Hint: Nobody here really gives a damn about 9/11(tm) anymore. Life goes on, so why should we care?
Ok. So you don't care. I can even sympathize. But might I ask if you've been living around Washington DC/Northern VA in the past year? Heard the war-drums still thumping away? That's the thing about living in a big country.. it's hard to make statements about 'Nobody over here' or 'Everybody' and be taken seriously. It's true that there's always a lot of 'big news' going down, and one risks getting numbed. Nonetheless, the 'why should we care' often turns out to have the answer 'so that it's less likely to happen again'.
Neither through threats or transgressions.
There is evidence of a lot of things out there, but I guess it just sounds more 'patriotic' to only follow the weak leads these days. Myself, I prefer a more discriminating attitude towards the facts and fantasies..
For example:
Every other day Iraqi's fire upon US airplanes patrolling the no-fly zones
Ok. This is something that seems (at first face) to be kin to the truth.. Iraqi AA batteries have (at least once in the past couple of years) made the paper for taking shots at US jets. They haven't done a great job of hitting the vehicles, but they've made a visible objection of foreign authority over their sovereign airspace. It'd be a stronger argument if it weren't for the fact that (whether or not they have the tech) this AA fire has been most effective only in the 'visible objection' realm. Assuming it happens more regularly than it is reported in US mass media (because otherwise this is a non-point), and it _isn't_ downing patrolling jets (because we'd certainly hear about that in this day and age), the fact that it continues implies a different significance than 'we will threaten you'-- it implies 'we refuse to submit to you' (your authority over our airspace). That's a pretty important act to a country attempting to maintain itself under blockade. It's important from a domestic as well as a diplomatic perspective for a military regime's image, and in that respect is similar in a lot of ways to running up a national flag.
Hitting other points,
There is evidence Iraq funded the Al Quaieda network
Ignoring the 'I haven't seen it' counterclaim which comes to mind, and the questions of 'how' and 'when'.. especially keeping in mind the supposed blockade of Iraq, I instead look to the bigger points which lie parallel to this statement..
The second (or third, depending on how you run the vote) biggest demon that got painted by the USA in this matter has been the Taliban. The Taliban was so villainous (sayeth the media) that beyond any issues of human rights, it openly fostered 'terrorist networks'-- notably Al Qaeda. So villainous that the United States was forced to stage air assaults on a foreign power and entertain shades of kingmaking with a revolution in progress half a world away. So villainous that the United States was one of two countries (As far as I can recall (2000-2001 winter)) to have officially recognized it's sovereignty. So villainous that going into 2001, the US government paid Afghanistan for the heroin and opium which theydidn't produce (according to the figures submitted by the interested partyin terms of reduction of exportation). So villainous that it's reign was supported, up until last fall, by the notorious USA, who during the cold war (by and large) invented the heroin trade as a weapon against Soviet incursion and worked to train many of those who became this year's sensation. So what sort of support could Iraq have mustered to make our own disappear? Ignoring entirely issues of the support to 'terror' by other countries, what sort of wetnurse could Iraq have been over the past decade to the 'child' of the US and USSR's cold war.
I can't really comment on the 'This Week..' statement, as I'm unable to find any direct statements of threat referenced in the NY Times or in CNN's archives. Perhaps Uttles is referring to the statements from the Iraqi VP urging
"all the Arab masses" to "confront the material and human interests of the aggressors wherever they are found."
-Reuters 9/10/02, cited from New York Times archived article
There is evidence Saddam is researching intercontinental missiles
I'll go out on shaky ground and suggest that were there hard evidence of an ICBM program available, the National debate would be running a little differently. I don't have citations as to the unanimity (or lack there-of) in opinion held by UN Weapons Inspectors, so pitch that point if you will;(if anyone has a link to dissenting opinion, please post a followup, I know that I've seen one out there but I don't have the link) however, I suggest that the following quotation is probably closer to the current hard evidence on whether or not Iraq has nuclear warheads to use in ICBMs:
Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) says the CIA has "absolutely no evidence" that Iraq possesses or will soon possess nuclear weapons.
http://www.moveon.org/nowar/
In closing, threats aren't enough, and transgressions aren't enough.. Even to quote Kissinger (hardly a dove)
"The notion of justified pre- emption runs counter to modern international law, which sanctions the use of force in self-defense only against actual -- not potential -- threats."
(same as previous)
We need more than a 'bad feeling' to be able to claim any sort of justifiable action.
I'd say one of the distinguishing characteristics between this ceremony of memorial, and other online ceremonies I'm aware of, is that this is one which was held in a time of grief and mourning rather than a more conventionally celebratory event (such as a wedding).
