Like the guy above me, I'm running it on a Pentium II, 450 MHz with 64 meg of ram with Win XP. The box often runs eMule, pretty always has winamp playing (to multi-room amp:-). I use VNC to access it, which is very processor heavy for the screen scraping. Finally, I usually have Firefox running. Everything runs peachy.
Mac addresses can be faked and credit cards (and random number generators!) can be stolen. And whatever technical solution you can possibly find, it cannot interface with an insecure OS (such as Windows or many *nixs, prolly Macs too, but I'm not too savvy there) and remain secure.
It can be done, the question is cost and convience. You could create a USB dongle containing a smartcard that would be required to access the service. It could use one-time encryption and all sorts of other tricks to ensure security. For total piece of mind, it could work from one registered PC only to prevent the theft problem. But that's a problem with plastic bank cards already, if the internet could be brought up to that level it would be a massive improvement.
However many offices don't let you plug in things, same with internet cafes. Mind you, anyone that does banking on a public PC is a fool anyway.
Effectively fixing the problem is expensive. And that's the point the article is trying to make; they are the only ones with the resources to do so.
It's not about being a dick. What are you, 12 years old?
No, just trying to keep a heated debate lighthearted by showing how silly it was. I was going to make a "I'm taking my ball home" disgruntaled child comparison, as I'd imagine a large number of people round here do have the mentality of a 12 year-old. They certainally do when it comes to viewing something through someone else eyes.
There are serious considerations in not letting the UN, or any other foreign institution having control over something we created and is of enormous economic and military signifigance.
Likewise the same applies to us with leaving it with you. America has been showing the world a "whatever" attidute lately. The Iraq thing was done with much protest. It is felt that you are not working together with everyone and are unashamably looking out for your own interests. Which you are, and it is publicly stated things groups like the PNAC. What it one of us happened to be at loggerheads with the US on some problem, and internet access was threatened during the discussions? E-commerce is now massive, and network distruption is going to be seriously bad for any country. As you say, "enormous economic and military signifigance.". Though I doubt the US mil use the open internet for anything other than public facing initiatives.
Sure, the current arrangement means that some of the more contraversial characters in your politics have zero influence over DNS, but all it would take would be a law change and the internet would be in the hands of one of the most agressive governments on the planet. Some "this is important for freedom, homeland security" tacked onto a bill about giving babies pretty coloured ID braclets or some crap that could not fail to pass congress. Frankly that scares us. DNS is a weakness of the internet, it breaks the redundancy ideal. It is a central weakness that could be exploited.
As usual, Europe is using the UN as a proxy to compensate for their obvious weaknesses.
Weakness in what? This is not a game to be won. You don't get any prizes for having the most troops at the end of the round.
We've driven the growth of the internet, and everyone else wants a free ride.
Under the present system of US control, we do get a free ride. You admin it, you pay for it. The new proposal would mean the cost would be shared. So, your point there is kind of self defeating.
I wouldn't ideally want the UN with it either. What would rock would be an international, independent non-government, non-profit organisation, with a writen and signed charter. The internet is important enought to warrant something like that.
I didn't bother because he is a clueless moron who laps up all the "let us fight to save the day" crap. For one, he is talking crap, that keeps him occupied on something other than why the US leaders are unashamibly dishing out lucrative deals for their "campaign contributers". Where are these infant beatings? News to me. Had a google, couldn't find squat. The image of killing babies is a very old propaganda technique, goes back several hundred years. Even the first Gulf War was started due to a change in US policy after fake testomy about, you've guessed, killing babies. The incubator thing. Ditto WW1, though it was rumoured The Hun ate them. When talking to folk like that, you really are wasting your time.
He attempted to justify the Iraq War due to the fact Saddam is not the sort of chap you would want living next door. Meanwhile, some bad shit is happening in several places, right now. There is no profit to be made in their problems, no angle. No Return On Investment that those who purchase the presidency seek.
But I was arguing with a guy who probably thinks Fox News is just ever so slightly to the right, and that they offer accurate, neutral information. Why bother? An inteligent lengthy reply wasn't likely to get modded up anyway, too deep down the chain and too flaimbait a topic...;-)
Yeah because the American Army has dedicated rape squads that assault families in order to extract information from political rivals.
Not too far from the truth. Sexual abuse and humiliation plays a bit part in your interogation techniques. All of the systems used at Abu Ghraib are standard techniques, the troops didn't just come up with them themselves. And right now, at least 100 people are held in bed in four point restraints being force fed because they refuse to eat to protest their treatment.
No one knows how many died in these prisons, or in transit to them. Everything is unaccountable and behind the scenes.
Saddam used his own ephanism for "enemy combatants" by the way. Words like "trator" and so on. Whatever makes you sleep at night. It's the "wrong time, wrong place" people you have locked up I feel most sorry for. It's well documented that people were bribed for names and there are many innocent people under this "enemy combatant" unbrella. Being tortured. By you.
Oh, and there are numerous prisons in the US mainland who use drugs to dope otherwise heathly inmates and make them easy to manage. Americas poor treatmen of detainees is well known, and damn well right I can compare you to Saddam. You are doing it on a far larger and far more routine basis. At least he didn't pretend to be the "good guy". With psy opps, as you call it, basically if you don't draw blood you don't see it as torture. And when that doesn't work, you send the detainee to another country who are willing to use the same techniques Saddam is known for in order to get what they want.
Finally, you mention rape squads. Evidence? I think your mind made that up. I think you take the propaganda too seriously. Saddam is an evil man therefore he is automatically guilty of any evil crime I can think of.
That's why they stopped fighting during the Blitz and waited for the Germans to lose interest.
