The sanctions were only working if your goal was to opress the people of Iraq.
The sanctions were horribly misused in the case of Iraq. In fact, this is one of the complaints Iraq had involving the weapons inspectors, that led to the U.S asking the U.N to withdraw them.
In general, sanctions should never be maintained for more than three years - by that time, a government can adapt by taking what they need from their people, and it's the people that suffer. Sanctions should be tied to specific actions by the government, and ideally rewards should be included for compliance. Sanctions can be decreased and then increased again if necessary, but not kept constant.
This was how the Clinton administration dealt with North Korea to end its nuclear program and allow inspectors in to ensure that it was complying. In exchange for that, the U.S government promised a harmless U.S designed nuclear reactor for power (Korea has uranium deposits that would allow it to reduce its dependence on oil imports), and to provide food aid. Also there was an informal promise of non-agression.
The Clinton administration stumbled by dragging its feet on fulfilling the nuclear reactor promise, but imagine Kim Jong Il's surprise when he woke up one morning and hearing G.W Bush placing Korea off the "non agression" list and on the "Axis of Evil" list and announcing U.S intention to basically conquer the world in a State of the Union address. However you say "what the fuck?" in Korean, I'm sure he was thinking it - a crash nuclear and missile program being pretty much the only defense, it's only reasonable he would start on that. North Korea's number one demand has simply to get the current U.S administration to promise not to invade them (the mad harsh rhetoric has been mainly to just get the U.S attention - so far, they won't even talk to North Korea).
Back to Iraq - the inspectors had estimated that they were about 80% done their inspections, and nobody really believed Iraq had usable weapons of mass destruction available. Iraq complained that the sanctions were hurting the country and the people, and said it's not fair that the inspections are 80% complete, but the sanctions are still 100% in place - they should be reduced to acknowledge Iraq's compliance, otherwhise why should they bother to continue to cooperate?
Note this "compliance" is relative - by democratic standards it was like pulling teeth, but by standards of most dictatorships, it was pretty good. However, when the U.N refused to consider easing the sanctions, Iraq started cooperating with the inspectors less (they had other complaints, such as accusing one who worked for the CIA as being a spy working for the CIA - go figure), to the point where the U.S warned the U.N to withdraw the inspectors (they were not kicked out) so they could get a clear shot at some of the sites they were looking at.
So, sanctions against Iraq lasted long enough for the government to adapt, they killed thousands of innocent civilians (probably more than the Iraqi government ever did), and Iraq wasn't given any incentive to continue cooperating since it looked to them like both the inspections and sanctions were going to be continued forever no matter what they did.
Iraq is not the cruelest or most beligerant country in the world. There are three main types of dictatorship - Stalinist, ideological, and personal. Personal dictators are only in it for their own wealth and power, like Idi Ami, Manuel Noriega, or Duvalier. Ideological dictatorships want to impose a morality on a population, like the Taliban or Khmer Rouge. Stalinist dictatorships are primarily about country building, and they are very efficient at it, but tend to decay when it comes to maintaining that industrialized standard (historical note - the Baath party traces its roots to Germany's Nazi party). Iraq had a relatively high standard of living for the Middle East, before the sanctions, and relative equality - in the sense, if you supported the governmen
Ctrl-A helps - generally inverts all the text on the page. Also helps for dumb pages that have a blue background, so blue links look like gaps in the text.
As for "most readable" yet "least straining" colours, doesn't anyone remember word processors, terminal programs, and so on before the "paper" metaphore took over? With complete configurability of colours, both users and companies seemed to settle down on yellow or white on blue as the best choice. I still use a text-mode computer at home set to yellow on blue - I still think that's the best colour combination, if you don't have to worry about making the appearance of GUI junk on the screen look pretty.
Historical note - that's why the Blue Screen of Death is, in fact, blue, with white text. It simply was the universal standard colour scheme for presenting text at the time.
I think the experimental "anti-missile" laser mounted on a Boeing 747 is a chemical laser - powered by two chemicals reacting when mixed.
There are two things that make field laser weaponry problematic. One is the power, as you mentioned, but chemical reactants are a good bet. The second is dirt - if any dust or grime gets on the exit mirror, it will heat up and damage the mirror, maybe even explosively.
