No there wasn't. The only polls showing favour for the war were ones done by newspapers that loved the "War war war" retoric. Coincidendly, it was mostly the US owned papers.
Even then, their support was based on lies, which the rest of us tried to point out. What's your point, caller?
Basically, the UK and US completely ignored the democratic process, apparently all in the name of "democracy". The irony was lost on a lot of people.
Are you claiming that the current Iranian government was aided to power by the U.S.?
My mistake, didn't get the point across very well. It was the Shah that the US helped to power in 1953. That government is long gone.
There is a good timeline of it all here. This is the relevant extract:
1953 - U.S.-backed coup ousts Mossadeq; reinstates shah
At the height of the Cold War, the Eisenhower administration approves a joint British-American operation to overthrow Mossadeq, worried that his nationalist aspirations will lead to an eventual communist takeover. The operation is code-named Operation Ajax. At first, the military coup seems to fail, and the shah flees the country. After widespread rioting -- and with help from the CIA and British intelligence services -- Mossadeq is defeated and the shah returns to power, ensuring support for Western oil interests and snuffing the threat of communist expansion. General Fazlollah Zahedi, who led the military coup, becomes prime minister.
It's scary that oil was a motive back then. But, war and international politics has always been about access to resources. Anything else was only propaganda to further the attempts to get that access.
And the Germans were happy to exterminate the jews
Oh my. You just made me smile bigtime. I feel as though I'm a troll who just got a bite!
Firstly, the German people DID NOT KNOW what was happening to the jews, they thought they were being deported.
Secondly, the German people believed that deportation was neccessary because the Nazis told them that they were a threat to their own safety and liberty. Sound familiar?
There was an uneasy truce at least before the war. In addition, there were indications of communications between them.
Your latter statement is a lie. There has never been any link between Saddam and Bin Laden. The only Iraqi links Al Queda have are with the Kurds in the north of Iraq, the ones that Saddam hates, bombs and generally screws over.
Then perhaps we should push to clean up a few other hell holes in the world.
Of course, The U.S. will be denounced if we do that. We'll be denounced if we don't do it. For a lot of people in the world, the U.S. can do no right. Unfortunately, if we left it to the U.N., nothing will get done.
But invasion is never the answer!! I'm not sure how your media is reporting current events, but at the moment soldiers are dying in Iraq every day. There have been more coalition casualties since the end of the war than there were in it. Iraqi's aiding the US are being assassinate and suicide bombed (a new thing in Iraq).
The fact is that the war was started from a lie, and has turned out to be the predicatable disaster we thought it would be.
If you invade a country, it's guaranteed someone won't like it. You will be facing guerilla warfare where the best historical precident for you would be Vietnam.
In other news, anti-US sentiment in the Middle East has risen massively. And how is that supposed to bring an end to terrorism. Oh wait, it's counter productive. LIKE WE ALL SAID BEFORE THE WAR STARTED. Sorry for shouting, but some people just don't get it.
But I'll tell you that the french people definitely didn't.
You see, my American friends, we still have a thing called democracy here. The public were very much against this war, and our leaders followed suit. Even the UK government went ahead despite massive protests. The biggest mass protests that the UK has ever had occurred on the leadup to this war, yet they went ahead anyway.
id say France was far from being the weasalist country, but making it the USA or UK would be un-patriotic right ?
Why do you hate America?
Actually, it sounds to me like he loves America, or what it used to stand for. You know, the days when democracy was still around, and it was understood that free speach, differing opinions and even unpopular speach were essential to democracy.
Now it's all heil to the chief. Heil Bush!!
The villification of France in the leadup to this "war" (armed robbery more like) had to be one of the scariest changes in the modern US. It's like you've thrown everything the founding fathers put together all away in a wash of deliberately misdirected patriotism.
Nice to see that at least the US didn't make any deals with Hussein, known butcher.
Sarcasm, love it.
Of course, I always feel compelled to point out that the US and UK were very happy to sell Saddam weapons when they knew that he was using them against Iran and the Kurds. It's only when they want the public to see how "evil" he is that we get their speil.
In other news, I hear the chocolate ration is increased to 20%. Woohooo!!
Maybe you don't understand the true extent of cruelty and repression under Saddam's regime just 'cause it wasn't publicized in the media that you read.
Woopie fucking do. There are worse than him out there, yet you don't see the US trying to topple them. Provided you are good to US business, your dictatorship is safe. The US will even sell you weapons and station troops to defend your barbaric regime.
Or, has the history of Saudi Arabia escaped your selective historical memory?
strong trade links with Iraq". Who didn't? Certainly not the US!