Apples and Oranges. WW2 was total war, there was no stopping. With any problem, you can either attack the cause or the symptom. Attacking "teh terrorists" is attacking the symptom. The problem is is Americas consistent backing of bastard regimes in the middle east. You have been meddling in their politics for decades. Overthrowing legimate governments, replacing them with puppet regimes. Selling arms to the like of Saddam. Now, this war on terror is essentially a clash of cultures. And theirs is just as big as ours. Both sides have ranks of men ready to die for the cause, be it "freedom" or "jihad", whatever their leaders are using to manipulate them. By invading Iraq, you have only stoked the flames. You can't win this war on numbers. Tanks are useless. F15s? Forget it. No matter how many soldiers you throw at this, if a culture hates you, you are fucked. Either learn to live with them or...carry on as you are I guess. WW2 was entirely different and it's a silly comparison to make. Sneak attacks then running away and hiding is a traditional warfare technique for them. They aren't lining up in uniforms. They don't do the whole "capture ground" style of warfare, which the US does. This makes your troops easy targets in predicable locations while they have no idea who the enemy is. Sound familiar? Vietnam.
Iraq has been paying bounties to the families of Hamas suicide bombers for years.
So? Who in the Middle East haasn't? That includes Saudi Arabia. Who actually have direct involvement in terrorism.
Besides, the USA was the primary funder of the IRA. Can we invade you then?
And of course, don't forget get the Iran-Contra scandal, where the CIA was exposed dealing vast quantities of drugs in order to fund terrorism.
Saddam had been trying to convince the world that he had weapons of mass destruction for years. Guess what? It worked. We believed him.
That's news to me, I've never come across anything to that effect. Perhaps another misleading statement from your current leader that has gotten more American citizens to believe the mistruth?
There are only two nations that have used weapons of mass destruction since the close of WW1, as far as I can tell. The US is one and Iraq is the other.
Eh? Iraq does not have nor has it ever had WMD. Poison gas is not WMD, nor has it ever been regarded WMD. Except by those trying to capture the country.
Iraq used multiple gas munitions against a neighbor that he had attacked without provocation (Iran)
He was provoked. By people like Donald Rumsfeld, who promised him all the arms he needed to surpress his people if only he attacked the US's greatest enemy at the time. He also asked for, and received, permission to invade Kuwait.
and then again against citizens of his own country to suppress uprisings (the Kurds.)
Winston Churchhill, voted 'Greatest Briton of All Time' recently, did the same to the Kurds many moons ago. Well, actually he wanted to but the technology to drop them from the air wasn't available at the time. We also 'terrorised' (our words) all of the other vilages in the region to keep them in check. One village was wiped out for not paying their taxes. No tea party for them.
Suggesting that we sit down and have a talk with Saddam after 12 years of inspection baiting is disrespectful
He threw the inspectors out because several were in fact spies who were only interested in setting up his assassination. This small detail is usually omitted from our news however. Also, the inspectors were in during the calls for war, and they said there is zero evidence of WMD. It wasn't just WMD they were looking for, under the terms of the ceacefire, Saddam was not allowed many weapons, such as long-ranged missles.
disrespectful to the thousands upon thousands of victims of this tyrant's rule.
The confirmed civilian death toll of the current war is over 26,000. That's civies only, the war deaths must be at least the same, unless the USA is willing conceed that the civilian to war death ratio is greater than 1:1.
Look, getting shot of him is a good thing, but not in this way. Iraq is going to collapse into a long bloody civil war. Saddams greatest legacy of destruction in Iraq will be the years after he was in power. And the hate for the US will fuel the war on terror for generations. This is not the way for you to win that war.
Bugger aff. There are worst than Saddam out there. Some of whom our countries call allies. Some of whom are actively being "evil" right now. I feel sorry for you, you are a poster-child for how propaganda works. You actually feel you are doing good over there!!
Oh, and how can you slate Saddam for mistreatment of detainees? Are you completely ignorant of current events or something?
Stop being afraid glesga. We'll protect you.
From what exactly? I'd like to know...there has never been a terrorist event in my country, and touch wood, there will never be one in the future. England learned that fighing back only makes the problem worse. Rumsfeld himself has said that fighting them enourages them to come out and counter-attack, meaning we can identify them. I don't even know where to start picking apart that idea, but I'd guess I'd point to the WW1 attitute "if we kill them all they'll stop coming". Didn't work then either.
Look, this whole argument of ownership is bullshit. If that's the way we are doing things, us Scots want exclusive control of the most important inventions of the past 200 years.
Lets see how well you do with anesthesia, penicilin, telephones, television, steam engines (goodbye Industrial Revolution and the humble Watt), the pneumatic tyre, radar, modern economics. Hell, even the Bank of England was started by a Scot, but you don't see us whining about not having direct control over the Bank of England base rate, one of the key UK economic controls. Oh, and we want Golf and Soccer back, arguably the worlds two most popular sports. Fuck it, why not throw in the ATM machine, Tarmac (bitumen) and the postage stamp. And so on.
See, what we do is be proud of the great things our nation has done. We don't need to be dicks about it.
'd be real interested to hear how the UN has helped with the "war on terror"? It seems to me that the "war on terror" has continued despite the UN's attempted interference at every turn.
The "War on Terror" is a bullshit lie. Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism. Nothing. Ever. Everytime Cheney mentions "War and terror" in respect to Iraq, he is taking a shit on 1 World Trade Plaza and wiping his ass with the US flag. Iraq invasion plans existed prior to 9-11 and your government abused the attacks to engage in a highly profitable war that they would never of had public backing for without the fear propaganda.
All the US has done on the "War on Terror" is stoke the flames. Last week, the UKs largest terrorist groups gave up their arms. What did it take? Invasion? Regime change? Carpet bombing? Assasination of leaders. No, we met them at the debate table and sorted out their issues. After decades of unsuccessfully trying all the other options.