I'd been thinking of how to get around this for a while. I think the answer is cartriges. Two chamber cartriges, one with one of the gasses and the mirror elements, the other collapsable holding the other gas which reacts to cause the lasing emission. When fired, the cartrige is physically compressed to mix the gasses (maybe an initial stimulation would be needed - something like those disposable flash bulbs?). The external mirror would be protected by a plastic shell that would be physically cracked or popped off by the same motion that mixes the gasses for firing.
I bet you could make them cheap and reliable enough to be used like bullets. The only question is how big would you need them - they might not be small enough for hand-held guns.
That's 'cause the RFC number doesn't follow it's own standard. It should be RFC MMDLI (who can figure out what 2551 means? You need some sort of Greek math or something).
None of those reasons are significant. Why not use Pascal - it has real strings, and array bounds checking, but is still compiled and efficient? You can also write anything in it, even OS code (look at the original Macintosh).
The compelling advantage of C and C++ are their translucency - you can see down to the level below what's happening, and confidently fiddle with the pointers and bits and so on. In C++, you can access stuff under the classes. It's fun, and powerful.
The problem comes when you start to work on larger programs which draw your attention to higher level design. At some point, you're spending your effort on object interactions, and external interfaces, and all the fun fiddly bits aren't useful anymore, 'cause you've got better things to think about. At that point, things that seemed like minor inconvenience (just remember to check if a every time?).
So you forget. Or figure you'll go back later when the rest is "done" (either it's never done, or you never have time, so that the holes just hang around).
This is the advantage of using a higher level language. The entire point of higher level languages is to have the computer handle mindless repetitive stuff, because computers are very thorough at mindless repetitive stuff. A Pascal compiler will never just get bored and forget to check an array boundary. That takes things off your mind.
Everyone starts with small programs or tasks, and C and C++ are nice for those, you get lots of experience. Most programmers just forget to give them up when they're no longer the right solution, because they're so used to them, and they work so well, and maybe they don't have time to learn another language. But the more mental effort you need to spend on higher level design, the more the low level stuff language should take care of. Maybe that only means graduating to C# or Java, maybe Python or Lisp - each one abstracts different amounts of the low level details.
That really depends on where you like to focus. High level design can be every bit as interesting as low level coding, but it takes a mental transition that some people just prefer not to make. And some people do really like the fun of efficient coding (I do) and don't want to lose that.
But in the end, the program suffers if you don't make the right choice.
What could have been done differently?
on
4l-j4z333ra 0wn3d
·
· Score: 1
The "pro-war" side generally argues that war is necessary to overthrow a cruel and/or untrustoworthy leadership. Occasionally, they will also claim that it will allow a democratic government to replace the dictatorship, but this is often secondary (though I think it's the primary in the Bush administration). The point is that there is a problem, and war is the solution. The argument usually ends with "what was the alternative?".
I believe the argument starts with a false premise, namely that war can solve the problem to begin with. It's an appealing idea because people don't like complicated problems, and the idea that you can just step in to "solve" it in one swoop simplifies things. Unfortunately, the situation is far too complicated for that - Iraq currently resembles the former Ygoslavia more than, say, post WW II Japan.
Any solution will be messy, long, and complicated. Afghanistan has not been solved - it is now a loose group of warlords who still have skirmishes. The difference is that now girls can go to school and travel is more dangerous because there are more bandits who will rob or kill. The only thing that war did was start the long complicated negotiation process (in which the U.S isn't interested in participating).
Iraq won't be any better. It consists of at least three main ethnic groups who hate each other (in Yugoslavia, they didn't hate each other 'till the war started), and even more sub-groups (after the no-fly zones were established, the Kurds were free to start fighting each other - they finally reached a peace of sorts a few years ago, but there are still a number of groups who have different goals for Kurdistan).
The totalitarian authority was the only thing keeping open civil war from tearing the country apart. Some expect the Shiite majority to start "ethnically cleansing" the south as soon as they're certain the Baath officials are powerless and the invading army has turned its back. Then you will see U.S and U.K soldiers faced with the problem of fighting against and killing the very people they claimed they were liberating.
Now, for the solutions.
The sanctions were not the answer. They can be effective politically only for a few years, after which the authorities take what they need from the people, and the civilians suffer. First step would be to lift the non-military trade embargo. But not all at once.
