therefore, forfeits his rights. Govts. must be treated the same way. Of course govts. aren't obligated to topple these regimes, but if they feel it's necessary to protect their own interests, they have the right to do so.
"But they are willing to take away your right to backup in order to keep you from using Kazaa. Thats the problem."
Just because you have the right to make backup copies, doesn't mean the RIAA has the obligation to make it easy for you. You talk about your rights, but have no problem forcing your doctrin on other free people. They should have the right to put the music out in any format they feel like.
"No matter what they spend, they can not stop it. If they make it impossible to record from disk, then people will make very high quality analog verisons, then digitize. It will still be good enough. But now you have pissed off your customers, who will delight in sticking it to you."
Locks aren't perfect either. Should we just leave our doors open?
Another problem: Much of the new music coming out on major labels is not much better than private label stuff out of some home studios, and freely available. They can't control that either.
You can produce all the music you want, but without promotion, no one will listen to it except the small group of people you play for in the local bars and a few random hits on your website. The job of the labels, whether independent or major is to promote music. It's nearly impossible to bypass them and sell a lot of records
"How many contractors have put in bids to rebuild Iraqi homes, hospitals and the like?
I would assume none because of the lack of money in it."
I wasn't aware Hussein had plans to sabotages homes and hospitals as well as the oil wells. I doubt the US is planning on bombing a lot of homes and hospitals. Your "lack of money in it" comment doesn't make sense either. Presumably, if the oil wells are repaired, there will be plenty of money to repair damaged infrastructure.
"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)."
If the US was in Iraq for oil, it would have been a lot less costly, both financially, and politically for Bush, to simply lift sanctions and buy the oil from Saddam. As far as N. Korea, the US has taken the correct 1st step. They refused bilateral talks, which N. Korea planned to use to extort oil and money from the US to promise to stop developing nuclear weapons. The 94 agreement showed how well this worked. Without outside aid, N. Korea will self destruct. This could be dangerous, but if the US sends troops in there, that action will be protested as well (and also dangerous). N. Korea is a good illustration of what the world will face with Iraq in a dew years if nothing is done now. Some people seem happy to wait until the threat has materialized however, which makes no sense to me.
The free market solution would be to sell the land to the highest bidder and let them decide who to hire to repair the oil wells. I doubt this solution would go over well, however
You are sadly misinformed. The US did not give Turkey permission to invade Iraq, and they will be dealt with. The majority of Iraqui people do not support Hussein. Afghanistan, although still a problem spot, is much better off now than they were under the Taliban. The US will not pick candidates in Iraqui elections. I don't think you made one statement that stands up when looked at intelligently.
"like what? maybe you're forgetting that iraq accounts for about a third of worldwide oil production. if you have an easy way to increase total crude reserves by 34% i'm sure someone would like to talk to you."
The US could simply lift sanctions against Iraq. That's a lot cheaper than sending in troops and replacing the govt.
"how could "support democracy in Iraq" become to mean "bomb the hell out of Iraq"? why did it end up that democracy won't happen unless we go thru war? Nobody minded an un-democratic Iraq for a very long time, now people have decided to bomb us to democracy? Well, thank you! how thoughtful."
You cannot fight an irrational use of force that oppresses freedom with rational arguements. Force is the only means to deal with this problem. The US has the right to topple regimes that rule illegally through force if it is in their self-interest, i.e. for security in this case.
Re:Not necessarily the war yet
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
"It is still possible to protest the war but support the troops."
The troops I've heard interviewed on CNN don't consider anti-war demonstrators as supporting them. I would think their opinion matter's more than yours.
"Funny how said terrorists aren't from Iraq, aren't associated with Iraq, and were mostly from the strongest US ally in the region, Saudi Arabia. Gee, could be because of the puppet government we keep propped up there...nah." Tell that to the million people Saddam has killed. Oh wait you can't because they're dead.
Re:Actually...Saddam's threats are varied...
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
"I didn't see Iraq attacking the US through the Clinton years, somehow, despite the lack of war."
Clinton didn't stay in power long enough for them to complete their development of nuclear weapons.
That 1994 treaty Clinton brokered with N. Korea was a real winner. Plus he let Saddam off the hook after he kicked out the inspectors. He failed to take out bin Laden when a clear opportunity presented itself. One of the best presidents my ass.
It will be used for piracy because it is a great mechanism for getting music from one's computer that has been downloaded through Kazaa to his stereo system, which these days is typically not connected to his computer
Slashdot Mirror
"Supporters of the war keep changing the topic. Sometimes it's about what a bad person Saddam Hussein is, sometimes it's about terrorism, sometimes it's about WMDs, and now it's about what he might (probably will?) do to the Kurds if the no-fly zone was scrapped?"
Have you considered that it's all of the above?
The US is also invading a UN member nation without the explicit authorization of the Security Council. Do you realize that?
And your point is? Abdicating its right to defend itself from threat from abroad to the UN, however, would be a crime. The UN is a joke. See here for a good editorial on the subject.
Yes. We definitely shouldn't go in and prevent the slaughter of thousands because we might kill some innocent people.
Yes. They're called smart bombs. Ever heard of GPS? Of course there will be some destruction of buildings. Presumably that's where the Iraqi leaders are holed up. You might want to think twice, or just think, before calling someone an idiot.
Yes. You've describe yet another reason to go into Iraq. They've abused the food for oil program by taking money meant for starving people and keeping it for themselves (Iraqi govt.). This is another violation of UN resolutions.
The concept that might makes right is not morally right either. You must first develop a rational objective philosophy to guide your actions. Such a philosophy, although too time-consuming to develop here, respects the individual rights of others, and requires a govt that promotes these right. Read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand for a thorough explanation.