That's how adults deal with conflict. Children lash out...
You believed what Orange Customer Support said? Let me guess...you don't check out many cellular formus do you?;-) They fib about technical problems all the time.
if it takes the US invading that country to get rid of their horrible dictator, then that is what we should do.
Bull. It was done for the profit of US industry. Oh, wait. First it was 9-11. Then WMD. Now it's "freedom". I call shenagins. I could list a dozen countries with asshats worse than Saddam. Who don't have oil unfortunately.
Our nation is founded on the priciple of "all men are created equal" not "all Americans are created equal."
Words written by slave traders (as was the style at the time;-). They omitted the "white men", I think it was a typo. The US has supported many dictators over the years, including Saddam. Your sentiment kinda rings hollow with me, though it is an admirable one. That's the America I used to respect, I do miss it.
Do you really believe that? Truly? You think that the average Iraqi wanted Saddam as their uncontested leader?
Yes, yes, and no. Your statement about Iraqi's not wanting Saddam is a logical falicy. It does not follow that it's OK to invade.
See, Saddam was an asshat. But he was the only thing keeping Iraq together. Iraq isn't even a country, us British drew the borders when we were the ones doing the imperial bit. Most of the ethnic groups hate each other, and have done for millenia. The country is going to be a mess for a very long time. It will get worse before it gets better, especially as US public resentment for the war increases. This has all happened before, many times. You can't "liberate" countries from their own home-grown leaders, especially entrenched ones. People who hated Saddam more than anyone are now fighting our unfortunate troops over there. Some of whom I know by the way. Think of it this way: there are many in the USA who hate Bush, but would leap to defend the country if a foreign army invaded. Most Iraqi's don't see it as a "regime change", they don't watch CNN and get the same emotionaly loaded propaganda we get. In their world, we are an invading army. It doesn't matter that they hate the previous regime.
If you want some interesting reading, check into our dealings in Iraq, first half of the 20th century. We used the same tactics later used by Saddam to keep the "natives" in check. Some of the quotes from the period are quite disturbing. Churchill, before he took the helm in WW2, had formerly ordered the air force to gas the Kurds to quell a rebelion. The only reason it never happened is because they could not figure out a reliable gas dispersial system they could use from biplanes. They bombed villages for not paying their taxes. They acutally used the word "terrorise" themselves. You can't make this shit up.
You are talking complete tripe. You claim that Bush cares about others, but he started an entirely unneccesary war for the profits of his investors. 26,000 civilans are dead and a country is in civil war. No WMD, no terrorists, no open-arms and no easy win. All of this was predicted, fuck your own history has almost the exact same thing in it with Vietnam. A war unwanted by those you were "saving". Nothing that has happened in Iraq is a surprise to those who study history. Nothing. We were warning about this three years ago.
Even if 9-11 was 100% down to Saddam, are you saying it's valid to exchange 26,000 Arab lives to "prevent" a fluke incident that killed 3,000? Cares about others? What the hell are you smoking? And the 26,000 is 100% civilian. No one is even counting the deaths of those who take up arms. Say double that number perhaps, unless you want to admit that the civilian losses to war losses are less than 2:1, right?
He's either evil or stupid. Take your pick. I personally don't think he's dumb, just not very proficient at public speaking.
he does seem to regard the well-being of people -- or at least the "opinion" of the American public.
Well, duh. Post Katrina, if he hadn't shown intense interest he'd be out of a job right now. He cares about your opinion only because he has to. "Approval ratings lowest ever" was the news story that made him "care".
Oh, and don't even attept the "bi-partisan" bullshit, I'm not even from the USA so that system of avoiding debate won't work here. He is the worst president in years and he has done immeasuable harm to America. People will be flying planes into buildings for the next 50 years thanks to the hatred he stirred up. And I don't believe that was an accident, Rummy etc have been quoted as saying they'd like to incite violence in order to root them out. Caring? Are we talking about the same people? They care about no one but their investors.
You sir, are scum. You are defending a murderer. An armed robber of the highest order.
According to Princeton University, Socialism is defined as:
1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry.
2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital.
Outdated definitions, are they still teaching that propaganda? Wow. The modern definition is a democracy with a welfare state in a classless society. No state control, none of that stuff. Here's the wiki page on the subject. Like most things, different people have different beliefs on what exactly it should be defined as.
Is this the same Europe which passes laws that throw people in jail if they offend a certain religion (as in the UK)?
As opposed to being thrown in jail for being a certain religion? Your media swept the anti-arab violence under the carpet post 9-11. Instead of sticking our heads in the sand, we banned hateful speach. Say what you want, provided you don't advocate violence against others, or encourage others to do so. It works both ways, and both arab nutters and white supremsists have been charged under it's provisions. This is merely an extension of your "fire in the theature" agumnet re: free speach in the US. You can excercise your rights as long as they don't step on my rights.
The same Europe that bans religous garb amoung teachers and government workers (like in France)?
Religion is the cause of all evil, so personally that doesn't bother me much. Actually, joking aside it does bother me, as it's a restriction of freedom. However, once again your gloriously uncensored media has failed you. Do you know why the ban was made? It was because muslim women were suffering with personal religious attacks post 9-11 and could do nothing to avoid them as the headscarfs singled them out. They could not take off the scarfs as it contracted the fundamentalist ramblings of some. So, they banned them in school, essentially forcing the girls to not where them, with no discussion. Also, the bad affected all religious, so crosses are also not allowed. The phrase "headscarf ban" (which you did not use yourself) is evidence of propaganda and loaded statements. This is what both our countries news media has become unfortunately.
