"All procedural arguments are hypocritical, including this one." Heard that one first about the rule changes made to help McGovern get the nomination, and the older I get, the more true it is.
if you (or your family) crosses an ocean to get somewhere, you're probably way ahead of the curve in terms of wealth, connections, or education
I can't speak for Asia, but I do know that those in Latin America who are well-off generally don't want to leave for the US. This partly explains why Latin-American food in the US is so bad: those who can cook well stay in their own country because they can make plenty there.
However, I just don't see the military necessity or advantage in using them last week.
Rei pointed out that Assad has been using them all along in this war, and that it's a useful tool for dispersing fighters from an otherwise entrenched position. For example they were a powerful tool in retaking Aleppo.
Worth mentioning, I remember reading that when the Fijian chief finally ended cannibalism (mainly of conquered enemies), the warriors/citizens of the country were rather happy about it. Seems they didn't enjoy even eating their enemies.
btw, I didn't insult you enough over your bad reading comprehension. When it says explicitly, "Iraq Had Expected Some American Troops to Stay" that's a pretty clear indication that Obama had a chance to leave some troops. What exactly do you think that means?
President Obama, too, was ambivalent about retaining even a small force in Iraq. For several months, American officials told me, they were unable to answer basic questions in meetings with Iraqis—like how many troops they wanted to leave behind—because the Administration had not decided. “We got no guidance from the White House,” Jeffrey told me. “We didn’t know where the President was. Maliki kept saying, ‘I don’t know what I have to sell.’ ”
Here's a polemic on the same topic. Internal government staffers have said the same thing: Obama didn't need to leave, he could have left troops in Iraq if he had wanted to.
There is an argument to be made that he failed to make a deal to leave troops because of incompetence, but it's more likely Obama got exactly what he wanted.
You have a strong argument, enough that I admit I am convinced.
The last two paragraphs of this section suggest that at least some of the rebel groups have used chemical weapons also. I guess it's the kind of war where every side uses whatever weapons they can get their hands on.
In June, diplomats and Iraqi officials said that Mr. Obama had told Mr. Maliki that he was prepared to leave up to 10,000 soldiers to continue training and equipping the Iraqi security forces. Mr. Maliki agreed, but said he needed time to line up political allies.........
According to two people briefed on the matter, one inside the administration and one outside, the arguments of two White House officials, Thomas E. Donilon, the national security adviser, and his deputy, Denis McDonough, prevailed over those of the military.
The report also indicated, based on "evidence available concerning the nature, quality and quantity of the agents used" that the perpetrators of the Al-Ghouta attack "likely had access to the chemical weapons stockpile of the Syrian military". In none of the incidents, however, was the commission’s "evidentiary threshold" met in regards to identifying the perpetrators of the chemical attacks
That last sentence seems kind of crucial to me. Since various rebel groups have taken over most of the country, it doesn't seem unreasonable that one of them has taken over some chemical weapon depot.
I agree with you that the government scenario seems most likely. But I'd like to be sure before we go around bombing people.
Seems unlikely that the rebels could get the sarin.
How so? They already have taken over plenty of the country, including military bases. It's not unlikely that chemical weapons were being stored in those bases.
The problem is that there is never hard evidence for such things. From a philosophical point of view, you can actually proof nothing about the real world.
From a practical standpoint, there ought to be at least some evidence before you go to war. Otherwise we end up in another Iraq situation.
Your comment would have been good, and I would have fully accepted your criticism, if you had actually pointed to evidence. But you didn't, it's an evidenceless post. You might as well have saved typing and said, "I disagree." Which of course, is perfectly allowed.
Most tigers will only attack a human if they cannot physically satisfy their needs otherwise. Tigers are typically wary of humans and usually show no preference for human meat. Although humans are relatively easy prey, they are not a desired source of food.
What is the point? If you're going to get involved in a military conflict, you should have a clear objective, and get it done quickly. What we've done is allow the war to drag on with no clear objective. What a waste.
Yeahhh..... I'm sure the homosapiens compared the calories betweens species before hunting.
It needn't be a complex math problem, sometimes math is built in to evolution. That is, the specimens that didn't choose prey with the correct calorie balance didn't survive.
Slashdot Mirror
No, no I am not.
malware removed:
dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/ntfs
"All procedural arguments are hypocritical, including this one." Heard that one first about the rule changes made to help McGovern get the nomination, and the older I get, the more true it is.
I think McConnell's thinking was, "If we lose the election, we'll just confirm the other guy before we leave."
if you (or your family) crosses an ocean to get somewhere, you're probably way ahead of the curve in terms of wealth, connections, or education
I can't speak for Asia, but I do know that those in Latin America who are well-off generally don't want to leave for the US. This partly explains why Latin-American food in the US is so bad: those who can cook well stay in their own country because they can make plenty there.