Actually, there's a history of people having marriages which were also carried out online in various MMORPGs, (a few years ago? I'm not finding the source in my archives..)
But, if the criterion is online weddings that have made it to slashdot, here is a link-- Quake Wedding.
This is the first funeral I've come across though.
Best wishes to the bereaved.
Kerry
Slashdot Mirror
Hate to touch the flame bait, but
Ok. So you don't care. I can even sympathize. But might I ask if you've been living around Washington DC/Northern VA in the past year? Heard the war-drums still thumping away? That's the thing about living in a big country.. it's hard to make statements about 'Nobody over here' or 'Everybody' and be taken seriously.It's true that there's always a lot of 'big news' going down, and one risks getting numbed. Nonetheless, the 'why should we care' often turns out to have the answer 'so that it's less likely to happen again'.
Neither through threats or transgressions.
There is evidence of a lot of things out there, but I guess it just sounds more 'patriotic' to only follow the weak leads these days. Myself, I prefer a more discriminating attitude towards the facts and fantasies..
For example:
Ok. This is something that seems (at first face) to be kin to the truth.. Iraqi AA batteries have (at least once in the past couple of years) made the paper for taking shots at US jets. They haven't done a great job of hitting the vehicles, but they've made a visible objection of foreign authority over their sovereign airspace. It'd be a stronger argument if it weren't for the fact that (whether or not they have the tech) this AA fire has been most effective only in the 'visible objection' realm. Assuming it happens more regularly than it is reported in US mass media (because otherwise this is a non-point), and it _isn't_ downing patrolling jets (because we'd certainly hear about that in this day and age), the fact that it continues implies a different significance than 'we will threaten you'-- it implies 'we refuse to submit to you' (your authority over our airspace).That's a pretty important act to a country attempting to maintain itself under blockade. It's important from a domestic as well as a diplomatic perspective for a military regime's image, and in that respect is similar in a lot of ways to running up a national flag.
Hitting other points,
Ignoring the 'I haven't seen it' counterclaim which comes to mind, and the questions of 'how' and 'when'.. especially keeping in mind the supposed blockade of Iraq, I instead look to the bigger points which lie parallel to this statement..The second (or third, depending on how you run the vote) biggest demon that got painted by the USA in this matter has been the Taliban. The Taliban was so villainous (sayeth the media) that beyond any issues of human rights, it openly fostered 'terrorist networks'-- notably Al Qaeda. So villainous that the United States was forced to stage air assaults on a foreign power and entertain shades of kingmaking with a revolution in progress half a world away.
So villainous that the United States was one of two countries (As far as I can recall (2000-2001 winter)) to have officially recognized it's sovereignty. So villainous that going into 2001, the US government paid Afghanistan for the heroin and opium which theydidn't produce (according to the figures submitted by the interested partyin terms of reduction of exportation). So villainous that it's reign was supported, up until last fall, by the notorious USA, who during the cold war (by and large) invented the heroin trade as a weapon against Soviet incursion and worked to train many of those who became this year's sensation.
So what sort of support could Iraq have mustered to make our own disappear? Ignoring entirely issues of the support to 'terror' by other countries, what sort of wetnurse could Iraq have been over the past decade to the 'child' of the US and USSR's cold war.
I can't really comment on the 'This Week..' statement, as I'm unable to find any direct statements of threat referenced in the NY Times or in CNN's archives. Perhaps Uttles is referring to the statements from the Iraqi VP urging
in response to the threat of the US moving a quarter million troops or more in war.Wrapping up with the statement
I'll go out on shaky ground and suggest that were there hard evidence of an ICBM program available, the National debate would be running a little differently. I don't have citations as to the unanimity (or lack there-of) in opinion held by UN Weapons Inspectors, so pitch that point if you will;(if anyone has a link to dissenting opinion, please post a followup, I know that I've seen one out there but I don't have the link) however, I suggest that the following quotation is probably closer to the current hard evidence on whether or not Iraq has nuclear warheads to use in ICBMs:In closing, threats aren't enough, and transgressions aren't enough.. Even to quote Kissinger (hardly a dove)
We need more than a 'bad feeling' to be able to claim any sort of justifiable action.I suppose we will. Here's hoping for the bestI'd say one of the distinguishing characteristics between this ceremony of memorial, and other online ceremonies I'm aware of, is that this is one which was held in a time of grief and mourning rather than a more conventionally celebratory event (such as a wedding).
Actually, there's a history of people having marriages which were also carried out online in various MMORPGs, (a few years ago? I'm not finding the source in my archives..)
But, if the criterion is online weddings that have made it to slashdot, here is a link-- Quake Wedding.
This is the first funeral I've come across though.
Best wishes to the bereaved.
Kerry