Or, where an EU official and former French president can declare that "Only Christians should be considered Europeans" without it turning any heads.
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." G.W.Bush, Sr. Former US President I might add. I'm begining to feel that you are having a laugh with me here, or just trolling.
The same Europe where most television and radio is controlled by the state?
Where? I'm guessing you mean the BBC, which is funded by the state. There are numerous laws defining how the state cannot control the BBC. They are different enities, Christ, 2 years ago they were at each others throats and the heads of the BBC resigned over the affair.
The same Europe where in some places it illegal for a woman to have an abortion (as in Portugal)?
Aren't there numerous states with similar laws in the US? Besides, Roe vs Wade ain't gonna stand up for much longer. To be honest, I'm surprised that Portugal is like that. That's the sort of behaviour I'd expect from Ireland, for they are bunch of religious fundamentalist terrorists. There is a long history of women coming to the UK mainland for abortions, which don't fit in with Catholic doctarine.
The same Europe where in most countries movies have to be approved by a national film censorship board (as a whole slew of countries)?
Our BBFC is the same as your MPAA ratings. And we don't censor political thought, ever. Just violence, we are a little less tolerant of violence in media than some countries. This has all changed now though; thanks to e-commerce local edits are easy to get round, so they just stopped editing them.
About half of Europe. I'd bet you money that we have more "freedom" than you, but gambling is probably illegal where you are.
How can you print books critical of the government if all printing presses are owned and controlled by the state?
State control != socialism. You really don't know the definition of these words, do you? Your McCarthyism inspired "education" equates the wrongs of Stalin with Socialism. Stalin was a murderous dictator, and your countries hate/fear of the former USSR has brought you up with propaganda that equates all of these things together as "evil". Duck and cover wasn't a defensive tactic, it was a propaganda tool. "Let us save you" was the cry of your leaders.
Socialism is merely a system where the poor and needy are looked after through taxes, instead of making them sleep under bridges like many do each night in your country. IMHO it's far better than the every man for himself of true capitalism. I don't get the "total control of the state" thing, that's not socialism. Communism is a bit more akin to what you are thinking, but they are quite different things. When you mix them up, you just across as a blabbering nationialist fanatic, no better than the "terrorists" who bitch about your society while knowning very little about it. So, next time you hear about "socialist south american leaders", please consider that they have nothing to do with Stalin. Nothing at all. Your "free" media, owned by people with invested interests in the status quo down there, well they aren't "censoring" the news, or wording it in such a way as to provoke a predictable response. That just doesn't happen, right?;-)
If anything, the consistent use of fear to keep the US population in check since the 60s has no relevance to the imaginary "free" world you think you live in. You get as much propaganda and censorship as most others, you just don't realise it. Politicians the world over are the same, and they use the same tricks to get what they desire.
PS, I'm in the UK in case you are wondering. Not a socialist country really, but our system has many of the best (and some of the worst) bits of both sides.
Yeah, forget Capitalism. Unless the state decides what you can listen to, consume, buy, sell, and think, we are going to be plauged by these capitalist problems of free-expression and individualism.
Capitalism is an economic system. Free-expression and individualism have absolutely nothing to do with it. Your "knowledge" of politics disturbs me, as it seems to be the prevailing belief in your country.
What you are thinking of is Totalitairism verses Freedom. There as as many free socialist countries as there are free capitalist ones, just as there are many non-free capitalist societies. Get a clue before spouting crap about something that you don't even understand the basics of.
For those at the back, Capitalism is a system where those in charge proclaim it's merit to those at the bottom, while living a different life for themselves. Communism is exactly the same.
Oh, and the "democracy" thing? Nothing to do with it either; Saddam used to have elections, remember? Elections don't mean jack when the system is rigged.
Freedom is freedom. Either you can critize the government or you can't. Either you can buy unrestricted media, or you can't. Your countries fiscal policy is irrelevant.
Ever wonder why those who say how great capitalism is are never poor? Or those who say Communism is good are never living an ordinary life?
Since when is the US obliged - either morally or legally - to import "your countries most popular exports" unconditionally?
I think there are many treaties and possibly international law covering this. Otherwise, countries would just ban imports of their major produce, resulting in tit-for-tat other bans and the whole trade thing just breaks down. There have been numerous contraversial "tarrifs" lately, one you might be familiar with is the Canadian wood dispute, say 3-5 years ago I think.
Or is it more of if you, the country, want to use our resource, the Internet, then you must accept our the laws of our choosing?
Yes. Trade discussions are often just blackmail sessions. I'm not just considering laws, I'm thinking trade, politics, opinions, charity, all the other things that threaten to get changed if you don't toe the line. Many of these tricks were used to build "the collalition of the willing" (or cajoulled as some called it).
What dream world? haha... so your point is, since "the net cash flow goes into the US, not out" that we shouldn't be able to keep the internet that we developed.
No, the original parent said something along the lines of the whole planet being the USAs lapdogs, hanging around for the titbits. As if you were some super-generous country. That's an image that does not meet the reality.
you really buy into this "propaganda" thing dont you?
You got a better name for the disinformation techniques that led 60% of your country to believe Iraq was behind 9-11? All those mentions of Iraq and terrorism in the same context were propaganda and of that there can be NO denial. You want me to start quoting the speaches? Or, is America somehow unique from the rest of the world where we get political propaganda (from all sides) every day?
listen, i'm really sorry you hate america, or whatever your problem is, but I think we've given enough free handouts.
I don't "hate" America, I "hate" that kind of thinking. I used to "love" America, then it became this place where if you think out of line you are either hateful or unpatriotic. I "hate" the way you are going around the world doing unspeakable evil while claiming to be "the good guys". I "hate" how religious wingnuts have taken over your country and are using fear and hate to drive the country how they would like to. Seems to be working.