The lifting of sanctions should be tied to very specific actions of the Iraqi government. Actually, this is one of the things that cheesed off Iraq - the weapons inspectors claimed they were about 80% finished with the inspectors when they were pulled out, yet 100% of the sanctions were left in place. Lifitng of sanctions should have been tied to specific inspection and human rights reform goals.
Although Hussein had delusions of power and goals of conquest, he showed quite clearly that he learns from his mistakes. After Iran, he learned not to attack a bigger country, so he chose Kuwait next. After Kuwait, he quickly learned that attacking other countries is frowned upon. Knowing that, he could have been contained indefinitely, so he no longer posed a real military threat to other countries, as long as basic weapons inspections were maintained (as with the U.S and U.S.S.R).
The next problem was the Iraqi people. There are and were a number of countries in the same situation. Generally, Stalinist countries that have successfully reverted to democracy have done so after political stability was acheived, and a reasonable standard of living was introduced (Stalinist countries tend to reach that point quickly, but maintaining it doesn't work too well long term). At that point, the country can even be partitioned elong ethnic lines peacefully (e.g. U.S.S.R or Czecheslovakia).
Iraq could have gone several ways, left alone. Many communist countries have moved on to elections and democracy, with varying success. Others, like China and Cuba, have maintained political communism, but adopted a capitalist economic system. Iraq
In December 1998, Unscom pulled out of Iraq amid complaints of obstruction by Iraq. Meanwhile, Baghdad claimed that the body was little more than a front for US spies (with some justification; the presence of CIA agents was later confirmed by the US, UN and former inspectors). It left ahead of Operation Desert Fox, 70 hours of US-British airstrikes designed to punish Iraq for failing to cooperate with the inspectors.
Re:And it all could have been avoided...
on
Updates on War in Iraq
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
"His missiles are limited (by UN mandate) to have a range of no more than 150km."
The Al Samoud missiles have a range of 160km, I believe, but that is without warheads. Iraq argues that with the warheads, they fall within the limit, but agreed to destroy them anyway.
Depending on how you look at it, either Congress has given up that right to the Administration, or the Administration has just taken it without a fight (after all, the miliary reports to the President, not Congress).
In either case, in fact, the President has declared war - the only niggly bit is using the actual word, which he constitutionally can't do. Actions speak louder than words, however.
The Nuremberg trials in 1945 established the international law that wars of agression against other countries, even under the pretext of "pre-emptive strike for defensive purposes" as the Nazis claimed when they invaded Poland and Czecheslovakia, are not legal or justified.
Last night George W Bush said the Nazis were right, and international law is wrong.
Peanuts was less about humour than about situation. How funny can the "football gag" be the tenth time around? What I enjoyed about it was more about what it meant that Charlie Brown would know full well what was going to happen, but still manage to convince himself that someday it might be different, and if he didn't give it a chance today, it might never happen.
It never did, and Lucy always put his optimism in perspective with some quip. It might have been funny, but if you chose to think about it further, it made you reflect a bit on your own situation. You go to work/school/look for work every day, even if it doesn't seem like it'll make a difference, because of that same sort of optimism, right?
Not everyone gets the same thing out of Peanuts, or if they do, it's not always consciously. Sometimes it's kind of like those "Chicken Soup for the Simple Minded Optimist" books - kind of gives you a good feeling even if it doesn't really do much good.
Of course, you can always spend more effort and get as self-reflective about the Peanuts characters as you want. You can see the same things in Calvin and Hobbes and occasionally in a different way in Bloom County (but not Far Side - that was just plain wacky fun). But it wasn't fundamentally about being funny, so that's the wrong way to judge it.
"after WWII, Europeans didn't really care about anybody proving superiority to anyone anymore, they just wanted to live in peace and prosperity"
behind the u.s shield.
And Canada's.
Don't laugh, Canada had a potent military when it counted. In World War II, about 10% of Canada's population - yes, that's 1/10 of everyone living in the country - were in the military. Canadian military might was respected around the world (but gradually the military was cut back because, frankly, who would want to attack Canada anyway? It's a country without enemies).
There's also the U.K. While the U.S spends about 5% of its GDP on the military, the U.K is close at a bit more than 4%. During the first Gulf War, Britain sent 50,000 troops, compared to 250,000 U.S troops - since it's about 1/5 the population of the U.S, that works out to the same commitment per capita. Britain has always been prepared to defend Europe during the Cold War.
