"How much better off would the Iraqi people have been if Saddam had built water, sewage, and power plants instead of a series [telegraph.co.uk] of palace complexes [wordpress.com], and smuggled luxury goods and weapons?"
No idea. But the study was based on the disparity in deaths under Saddam vs the number after Saddam. How great Iraq could be is debatable but it is certainly far far worse since we attacked. That study doesn't even give us the true credit we deserve since we were bombing Iraqi infrastructure long before invasion.
That's it, the 'slave-owning terrorists' were entirely concerned with the threat to their 'way of life' and not their money and power. I mean just because their wealth was comparable to a billionaire of today and they held all the positions of power in the south... nah crazy talk.
The founding fathers didn't include slavery in the constitution. Slavery wasn't mentioned at all until it was abolished... of course that amendment didn't really abolish slavery it made the citizens of the individual states that united into citizens of the federal government that was supposed to negotiate with foreign powers on behalf of the individual and independent member states.
"And I'll remind you again of the Franco-Prussian War. Leaked dispatches can spell disaster."
Don't ever confuse the excuse used to get public support for a war with the reason for the war.
People do this with the civil war here in the states.
It is true that many people fought in the civil war over the issue of slavery. But the war happened because Lincoln wanted to strengthen and centralize the federal government and because he attacked the wealth base of pretty much all the prominent figures in the south.
It stirs the hearts of the poor masses more to imply you care about justice or your states liberty than centralizing power or protecting your riches.
If there were no slavery there still would have been a civil war sooner or later it just would have been over something else. The same is true of the dispatches you refer to anything beyond posturing that happens as a result of one of these leaks.
"What good would it do the citizens of either nation to have these observations broadcast for the world to see? "
Absolutely. Using your example it is clear that the US has chosen an ambassador with no respect for the Prime Minister. Without this leak that would result in years of subtle damage to relations. With the leak there is a new Ambassador who may deal with the UK with appropriate respect. And... it might prompt the Brits to take a second critical look at their PM and if he is an idiot hopefully he won't be re-elected next term.
"best achieved with an unregulated media but, with the rise of companies such as Fox News"
You imply that Fox News is unregulated media. The US media is highly regulated. Your local newspaper might be willing to report anything but the people in a position dig up real dirt will lose all access and be blocked from every press conference if they report anything serious.
That would depend on whether the information leaked is tatical (it which case it was valid to classify it) or something else (in which case every citizen who DOESN'T take action to release it is guilty against treason. Treason is something you do to the people of your nation, not your military and/or government.
The atrocities revealed by these leaks aren't the kind of things that need to be kept secret they are the kind of things we shouldn't be doing. The US military is classifying most of this material not because it is tactically sensitive but because it is embarrassing.
Hawks aren't something you regularly encounter outside a zoo in the US so they are beside the point.
Birds in general are difficult. Most animals and especially mammals have similar types of structures in their brains usually the brains are laid out in a similar fashion and they certainly use neurons. Birds are different... they have absolutely tiny brains and a unique brain structure. They are far more intelligent than their brain size indicates.
Birds are not however, on par with cats. Alex the famous African Grey could identify a few objects such a truck even when given a truck he had never seen before thus indicating he understood truck as an abstract concept. Your average cat owner can tell you that this isn't exceptional in cat land. Though the cat obviously won't give the indication verbally or on cue. Cats train you to provide treats when they want them, they don't respond to your attempts to train them.
They also apply learned skills to new things. One of the strays in the neighborhood kept coming up to the door and climbing on it. After I opened it she would turn around and want out again. This kept repeating before I realized the cat knew that many doors opened when you push on them and was trying the same trick on my sliding door. All the strays (about 11 cats) do this when they want me to open the door now.
When we put out a cat house we only had to get one cat to go in it. We know the other cats will see and their curiosity will do the rest. This is true of most any puzzle within the capability of the cat. It is more about getting them interested than teaching them.
You don't teach a cat to use a toilet by showing it. A cat doesn't care to mimic you. Instead you move the litter box closer to the toilet and the cat figures out how to do it on its own. The first cat... the other cats will learn from the first.