Oh, and what handouts? This is precisly the propaganda I'm on about. The America you have been educated to believe in doesn't exist. This charitable, world saving gentle giant is a myth. Go pick up a history book. Central America and the Middle East are worthy areas of study. You are not the good guys, and haven't been since the 60s.
Of course, if people like Bush hadn't called me into doubting my original "love America" views, I would probably be blissfully unaware of the truth, and still vacationing there every other year.
It was either New Zealand or Austrailia, I don't remember the specifics of this case, but it's well known that Hollywood is pushing for DMCA laws to be implemented elsewhere.
But now it's more of a "I'm afraid of what you may do some day in the future". New plan: when we do it, kick us in the nuts. Seriously. Until then, settle down.
But that was the reason for invading Iraq! "He might give WMD to terrorists"* You can't have it both ways!!:-)
*Of course, there were no terrorist links, and no WMD, so the "we have always been at war with Eurasia" thinking now is "it was for the democracy of the Iraqi people".
Slashdot Mirror
Like the guy above me, I'm running it on a Pentium II, 450 MHz with 64 meg of ram with Win XP. The box often runs eMule, pretty always has winamp playing (to multi-room amp :-). I use VNC to access it, which is very processor heavy for the screen scraping. Finally, I usually have Firefox running. Everything runs peachy.
It can be done, the question is cost and convience. You could create a USB dongle containing a smartcard that would be required to access the service. It could use one-time encryption and all sorts of other tricks to ensure security. For total piece of mind, it could work from one registered PC only to prevent the theft problem. But that's a problem with plastic bank cards already, if the internet could be brought up to that level it would be a massive improvement.
However many offices don't let you plug in things, same with internet cafes. Mind you, anyone that does banking on a public PC is a fool anyway.
Effectively fixing the problem is expensive. And that's the point the article is trying to make; they are the only ones with the resources to do so.
No, just trying to keep a heated debate lighthearted by showing how silly it was. I was going to make a "I'm taking my ball home" disgruntaled child comparison, as I'd imagine a large number of people round here do have the mentality of a 12 year-old. They certainally do when it comes to viewing something through someone else eyes.
There are serious considerations in not letting the UN, or any other foreign institution having control over something we created and is of enormous economic and military signifigance.
Likewise the same applies to us with leaving it with you. America has been showing the world a "whatever" attidute lately. The Iraq thing was done with much protest. It is felt that you are not working together with everyone and are unashamably looking out for your own interests. Which you are, and it is publicly stated things groups like the PNAC. What it one of us happened to be at loggerheads with the US on some problem, and internet access was threatened during the discussions? E-commerce is now massive, and network distruption is going to be seriously bad for any country. As you say, "enormous economic and military signifigance.". Though I doubt the US mil use the open internet for anything other than public facing initiatives.
Sure, the current arrangement means that some of the more contraversial characters in your politics have zero influence over DNS, but all it would take would be a law change and the internet would be in the hands of one of the most agressive governments on the planet. Some "this is important for freedom, homeland security" tacked onto a bill about giving babies pretty coloured ID braclets or some crap that could not fail to pass congress. Frankly that scares us. DNS is a weakness of the internet, it breaks the redundancy ideal. It is a central weakness that could be exploited.
As usual, Europe is using the UN as a proxy to compensate for their obvious weaknesses.
Weakness in what? This is not a game to be won. You don't get any prizes for having the most troops at the end of the round.
We've driven the growth of the internet, and everyone else wants a free ride.
Under the present system of US control, we do get a free ride. You admin it, you pay for it. The new proposal would mean the cost would be shared. So, your point there is kind of self defeating.
I wouldn't ideally want the UN with it either. What would rock would be an international, independent non-government, non-profit organisation, with a writen and signed charter. The internet is important enought to warrant something like that.
He attempted to justify the Iraq War due to the fact Saddam is not the sort of chap you would want living next door. Meanwhile, some bad shit is happening in several places, right now. There is no profit to be made in their problems, no angle. No Return On Investment that those who purchase the presidency seek.
But I was arguing with a guy who probably thinks Fox News is just ever so slightly to the right, and that they offer accurate, neutral information. Why bother? An inteligent lengthy reply wasn't likely to get modded up anyway, too deep down the chain and too flaimbait a topic... ;-)
Not too far from the truth. Sexual abuse and humiliation plays a bit part in your interogation techniques. All of the systems used at Abu Ghraib are standard techniques, the troops didn't just come up with them themselves. And right now, at least 100 people are held in bed in four point restraints being force fed because they refuse to eat to protest their treatment.
No one knows how many died in these prisons, or in transit to them. Everything is unaccountable and behind the scenes.
Saddam used his own ephanism for "enemy combatants" by the way. Words like "trator" and so on. Whatever makes you sleep at night. It's the "wrong time, wrong place" people you have locked up I feel most sorry for. It's well documented that people were bribed for names and there are many innocent people under this "enemy combatant" unbrella. Being tortured. By you.
Oh, and there are numerous prisons in the US mainland who use drugs to dope otherwise heathly inmates and make them easy to manage. Americas poor treatmen of detainees is well known, and damn well right I can compare you to Saddam. You are doing it on a far larger and far more routine basis. At least he didn't pretend to be the "good guy". With psy opps, as you call it, basically if you don't draw blood you don't see it as torture. And when that doesn't work, you send the detainee to another country who are willing to use the same techniques Saddam is known for in order to get what they want.
Finally, you mention rape squads. Evidence? I think your mind made that up. I think you take the propaganda too seriously. Saddam is an evil man therefore he is automatically guilty of any evil crime I can think of.