And don't discount the European armies that made up NATO were quite heavily armed when an actual threat existed.
The U.S might have been the largest Western military power, but it was not the only one. The difference is, once the military threat disappeared, most countries sensibly spent less on defense (sometimes to extremes - see Canada and helicoptors). The U.S, by contrast, seems to have done its best to make more enemies...
BTW, military force is useless against terrorism - terrorism is designed to bypass military confrontation, and succeeds. Israel has seen more military deployments in the past year than some countries have in the past century, and still...
That is the start; a false premise. He doesn't want war. He is trying to end Saddam Hussein's ongoing war and aggression.
War against whom? Since the Gulf War, Iraq hasn't had the resources to properly equip its military, let alone wage war.
Saddam is attacking Israel through proxy PLO armies.
Iraq has funded Palestinian organisations, but not explicitly terrorist ones. Many of those organisations have both a political or chairity wing, and a militant wing. Funding is shuffled around internally. What this means is that the question of Iraqi funding is unclear - you can argue it either way.
However, that is not war. Remember, much of the funding for the IRA came from the U.S.A - that does not mean America was at war with England. In addition, PLO and other organisations are also funded by Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and most other Arab countries which the U.S calls "allies".
He is engaging shooting at peacekeepers in the no fly zones.
The military patrols of the no-fly zones were never authorized by the U.N. - the U.N had passed a resolution forbidding Iraqi agression against the Kurds, but did not authorise force. Details get murky about what this actually means, but most countries have accepted the U.S/U.K interpretation of patrolled no-fly zones.
However, the partols are not "peacekeeping" activities. "Peacekeeping" means stopping military activity - that is, keeping peace. Attacks on air defense installations are military activity - not peacekeeping. Most countries don't deny Iraq has the right to try.
If Iraq ever brought down an aircraft, things would get complicated. Luckily, it's academic at the moment.
He is killing tens of thousands of Iraqis each year.
Definitely a bad thing, but again, not "war". A country killing one's own citizens (e.g. at Kent State?) is immoral, but an "internal matter". I'd certainly like to stop it, but in a way that doesn't result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands more (if killing tens of thousands is bad for Iraq, why would it not be bad for the U.S and U.K?).
"If inspectors find nothing, it shows Iraq is hiding evidence and is violating U.N resolutions, so must be disarmed by force (war). The absurdity is obvious"
Out of date!
Rhetorical. The point was, the demands contradicted themselves.
"This is because possession of such weapons is irrelevant anyway."
Very relevant for an aggressive imperialist power like Iraq.
Formerly agressive - Iraq hasn't been militarily agressive against anyone for a decade.
I explained why its irrelevant - if they're never used, it makes no difference. The important thing is to ensure they are never used. This is why most countries want to possess them - for deterrence, not for use.
[George W Bush] Guy's pretty smart, actually.
In his way, I suppose, but there's a lot of people who think otherwise. He is fairly inarticulate when he departs from a prepared script, and doesn't do much more than double-talk when challenged or asked an unexpected question. He doesn't give much public indication of having a lot of deep thought (I'm a bit less charitable - I think he sounds like a football coach when he speaks on his own, and about as smart).
From what I've read, it's mostly Powell who came up with the U.N strategy.
That he has done "Badly" in some places is that some places cannot handle the truth.
That's a pretty empty assertion. "Handle the truth" means...? Assuming it is the truth - his more recent speech seems to indicate it wasn't.
A good place to start is probably the book "The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush" by David Frum. I haven't read it, but he also writes a column for Canada's National Post newspaper, which published exerpts that I've read.
Three CPU design would be interesting indeed. I wonder if all the CPU's work together in the same Ram? There are enough unused cycles in the 6809 instruction processing that two could use shared memory very well, but THREE?
I believe they all access the same RAM - there would be four "slots", three for the CPUs and one for video. They would share the memory which would allow one CPU to emulate the CoCO 3 hardware by simply polling the GIME etc. memory mapped registers.
I want one too. But since you'd have to pay for the design, manufacture, and software development, I don't think I could afford it.
It seems that nobody can seem to figure out why GW Bush wants war in Iraq. There actually is a very simple reason I'll get to later. But the main problem is that the U.S government has put forth an absurd position which the administration continues to advocate.