Historically, if the US doesn't enjoy good trade links with a Middle Eastern country (or South American), the US endevours to topple the government and replace it with a more US friendly one.
Just ask Saudi Arabia, Iran or even Saddam. All of the existing (and former in the case of Iraq) leaderships were aided to power by the US because the former governments weren't forthcoming to US business.
You think the the 9/11 terrorists were Iragi and/or Afghani?
Mostly Soudi. I was one of first to get people on that.
And there you can see the reason for the war. The US wants to switch dependance on middle east oil away from Saudi to Iraq. The only way to do it was to topple Saddam. The rest was just lies and deliberate misdirection to get the public on side.
Thanks for falling for it. You must make Hermann Goering proud. His propaganda teachings have filtered through to new generations.
(of course, Godwin must be proud of my post as well)
The most logical measurement to take is always the one that backs you up the most!;-)
Personally, I'd say that hours is the only measurement to use. MTBF (mean time before failure) is done this way because the lifetime of any mechanical device is always directly related to how much it is used. For example, running a machine an hour a day is roughly the same as running it two hours a day for half the length of time. Essentially the wear is the same.
There are exceptions of course! Filament lightbulbs are under most stress when turning on, so longer periods of operation actually increase the MTBF. Conversely, run a machine 24 hours a day, it will likely start to die quicker.
And in this case, it's also not clear cut. The number of take-off and landings also matter, so say that Concorde can do a flight in 3 hours that others do in 6. That's twice as many landings etc for the same operating times. As these are the most stressful times for any aircraft, you gotta take that into account.
I've seen other posters using the number of passengers as a measure. Nonsence, sounds as if it's straight out of Boeings own literature, seeing as they do make the largest passenger planes, and that Concord has a small capacity. Sounds like an RIAA tatic!;-)
Their families can hire very, very, very expensive lawyers to make a corporation pay very, very, dearly for their mistake.
So? The Concorde crash was caused by parts falling off another plane on the runway, shreding the tires & sending debris into the fuel storage tanks.
The other aircraft was from another airline and another aircraft manufacturer. It could happen to any aircraft. I'd doubt a legal case would result in BA/Air France losing out.
I love that shit. Boeing has a crash almost every week, yet everyone remembers Concorde for it's one single loss. That's damn good marketing!!
Has Boeing got any alliances in the media industry?;-)
Re:National Geographic aren't exactly the good guy
on
Watching You
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I was careful to tick the "don't give my details to anyone" boxes, and I used a variant on my name and mailing address that was unique to them.
So far, the National Geographic Society has sold my personal details to 'Readers Digest', 'Doubleday Books' (a large Australian publisher/viral marketer - rough equivalent for Readers Digest here in Oz), and another third party whose name escapes me.
Some countries have laws against this, e.g. the UK. The Data Protection Act is taken very seriously.
A free society or or even a mostly free society doesn't have 1984-type problems, because this type of government is interested in protecting the freedom of individuals, not some other agenda.
And which government is that then? No "other agenda"?
Just let those outsourced projects fail (most of them do) and see those "bright minds" who came up with the idea of outsourcing getting fired without a severance package.
Are you still a student yourself? That's not my experience of the real working world. Only the peons get the chop for shoddy work.
Slashdot Mirror
Even then, their support was based on lies, which the rest of us tried to point out. What's your point, caller?
Basically, the UK and US completely ignored the democratic process, apparently all in the name of "democracy". The irony was lost on a lot of people.
Ah, but the US title was "Formula 51" because it was thought that the American public wouldn't know what the title was about.
My mistake, didn't get the point across very well. It was the Shah that the US helped to power in 1953. That government is long gone.
There is a good timeline of it all here. This is the relevant extract:
It's scary that oil was a motive back then. But, war and international politics has always been about access to resources. Anything else was only propaganda to further the attempts to get that access.
Oh my. You just made me smile bigtime. I feel as though I'm a troll who just got a bite!
Firstly, the German people DID NOT KNOW what was happening to the jews, they thought they were being deported.
Secondly, the German people believed that deportation was neccessary because the Nazis told them that they were a threat to their own safety and liberty. Sound familiar?
No, it's pointing out that the war was built on a lie, one of the oldest in the book. Read this classic quote to see where I'm coming from.
That's becoming more of a blur every year. Have you ever heard the phrase "51st State"?
Spin bitches.
UK politics are getting ripped appart as a fallout for the extreme spin we get here. The leading "spin doctors" will be gone before long.
Your latter statement is a lie. There has never been any link between Saddam and Bin Laden. The only Iraqi links Al Queda have are with the Kurds in the north of Iraq, the ones that Saddam hates, bombs and generally screws over.