That's why they stopped fighting during the Blitz and waited for the Germans to lose interest.
Apples and Oranges. WW2 was total war, there was no stopping. With any problem, you can either attack the cause or the symptom. Attacking "teh terrorists" is attacking the symptom. The problem is is Americas consistent backing of bastard regimes in the middle east. You have been meddling in their politics for decades. Overthrowing legimate governments, replacing them with puppet regimes. Selling arms to the like of Saddam. Now, this war on terror is essentially a clash of cultures. And theirs is just as big as ours. Both sides have ranks of men ready to die for the cause, be it "freedom" or "jihad", whatever their leaders are using to manipulate them. By invading Iraq, you have only stoked the flames. You can't win this war on numbers. Tanks are useless. F15s? Forget it. No matter how many soldiers you throw at this, if a culture hates you, you are fucked. Either learn to live with them or...carry on as you are I guess. WW2 was entirely different and it's a silly comparison to make. Sneak attacks then running away and hiding is a traditional warfare technique for them. They aren't lining up in uniforms. They don't do the whole "capture ground" style of warfare, which the US does. This makes your troops easy targets in predicable locations while they have no idea who the enemy is. Sound familiar? Vietnam.
So? Who in the Middle East haasn't? That includes Saudi Arabia. Who actually have direct involvement in terrorism.
Besides, the USA was the primary funder of the IRA. Can we invade you then?
And of course, don't forget get the Iran-Contra scandal, where the CIA was exposed dealing vast quantities of drugs in order to fund terrorism.
Saddam had been trying to convince the world that he had weapons of mass destruction for years. Guess what? It worked. We believed him.
That's news to me, I've never come across anything to that effect. Perhaps another misleading statement from your current leader that has gotten more American citizens to believe the mistruth?
There are only two nations that have used weapons of mass destruction since the close of WW1, as far as I can tell. The US is one and Iraq is the other.
Eh? Iraq does not have nor has it ever had WMD. Poison gas is not WMD, nor has it ever been regarded WMD. Except by those trying to capture the country.
Iraq used multiple gas munitions against a neighbor that he had attacked without provocation (Iran)
He was provoked. By people like Donald Rumsfeld, who promised him all the arms he needed to surpress his people if only he attacked the US's greatest enemy at the time. He also asked for, and received, permission to invade Kuwait.
and then again against citizens of his own country to suppress uprisings (the Kurds.)
Winston Churchhill, voted 'Greatest Briton of All Time' recently, did the same to the Kurds many moons ago. Well, actually he wanted to but the technology to drop them from the air wasn't available at the time. We also 'terrorised' (our words) all of the other vilages in the region to keep them in check. One village was wiped out for not paying their taxes. No tea party for them.
Suggesting that we sit down and have a talk with Saddam after 12 years of inspection baiting is disrespectful
He threw the inspectors out because several were in fact spies who were only interested in setting up his assassination. This small detail is usually omitted from our news however. Also, the inspectors were in during the calls for war, and they said there is zero evidence of WMD. It wasn't just WMD they were looking for, under the terms of the ceacefire, Saddam was not allowed many weapons, such as long-ranged missles.
disrespectful to the thousands upon thousands of victims of this tyrant's rule.
The confirmed civilian death toll of the current war is over 26,000. That's civies only, the war deaths must be at least the same, unless the USA is willing conceed that the civilian to war death ratio is greater than 1:1.
Look, getting shot of him is a good thing, but not in this way. Iraq is going to collapse into a long bloody civil war. Saddams greatest legacy of destruction in Iraq will be the years after he was in power. And the hate for the US will fuel the war on terror for generations. This is not the way for you to win that war.
Oh, and how can you slate Saddam for mistreatment of detainees? Are you completely ignorant of current events or something?
Stop being afraid glesga. We'll protect you.
From what exactly? I'd like to know...there has never been a terrorist event in my country, and touch wood, there will never be one in the future. England learned that fighing back only makes the problem worse. Rumsfeld himself has said that fighting them enourages them to come out and counter-attack, meaning we can identify them. I don't even know where to start picking apart that idea, but I'd guess I'd point to the WW1 attitute "if we kill them all they'll stop coming". Didn't work then either.
Lets see how well you do with anesthesia, penicilin, telephones, television, steam engines (goodbye Industrial Revolution and the humble Watt), the pneumatic tyre, radar, modern economics. Hell, even the Bank of England was started by a Scot, but you don't see us whining about not having direct control over the Bank of England base rate, one of the key UK economic controls. Oh, and we want Golf and Soccer back, arguably the worlds two most popular sports. Fuck it, why not throw in the ATM machine, Tarmac (bitumen) and the postage stamp. And so on.
See, what we do is be proud of the great things our nation has done. We don't need to be dicks about it.
The "War on Terror" is a bullshit lie. Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism. Nothing. Ever. Everytime Cheney mentions "War and terror" in respect to Iraq, he is taking a shit on 1 World Trade Plaza and wiping his ass with the US flag. Iraq invasion plans existed prior to 9-11 and your government abused the attacks to engage in a highly profitable war that they would never of had public backing for without the fear propaganda.
All the US has done on the "War on Terror" is stoke the flames. Last week, the UKs largest terrorist groups gave up their arms. What did it take? Invasion? Regime change? Carpet bombing? Assasination of leaders. No, we met them at the debate table and sorted out their issues. After decades of unsuccessfully trying all the other options.
That's how adults deal with conflict. Children lash out...
That's the point. An SMS is far more discrete than a voice call while you are at work.
You believed what Orange Customer Support said? Let me guess...you don't check out many cellular formus do you? ;-) They fib about technical problems all the time.