However, I just don't see the military necessity or advantage in using them last week.
Rei pointed out that Assad has been using them all along in this war, and that it's a useful tool for dispersing fighters from an otherwise entrenched position. For example they were a powerful tool in retaking Aleppo.
Worth mentioning, I remember reading that when the Fijian chief finally ended cannibalism (mainly of conquered enemies), the warriors/citizens of the country were rather happy about it. Seems they didn't enjoy even eating their enemies.
btw, I didn't insult you enough over your bad reading comprehension. When it says explicitly, "Iraq Had Expected Some American Troops to Stay" that's a pretty clear indication that Obama had a chance to leave some troops. What exactly do you think that means?
You can see here for the argument I was going to make.
It's clear that Maliki wanted US troops to stay. See here, for examaple.
President Obama, too, was ambivalent about retaining even a small force in Iraq. For several months, American officials told me, they were unable to answer basic questions in meetings with Iraqis—like how many troops they wanted to leave behind—because the Administration had not decided. “We got no guidance from the White House,” Jeffrey told me. “We didn’t know where the President was. Maliki kept saying, ‘I don’t know what I have to sell.’ ”
Here's a polemic on the same topic. Internal government staffers have said the same thing: Obama didn't need to leave, he could have left troops in Iraq if he had wanted to.
There is an argument to be made that he failed to make a deal to leave troops because of incompetence, but it's more likely Obama got exactly what he wanted.
You have a strong argument, enough that I admit I am convinced.
The last two paragraphs of this section suggest that at least some of the rebel groups have used chemical weapons also. I guess it's the kind of war where every side uses whatever weapons they can get their hands on.
Obama didn't need to leave. Iraqis (and the US military, for that matter) assumed the US would stay longer, and wanted it. Obama cut and ran.
In June, diplomats and Iraqi officials said that Mr. Obama had told Mr. Maliki that he was prepared to leave up to 10,000 soldiers to continue training and equipping the Iraqi security forces. Mr. Maliki agreed, but said he needed time to line up political allies.........
According to two people briefed on the matter, one inside the administration and one outside, the arguments of two White House officials, Thomas E. Donilon, the national security adviser, and his deputy, Denis McDonough, prevailed over those of the military.
The report also indicated, based on "evidence available concerning the nature, quality and quantity of the agents used" that the perpetrators of the Al-Ghouta attack "likely had access to the chemical weapons stockpile of the Syrian military". In none of the incidents, however, was the commission’s "evidentiary threshold" met in regards to identifying the perpetrators of the chemical attacks
That last sentence seems kind of crucial to me. Since various rebel groups have taken over most of the country, it doesn't seem unreasonable that one of them has taken over some chemical weapon depot.
I agree with you that the government scenario seems most likely. But I'd like to be sure before we go around bombing people.
Seriously WTF? This is wrong in so many ways. The rebels do not have the knowledge, equipment, ingredients, or finance to make Sarin to begin with.
Rebels have taken over most of the country. If Syria had been storing chemical weapons in any of those areas, then rebels own it now.
Seems unlikely that the rebels could get the sarin.
How so? They already have taken over plenty of the country, including military bases. It's not unlikely that chemical weapons were being stored in those bases.
The problem is that there is never hard evidence for such things. From a philosophical point of view, you can actually proof nothing about the real world.
From a practical standpoint, there ought to be at least some evidence before you go to war. Otherwise we end up in another Iraq situation.
So complicated false flag stuff is OK without evidence but a suggestion that someone in politics is lying is not?
Read my post again, I said: "You might as well have saved typing and said, "I disagree." Which of course, is perfectly allowed."
That's a good link.
Your comment would have been good, and I would have fully accepted your criticism, if you had actually pointed to evidence. But you didn't, it's an evidenceless post. You might as well have saved typing and said, "I disagree." Which of course, is perfectly allowed.
Tigers will try to eat humans, even if there easier choices, these are attacks of opportunity. And tigers are not less evolved than humans.
Wikipedia seems to think otherwise. Quote:
Most tigers will only attack a human if they cannot physically satisfy their needs otherwise. Tigers are typically wary of humans and usually show no preference for human meat. Although humans are relatively easy prey, they are not a desired source of food.
Why are Tomahawk missiles so expensive? Can't the US get a bulk discount at this point?
I think the real question is whether Assad did it, or the rebels (in order to provoke a reaction from the US).
It was only a matter of time before Tump started another war in the middle east.
America's been at war there since 2014.
What is the point? If you're going to get involved in a military conflict, you should have a clear objective, and get it done quickly. What we've done is allow the war to drag on with no clear objective. What a waste.
Yeahhh..... I'm sure the homosapiens compared the calories betweens species before hunting.
It needn't be a complex math problem, sometimes math is built in to evolution. That is, the specimens that didn't choose prey with the correct calorie balance didn't survive.