The official position is, of course, "weapons of mass destruction". The argument is, if inspectors find such weapons, it shows Iraq has violated U.N resolutions and must be disarmed by force (war). If inspectors find nothing, it shows Iraq is hiding evidence and is violating U.N resolutions, so must be disarmed by force (war). The absurdity is obvious - I'd like to see someone challenge Bush or Cheney to explain their self-contradiction here.
There is more - the mere fact that the U.S has allied itself with Pakistan, which boasts of its weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear. And other countries which possess them, like Israel. This is because possession of such weapons is irrelevant anyway. There is no guarantee that whatever administration takes over in Iraq won't develop its own chemical or biological weapons, if current American allies are allowed to (after all, Iraq was such an American ally). The issue is trusting the country not to use them.
Is it possible to convince Iraq not to use chemical or biological weapons? Obviously yes - the threat of equal or greater retaliation convinced Iraq not to use them during the last Gulf War, when it both posessed them and had them ready to deploy. The policy of containment worked against the Soviet Union until it fell apart, it can easily work against a powerless Iraq indefinitely.
So the arguments are both logically flawed, and just plain too dumb to believe. But the American administration is not that dumb. Nobody is dumb enough to believe that without being diagnosed as mentally retarded. It is, however, an international lever that I think they hoped to use to get U.N approval (apparently Powell thinks this is important and was the one advocating it). Unfortunately for them, there are others who are every bit as skillful manipulating international opinion as they are, so this hasn't gone as well as they had boped.
Bush isn't really smart enough to have planned this all out on his own, and it's probably against his nature - he likes being straightforward in what he says. Which probably explains why he's done so badly at trying to mislead the world.
Given that, speculation abounds as to what the real reason is. The number one choice is oil, but that doesn't make sense either for a variety of reasons. The easiest way to get the oil would be to lift the embargo, then just buy it - prices are set internationally, so it doesn't really matter if American, French, or Russian companies control production in Iraq.
There's more, but the oil argument is pretty flimsy.
Other arguments are a personal vendetta (finish Daddy's unfinished business), Israeli conspiracy (popular among the the Arabs), or simply that Saddam Hussein is can't be bought and is disobedient to the American masters of the world.
This last one is probably closer to the truth. Most countries in the world can be persuaded by diplomacy (Britain), or by simple bribery (Turkey), to do what America wants. Especially the small, insignificant countries like those in the Middle East. Iraq and Iran are alone in the area in having actual principles, and refusing to be bought (hence being included in the axis of evil and all that).
But this still ignores important things, such as Cuba. It has been a festering thorn in the American side since the revolution. Incidentally, it also has a very advanced pharmaceutical industry - so advanced that the U.S trade embargo was pardoned for one of the vaccines (for a type of hepatitis, I think) developed in Cuba but not available in the U.S. Ths means that Cuba has a capacity for chemical and biological weapons exceeding Iraq, plus is disobedient, and on America's doorstep.
But there's no cry for war with Cuba. Or other countries that vex U.S demands.
There is an alternative possibility. One that is not only unlikely, but outrageously unbelievable, but at the same time has a moral strength to it that would appeal to someone like Bush.
As I said, it's unbelievable, so feel free to not believe it. But consider it.
In a recent speech, Bush detailed a rosy future for post-war Iraq, where democracy and human rights flourish, and which serves as an inspiration for democracy throughout the Middle East. What if... what if he believes that?
David Frum, a former speechwriter for Bush (the one who's credited with the "Axis of Evil" phrase, but actually wrote "Axis of Hate") explains it in a book recently published. It is the American (Republican) point of view that America has served as a force of good in the world, and a bringer of democracy. As Bush remarked in his speech, they believe that America was responsible for making Germany and Japan democratic after the WW II, and further strengthened it with the Martial Plan for rebuilding Europe, as well as the other countries it had liberated, including Korea (before the war) and the Philippines among others. And later, their intervention stabilized Central America and brought human rights and elected governments to the region.
Please stop laughing. The facts don't matter, it's what they believe.
According to Frum, it is the sincere belief that American influence "fixed" Central America. And the Republican administration wants to now turn its attention to the formerly neglected Middle East and reform those countries there.
In this scenario. Iraq is the single biggest obstacle - it is the most repressive, most totalitarian, and most beligerant country in the region. In order for any progress to be made, it must be dealt with, and that means "fixing" it first. War is the only option, given it's leadership.