Yup, the new channel from Channel 4. Expect loads of reality bullshit, and The Daily Show each night at 8:30.
I'll be sticking with BitTorrent for the most part. Would never catch it outwise, I don't have a VHS/TIVO.
Bull. It was done for the profit of US industry. Oh, wait. First it was 9-11. Then WMD. Now it's "freedom". I call shenagins. I could list a dozen countries with asshats worse than Saddam. Who don't have oil unfortunately.
Our nation is founded on the priciple of "all men are created equal" not "all Americans are created equal."
Words written by slave traders (as was the style at the time ;-). They omitted the "white men", I think it was a typo. The US has supported many dictators over the years, including Saddam. Your sentiment kinda rings hollow with me, though it is an admirable one. That's the America I used to respect, I do miss it.
Do you really believe that? Truly? You think that the average Iraqi wanted Saddam as their uncontested leader?
Yes, yes, and no. Your statement about Iraqi's not wanting Saddam is a logical falicy. It does not follow that it's OK to invade.
See, Saddam was an asshat. But he was the only thing keeping Iraq together. Iraq isn't even a country, us British drew the borders when we were the ones doing the imperial bit. Most of the ethnic groups hate each other, and have done for millenia. The country is going to be a mess for a very long time. It will get worse before it gets better, especially as US public resentment for the war increases. This has all happened before, many times. You can't "liberate" countries from their own home-grown leaders, especially entrenched ones. People who hated Saddam more than anyone are now fighting our unfortunate troops over there. Some of whom I know by the way. Think of it this way: there are many in the USA who hate Bush, but would leap to defend the country if a foreign army invaded. Most Iraqi's don't see it as a "regime change", they don't watch CNN and get the same emotionaly loaded propaganda we get. In their world, we are an invading army. It doesn't matter that they hate the previous regime.
If you want some interesting reading, check into our dealings in Iraq, first half of the 20th century. We used the same tactics later used by Saddam to keep the "natives" in check. Some of the quotes from the period are quite disturbing. Churchill, before he took the helm in WW2, had formerly ordered the air force to gas the Kurds to quell a rebelion. The only reason it never happened is because they could not figure out a reliable gas dispersial system they could use from biplanes. They bombed villages for not paying their taxes. They acutally used the word "terrorise" themselves. You can't make this shit up.
Even if 9-11 was 100% down to Saddam, are you saying it's valid to exchange 26,000 Arab lives to "prevent" a fluke incident that killed 3,000? Cares about others? What the hell are you smoking? And the 26,000 is 100% civilian. No one is even counting the deaths of those who take up arms. Say double that number perhaps, unless you want to admit that the civilian losses to war losses are less than 2:1, right?
He's either evil or stupid. Take your pick. I personally don't think he's dumb, just not very proficient at public speaking.
he does seem to regard the well-being of people -- or at least the "opinion" of the American public.
Well, duh. Post Katrina, if he hadn't shown intense interest he'd be out of a job right now. He cares about your opinion only because he has to. "Approval ratings lowest ever" was the news story that made him "care".
Oh, and don't even attept the "bi-partisan" bullshit, I'm not even from the USA so that system of avoiding debate won't work here. He is the worst president in years and he has done immeasuable harm to America. People will be flying planes into buildings for the next 50 years thanks to the hatred he stirred up. And I don't believe that was an accident, Rummy etc have been quoted as saying they'd like to incite violence in order to root them out. Caring? Are we talking about the same people? They care about no one but their investors.
You sir, are scum. You are defending a murderer. An armed robber of the highest order.
Outdated definitions, are they still teaching that propaganda? Wow. The modern definition is a democracy with a welfare state in a classless society. No state control, none of that stuff. Here's the wiki page on the subject. Like most things, different people have different beliefs on what exactly it should be defined as.
Is this the same Europe which passes laws that throw people in jail if they offend a certain religion (as in the UK)?
As opposed to being thrown in jail for being a certain religion? Your media swept the anti-arab violence under the carpet post 9-11. Instead of sticking our heads in the sand, we banned hateful speach. Say what you want, provided you don't advocate violence against others, or encourage others to do so. It works both ways, and both arab nutters and white supremsists have been charged under it's provisions. This is merely an extension of your "fire in the theature" agumnet re: free speach in the US. You can excercise your rights as long as they don't step on my rights.
The same Europe that bans religous garb amoung teachers and government workers (like in France)?
Religion is the cause of all evil, so personally that doesn't bother me much. Actually, joking aside it does bother me, as it's a restriction of freedom. However, once again your gloriously uncensored media has failed you. Do you know why the ban was made? It was because muslim women were suffering with personal religious attacks post 9-11 and could do nothing to avoid them as the headscarfs singled them out. They could not take off the scarfs as it contracted the fundamentalist ramblings of some. So, they banned them in school, essentially forcing the girls to not where them, with no discussion. Also, the bad affected all religious, so crosses are also not allowed. The phrase "headscarf ban" (which you did not use yourself) is evidence of propaganda and loaded statements. This is what both our countries news media has become unfortunately.
Or, where an EU official and former French president can declare that "Only Christians should be considered Europeans" without it turning any heads.
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." G.W.Bush, Sr. Former US President I might add. I'm begining to feel that you are having a laugh with me here, or just trolling.
The same Europe where most television and radio is controlled by the state?
Where? I'm guessing you mean the BBC, which is funded by the state. There are numerous laws defining how the state cannot control the BBC. They are different enities, Christ, 2 years ago they were at each others throats and the heads of the BBC resigned over the affair.
The same Europe where in some places it illegal for a woman to have an abortion (as in Portugal)?