But invasion is never the answer!! I'm not sure how your media is reporting current events, but at the moment soldiers are dying in Iraq every day. There have been more coalition casualties since the end of the war than there were in it. Iraqi's aiding the US are being assassinate and suicide bombed (a new thing in Iraq).
The fact is that the war was started from a lie, and has turned out to be the predicatable disaster we thought it would be.
If you invade a country, it's guaranteed someone won't like it. You will be facing guerilla warfare where the best historical precident for you would be Vietnam.
In other news, anti-US sentiment in the Middle East has risen massively. And how is that supposed to bring an end to terrorism. Oh wait, it's counter productive. LIKE WE ALL SAID BEFORE THE WAR STARTED. Sorry for shouting, but some people just don't get it.
You see, my American friends, we still have a thing called democracy here. The public were very much against this war, and our leaders followed suit. Even the UK government went ahead despite massive protests. The biggest mass protests that the UK has ever had occurred on the leadup to this war, yet they went ahead anyway.
Actually, it sounds to me like he loves America, or what it used to stand for. You know, the days when democracy was still around, and it was understood that free speach, differing opinions and even unpopular speach were essential to democracy.
Now it's all heil to the chief. Heil Bush!!
The villification of France in the leadup to this "war" (armed robbery more like) had to be one of the scariest changes in the modern US. It's like you've thrown everything the founding fathers put together all away in a wash of deliberately misdirected patriotism.
Sarcasm, love it.
Of course, I always feel compelled to point out that the US and UK were very happy to sell Saddam weapons when they knew that he was using them against Iran and the Kurds. It's only when they want the public to see how "evil" he is that we get their speil.
In other news, I hear the chocolate ration is increased to 20%. Woohooo!!
Woopie fucking do. There are worse than him out there, yet you don't see the US trying to topple them. Provided you are good to US business, your dictatorship is safe. The US will even sell you weapons and station troops to defend your barbaric regime.
Or, has the history of Saudi Arabia escaped your selective historical memory?
Historically, if the US doesn't enjoy good trade links with a Middle Eastern country (or South American), the US endevours to topple the government and replace it with a more US friendly one.
Just ask Saudi Arabia, Iran or even Saddam. All of the existing (and former in the case of Iraq) leaderships were aided to power by the US because the former governments weren't forthcoming to US business.
And there you can see the reason for the war. The US wants to switch dependance on middle east oil away from Saudi to Iraq. The only way to do it was to topple Saddam. The rest was just lies and deliberate misdirection to get the public on side.
Thanks for falling for it. You must make Hermann Goering proud. His propaganda teachings have filtered through to new generations.
(of course, Godwin must be proud of my post as well)
The same was said about the Concorde in that documentary, I remember now that you mention it.
Personally, I'd say that hours is the only measurement to use. MTBF (mean time before failure) is done this way because the lifetime of any mechanical device is always directly related to how much it is used. For example, running a machine an hour a day is roughly the same as running it two hours a day for half the length of time. Essentially the wear is the same.
There are exceptions of course! Filament lightbulbs are under most stress when turning on, so longer periods of operation actually increase the MTBF. Conversely, run a machine 24 hours a day, it will likely start to die quicker.
And in this case, it's also not clear cut. The number of take-off and landings also matter, so say that Concorde can do a flight in 3 hours that others do in 6. That's twice as many landings etc for the same operating times. As these are the most stressful times for any aircraft, you gotta take that into account.
I've seen other posters using the number of passengers as a measure. Nonsence, sounds as if it's straight out of Boeings own literature, seeing as they do make the largest passenger planes, and that Concord has a small capacity. Sounds like an RIAA tatic! ;-)
That was my first thought as well. It's possible that the folk behind this were inspired by the Animatrix.
I remember a documentary that showed the effects of this by showing the changing gap between panels in the cockpit. Interesting but scary stuff!
Was the stretch caused by drag? Or has Einstein got anything to do with it? ;-)
So? The Concorde crash was caused by parts falling off another plane on the runway, shreding the tires & sending debris into the fuel storage tanks.
The other aircraft was from another airline and another aircraft manufacturer. It could happen to any aircraft. I'd doubt a legal case would result in BA/Air France losing out.
Has Boeing got any alliances in the media industry? ;-)
So far, the National Geographic Society has sold my personal details to 'Readers Digest', 'Doubleday Books' (a large Australian publisher/viral marketer - rough equivalent for Readers Digest here in Oz), and another third party whose name escapes me.
Some countries have laws against this, e.g. the UK. The Data Protection Act is taken very seriously.
And which government is that then? No "other agenda"?
Are you still a student yourself? That's not my experience of the real working world. Only the peons get the chop for shoddy work.
In capitalist America, the rich pigs are the government!!