So they took a link between social behavior and brain size and extrapolated the size of the animals brains. How does this make sense when we know the actual size and neuron counts of these animals? Cats actually have far more brainpower where it counts?
Cats have about 25% of the capacity of an adult human brain in terms of raw neurons in the right place. They are probably the most intelligent non-human animal you will encounter outside a zoo in the USCats are very capable of learning but inclined to doing tricks.
States can ban alcohol without any amendment and states can do the same with pot. The federal government doesn't have that authority on paper. The problem is that federal government stuck their fingers in their ears and said nah nah nah nah and the federal courts (who are supposed to be checked by the people in the form of a jury) decided not check the other branches of government.
So you see, the federal government can do anything they decide they can do regardless of the actual law because the people are no longer a check against them.
The purpose for catching them is to prevent them from hurting our citizens further not to 'punish' them. We shouldn't be expending resources on revenge and making people pay.
"So the idea that you are going to identify the "criminals" and put them in jail/execute them presumes that you will just take the hit, no matter the cost"
There is a cost to doing otherwise. In the case of 9/11 the cost has been the lives of about 1.5 million people and the freedom that was the only distinction this nation had from any other abusive regime.
We pay a higher price in American blood for slightly more convenient personal transports (aka cars) than you suggest is a reasonable price for freedom and avoiding becoming global terrorists.
Slashdot Mirror
"How much better off would the Iraqi people have been if Saddam had built water, sewage, and power plants instead of a series [telegraph.co.uk] of palace complexes [wordpress.com], and smuggled luxury goods and weapons?"
No idea. But the study was based on the disparity in deaths under Saddam vs the number after Saddam. How great Iraq could be is debatable but it is certainly far far worse since we attacked. That study doesn't even give us the true credit we deserve since we were bombing Iraqi infrastructure long before invasion.
'So, it is bias to recognize Soros is a billionaire and a leftist activist'
You can't use the term 'leftist' and retain any credibility or claim you lack bias.
That's it, the 'slave-owning terrorists' were entirely concerned with the threat to their 'way of life' and not their money and power. I mean just because their wealth was comparable to a billionaire of today and they held all the positions of power in the south... nah crazy talk.
The founding fathers didn't include slavery in the constitution. Slavery wasn't mentioned at all until it was abolished... of course that amendment didn't really abolish slavery it made the citizens of the individual states that united into citizens of the federal government that was supposed to negotiate with foreign powers on behalf of the individual and independent member states.
I've seen Swiss mechanisms and some of them do seem impossible.
The swiss failed though, their banks caved to the US and thus ended their ability to be called neutral.
"And I'll remind you again of the Franco-Prussian War. Leaked dispatches can spell disaster."
Don't ever confuse the excuse used to get public support for a war with the reason for the war.
People do this with the civil war here in the states.
It is true that many people fought in the civil war over the issue of slavery. But the war happened because Lincoln wanted to strengthen and centralize the federal government and because he attacked the wealth base of pretty much all the prominent figures in the south.
It stirs the hearts of the poor masses more to imply you care about justice or your states liberty than centralizing power or protecting your riches.
If there were no slavery there still would have been a civil war sooner or later it just would have been over something else. The same is true of the dispatches you refer to anything beyond posturing that happens as a result of one of these leaks.
"What good would it do the citizens of either nation to have these observations broadcast for the world to see? "
Absolutely. Using your example it is clear that the US has chosen an ambassador with no respect for the Prime Minister. Without this leak that would result in years of subtle damage to relations. With the leak there is a new Ambassador who may deal with the UK with appropriate respect. And... it might prompt the Brits to take a second critical look at their PM and if he is an idiot hopefully he won't be re-elected next term.
"best achieved with an unregulated media but, with the rise of companies such as Fox News"
You imply that Fox News is unregulated media. The US media is highly regulated. Your local newspaper might be willing to report anything but the people in a position dig up real dirt will lose all access and be blocked from every press conference if they report anything serious.