Aren't there numerous states with similar laws in the US? Besides, Roe vs Wade ain't gonna stand up for much longer. To be honest, I'm surprised that Portugal is like that. That's the sort of behaviour I'd expect from Ireland, for they are bunch of religious fundamentalist terrorists. There is a long history of women coming to the UK mainland for abortions, which don't fit in with Catholic doctarine.
The same Europe where in most countries movies have to be approved by a national film censorship board (as a whole slew of countries)?
Our BBFC is the same as your MPAA ratings. And we don't censor political thought, ever. Just violence, we are a little less tolerant of violence in media than some countries. This has all changed now though; thanks to e-commerce local edits are easy to get round, so they just stopped editing them.
The same
About half of Europe. I'd bet you money that we have more "freedom" than you, but gambling is probably illegal where you are.
How can you print books critical of the government if all printing presses are owned and controlled by the state?
State control != socialism. You really don't know the definition of these words, do you? Your McCarthyism inspired "education" equates the wrongs of Stalin with Socialism. Stalin was a murderous dictator, and your countries hate/fear of the former USSR has brought you up with propaganda that equates all of these things together as "evil". Duck and cover wasn't a defensive tactic, it was a propaganda tool. "Let us save you" was the cry of your leaders.
Socialism is merely a system where the poor and needy are looked after through taxes, instead of making them sleep under bridges like many do each night in your country. IMHO it's far better than the every man for himself of true capitalism. I don't get the "total control of the state" thing, that's not socialism. Communism is a bit more akin to what you are thinking, but they are quite different things. When you mix them up, you just across as a blabbering nationialist fanatic, no better than the "terrorists" who bitch about your society while knowning very little about it. So, next time you hear about "socialist south american leaders", please consider that they have nothing to do with Stalin. Nothing at all. Your "free" media, owned by people with invested interests in the status quo down there, well they aren't "censoring" the news, or wording it in such a way as to provoke a predictable response. That just doesn't happen, right? ;-)
If anything, the consistent use of fear to keep the US population in check since the 60s has no relevance to the imaginary "free" world you think you live in. You get as much propaganda and censorship as most others, you just don't realise it. Politicians the world over are the same, and they use the same tricks to get what they desire.
PS, I'm in the UK in case you are wondering. Not a socialist country really, but our system has many of the best (and some of the worst) bits of both sides.
Some might disagree. Essentially, our commercial news is filtered because it's commercial.
Capitalism is an economic system. Free-expression and individualism have absolutely nothing to do with it. Your "knowledge" of politics disturbs me, as it seems to be the prevailing belief in your country.
What you are thinking of is Totalitairism verses Freedom. There as as many free socialist countries as there are free capitalist ones, just as there are many non-free capitalist societies. Get a clue before spouting crap about something that you don't even understand the basics of.
For those at the back, Capitalism is a system where those in charge proclaim it's merit to those at the bottom, while living a different life for themselves. Communism is exactly the same.
Oh, and the "democracy" thing? Nothing to do with it either; Saddam used to have elections, remember? Elections don't mean jack when the system is rigged.
Freedom is freedom. Either you can critize the government or you can't. Either you can buy unrestricted media, or you can't. Your countries fiscal policy is irrelevant.
Ever wonder why those who say how great capitalism is are never poor? Or those who say Communism is good are never living an ordinary life?
I think there are many treaties and possibly international law covering this. Otherwise, countries would just ban imports of their major produce, resulting in tit-for-tat other bans and the whole trade thing just breaks down. There have been numerous contraversial "tarrifs" lately, one you might be familiar with is the Canadian wood dispute, say 3-5 years ago I think.
Again, no. In raw dollars, and also per GDP.
Yes. Trade discussions are often just blackmail sessions. I'm not just considering laws, I'm thinking trade, politics, opinions, charity, all the other things that threaten to get changed if you don't toe the line. Many of these tricks were used to build "the collalition of the willing" (or cajoulled as some called it).
No, the original parent said something along the lines of the whole planet being the USAs lapdogs, hanging around for the titbits. As if you were some super-generous country. That's an image that does not meet the reality.
you really buy into this "propaganda" thing dont you?
You got a better name for the disinformation techniques that led 60% of your country to believe Iraq was behind 9-11? All those mentions of Iraq and terrorism in the same context were propaganda and of that there can be NO denial. You want me to start quoting the speaches? Or, is America somehow unique from the rest of the world where we get political propaganda (from all sides) every day?
listen, i'm really sorry you hate america, or whatever your problem is, but I think we've given enough free handouts.
I don't "hate" America, I "hate" that kind of thinking. I used to "love" America, then it became this place where if you think out of line you are either hateful or unpatriotic. I "hate" the way you are going around the world doing unspeakable evil while claiming to be "the good guys". I "hate" how religious wingnuts have taken over your country and are using fear and hate to drive the country how they would like to. Seems to be working.
Oh, and what handouts? This is precisly the propaganda I'm on about. The America you have been educated to believe in doesn't exist. This charitable, world saving gentle giant is a myth. Go pick up a history book. Central America and the Middle East are worthy areas of study. You are not the good guys, and haven't been since the 60s.
Of course, if people like Bush hadn't called me into doubting my original "love America" views, I would probably be blissfully unaware of the truth, and still vacationing there every other year.
It was either New Zealand or Austrailia, I don't remember the specifics of this case, but it's well known that Hollywood is pushing for DMCA laws to be implemented elsewhere.
I'm worried that:
Plus many more. When folk were telling you that Bush was doing unmeasurable damage to how the world perceives America, they weren't lying.
But that was the reason for invading Iraq! "He might give WMD to terrorists"* You can't have it both ways!! :-)
*Of course, there were no terrorist links, and no WMD, so the "we have always been at war with Eurasia" thinking now is "it was for the democracy of the Iraqi people".