Actually, you shouldn't need power to have rights. Unfortunately, you need power to oppose those who would take your rights away by force.
No, because such a position implies that dictatorships are morally equal to democracies. That's like saying criminals have the same rights as citizens. Your use of moral relativism is very common these days, and undermines rational thought. As for your domestic cases file sharing and tampering with copyright are illegal, so they should be investigated as criminals. You don't have the freedom to violate another's freedoms. I don't know why you mention Skylarov. He didn't even go to trial. To draw an analogy, a person can say 2+2=4, while another can say 2+2=5. Both can't be right, but by your arguement, they both are.
A govt. that rules through force and suppresses the freedom of its people is not a legitimate govt. Claiming that govt. has the same rights as a govt. that protects the rights of its citizens is irrational. A person who abuses his rights is a criminal, and therefore, forfeits his rights. Govts. must be treated the same way. Of course govts. aren't obligated to topple these regimes, but if they feel it's necessary to protect their own interests, they have the right to do so.
That's the point. It's not satire when what you attribute to the person you're attacking is completely divorce from reality.
"But they are willing to take away your right to backup in order to keep you from using Kazaa. Thats the problem."
Just because you have the right to make backup copies, doesn't mean the RIAA has the obligation to make it easy for you. You talk about your rights, but have no problem forcing your doctrin on other free people. They should have the right to put the music out in any format they feel like.
"No matter what they spend, they can not stop it. If they make it impossible to record from disk, then people will make very high quality analog verisons, then digitize. It will still be good enough. But now you have pissed off your customers, who will delight in sticking it to you."
Locks aren't perfect either. Should we just leave our doors open?
Another problem: Much of the new music coming out on major labels is not much better than private label stuff out of some home studios, and freely available. They can't control that either.
You can produce all the music you want, but without promotion, no one will listen to it except the small group of people you play for in the local bars and a few random hits on your website. The job of the labels, whether independent or major is to promote music. It's nearly impossible to bypass them and sell a lot of records
"How many contractors have put in bids to rebuild Iraqi homes, hospitals and the like? I would assume none because of the lack of money in it."
I wasn't aware Hussein had plans to sabotages homes and hospitals as well as the oil wells. I doubt the US is planning on bombing a lot of homes and hospitals. Your "lack of money in it" comment doesn't make sense either. Presumably, if the oil wells are repaired, there will be plenty of money to repair damaged infrastructure.
"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)."
If the US was in Iraq for oil, it would have been a lot less costly, both financially, and politically for Bush, to simply lift sanctions and buy the oil from Saddam. As far as N. Korea, the US has taken the correct 1st step. They refused bilateral talks, which N. Korea planned to use to extort oil and money from the US to promise to stop developing nuclear weapons. The 94 agreement showed how well this worked. Without outside aid, N. Korea will self destruct. This could be dangerous, but if the US sends troops in there, that action will be protested as well (and also dangerous). N. Korea is a good illustration of what the world will face with Iraq in a dew years if nothing is done now. Some people seem happy to wait until the threat has materialized however, which makes no sense to me.
The free market solution would be to sell the land to the highest bidder and let them decide who to hire to repair the oil wells. I doubt this solution would go over well, however
Where do you propose we send those 300K troops?
You are sadly misinformed. The US did not give Turkey permission to invade Iraq, and they will be dealt with. The majority of Iraqui people do not support Hussein. Afghanistan, although still a problem spot, is much better off now than they were under the Taliban. The US will not pick candidates in Iraqui elections. I don't think you made one statement that stands up when looked at intelligently.
"like what? maybe you're forgetting that iraq accounts for about a third of worldwide oil production. if you have an easy way to increase total crude reserves by 34% i'm sure someone would like to talk to you."
The US could simply lift sanctions against Iraq. That's a lot cheaper than sending in troops and replacing the govt.
"how could "support democracy in Iraq" become to mean "bomb the hell out of Iraq"? why did it end up that democracy won't happen unless we go thru war? Nobody minded an un-democratic Iraq for a very long time, now people have decided to bomb us to democracy? Well, thank you! how thoughtful."
You cannot fight an irrational use of force that oppresses freedom with rational arguements. Force is the only means to deal with this problem. The US has the right to topple regimes that rule illegally through force if it is in their self-interest, i.e. for security in this case.
"It is still possible to protest the war but support the troops."
The troops I've heard interviewed on CNN don't consider anti-war demonstrators as supporting them. I would think their opinion matter's more than yours.
"Funny how said terrorists aren't from Iraq, aren't associated with Iraq, and were mostly from the strongest US ally in the region, Saudi Arabia. Gee, could be because of the puppet government we keep propped up there...nah."
Tell that to the million people Saddam has killed. Oh wait you can't because they're dead.
"I didn't see Iraq attacking the US through the Clinton years, somehow, despite the lack of war."
Clinton didn't stay in power long enough for them to complete their development of nuclear weapons.
That 1994 treaty Clinton brokered with N. Korea was a real winner. Plus he let Saddam off the hook after he kicked out the inspectors. He failed to take out bin Laden when a clear opportunity presented itself. One of the best presidents my ass.
Also, didn't Tipper Gore spearhead the music rating system, that turned into the parental advisory label?
And how do you recommend they charge the people downloading music on kazaa.
The communism one is better, sinces it's factually accurate, which adds to the humor.
It will be used for piracy because it is a great mechanism for getting music from one's computer that has been downloaded through Kazaa to his stereo system, which these days is typically not connected to his computer
I hate slashdot-speak. You can't make up an arguement and attribute it to your opponent, you moron.