That would depend on whether the information leaked is tatical (it which case it was valid to classify it) or something else (in which case every citizen who DOESN'T take action to release it is guilty against treason. Treason is something you do to the people of your nation, not your military and/or government.
The atrocities revealed by these leaks aren't the kind of things that need to be kept secret they are the kind of things we shouldn't be doing. The US military is classifying most of this material not because it is tactically sensitive but because it is embarrassing.
Maybe there isn't as much dirt because those governments aren't as corrupt as western propaganda would have us believe?
Hawks aren't something you regularly encounter outside a zoo in the US so they are beside the point.
Birds in general are difficult. Most animals and especially mammals have similar types of structures in their brains usually the brains are laid out in a similar fashion and they certainly use neurons. Birds are different... they have absolutely tiny brains and a unique brain structure. They are far more intelligent than their brain size indicates.
Birds are not however, on par with cats. Alex the famous African Grey could identify a few objects such a truck even when given a truck he had never seen before thus indicating he understood truck as an abstract concept. Your average cat owner can tell you that this isn't exceptional in cat land. Though the cat obviously won't give the indication verbally or on cue. Cats train you to provide treats when they want them, they don't respond to your attempts to train them.
"Did you train the cat, or did the cats train you?"
The cat definitely trained me.
Of course when I'm not in the mood to play I don't open the door for the cats. Just like the cats don't come when I call unless they are hungry.
We aren't dogs after all.
I don't favor birds, they shit on my car, and squirrels I have no use for.
Cats are far more interesting to watch.
True. Cats do learn from other cats though.
They also apply learned skills to new things. One of the strays in the neighborhood kept coming up to the door and climbing on it. After I opened it she would turn around and want out again. This kept repeating before I realized the cat knew that many doors opened when you push on them and was trying the same trick on my sliding door. All the strays (about 11 cats) do this when they want me to open the door now.
When we put out a cat house we only had to get one cat to go in it. We know the other cats will see and their curiosity will do the rest. This is true of most any puzzle within the capability of the cat. It is more about getting them interested than teaching them.
You don't teach a cat to use a toilet by showing it. A cat doesn't care to mimic you. Instead you move the litter box closer to the toilet and the cat figures out how to do it on its own. The first cat... the other cats will learn from the first.
So they took a link between social behavior and brain size and extrapolated the size of the animals brains. How does this make sense when we know the actual size and neuron counts of these animals? Cats actually have far more brainpower where it counts?
Cats have about 25% of the capacity of an adult human brain in terms of raw neurons in the right place. They are probably the most intelligent non-human animal you will encounter outside a zoo in the USCats are very capable of learning but inclined to doing tricks.
There is nothing within your links that makes the study 'almost certainly' anything.
"Leftist billionaire"
Your bias is showing.
States can ban alcohol without any amendment and states can do the same with pot. The federal government doesn't have that authority on paper. The problem is that federal government stuck their fingers in their ears and said nah nah nah nah and the federal courts (who are supposed to be checked by the people in the form of a jury) decided not check the other branches of government.
So you see, the federal government can do anything they decide they can do regardless of the actual law because the people are no longer a check against them.
The weak link here is the police and the prosecutor. Despite the terms 'press charges' you can do no such thing.
You are misquoting, he said "you are against us" not "you are at war with us"
You can police it about as effectively as you can war against it.
The purpose for catching them is to prevent them from hurting our citizens further not to 'punish' them. We shouldn't be expending resources on revenge and making people pay.
Police does not mean city or state police. The FBI are civilian federal police. So it is correct to say the police tracked him down.
This is insightful, not funny.
"So the idea that you are going to identify the "criminals" and put them in jail/execute them presumes that you will just take the hit, no matter the cost"
There is a cost to doing otherwise. In the case of 9/11 the cost has been the lives of about 1.5 million people and the freedom that was the only distinction this nation had from any other abusive regime.
We pay a higher price in American blood for slightly more convenient personal transports (aka cars) than you suggest is a reasonable price for freedom and avoiding becoming global terrorists.