You know, this isn't a new policy. You can be sure that America (under presidents such as Reagan and Nixon) would have done the same thing against the Soviet Union, if they had the ability - you can see it in Reagan's "bombing begins in five minutes" quip when he didn't know a microphone was turned on. And I think they really believe it would have worked - after all, there's the refrain "look at Japan and Germany, and remember the Marshal Plan" (the Marshal Plan is held in almost religious reverence by U.S foreign policy advocates, overshadowing all other "missteps").
It also explians their position on North Korea, doesn't it?
Why wouldn't Bush and company have said this in the first place? Probably two reasons. First, there is the lack of universal support for it - a nice way of saying that they've got a reputation for shitting on the faces of countries they've tried to help, and nobody trusts them. The first response would have pointed out Chile (ask them what "September 11" means to them), Vietnam, Cambodia, Nicaragua, and more, and it would have turned into a shouting match of who's more moral than whom.
At least nobody's going to say "but I think Iraq should have weapons of mass destruction!".
The second is that they would lose immediate support from almost every country in the Middle East - in that area, only Turkey and Israel are democratic (and almost the Palistinian territories, if Israel would ever allow an election). All the others have a vested interest in keeping things as they are. Nobody would allow the U.S to use their territory, or cooperate in other ways, even in exchange for massive foreign aid - they would be paying for their own eventual overthrow.
Already, there has been significant negative reaction to what Bush has said about his post-Iraq vision.
Of course, Iraq is not the end solution, and the administration realizes this. It would be a decades long project to bring democracy to the Middle East. And, I fear, they are both ignorant and short sighted about a number of things.
A war and regeime change will probably create more chaos than they imagine, and may cause the disintegration of everything they expect in the area. Bad. They also have a poor track record of success when interfering with other countries, often making them worse than when they started. More bad. And they're counting on future adminstrations to carry on the policy that they are starting. There is no guarantee, or even likelihood, of that.
I think war with Iraq is going to be the first step into a giant swamp of muddy problems that will bit their asses like, you know, swamp alligators or something. That is the real danger, and that is also far more frightening than even the worse speculations involving oil or chemical weapons. The United States may be starting what amounts to a low level war with the entire region for the next fourty years. And associated terrorsm. And the cost!
Slashdot Mirror
Lest any Canadians get smug, Canada ranked third last - better than those Yanks, but...
Yes - the actual size difference (including Alaska) is that Canada is about 6% bigger.
The sanctions were horribly misused in the case of Iraq. In fact, this is one of the complaints Iraq had involving the weapons inspectors, that led to the U.S asking the U.N to withdraw them.
In general, sanctions should never be maintained for more than three years - by that time, a government can adapt by taking what they need from their people, and it's the people that suffer. Sanctions should be tied to specific actions by the government, and ideally rewards should be included for compliance. Sanctions can be decreased and then increased again if necessary, but not kept constant.
This was how the Clinton administration dealt with North Korea to end its nuclear program and allow inspectors in to ensure that it was complying. In exchange for that, the U.S government promised a harmless U.S designed nuclear reactor for power (Korea has uranium deposits that would allow it to reduce its dependence on oil imports), and to provide food aid. Also there was an informal promise of non-agression.
The Clinton administration stumbled by dragging its feet on fulfilling the nuclear reactor promise, but imagine Kim Jong Il's surprise when he woke up one morning and hearing G.W Bush placing Korea off the "non agression" list and on the "Axis of Evil" list and announcing U.S intention to basically conquer the world in a State of the Union address. However you say "what the fuck?" in Korean, I'm sure he was thinking it - a crash nuclear and missile program being pretty much the only defense, it's only reasonable he would start on that. North Korea's number one demand has simply to get the current U.S administration to promise not to invade them (the mad harsh rhetoric has been mainly to just get the U.S attention - so far, they won't even talk to North Korea).
Back to Iraq - the inspectors had estimated that they were about 80% done their inspections, and nobody really believed Iraq had usable weapons of mass destruction available. Iraq complained that the sanctions were hurting the country and the people, and said it's not fair that the inspections are 80% complete, but the sanctions are still 100% in place - they should be reduced to acknowledge Iraq's compliance, otherwhise why should they bother to continue to cooperate?
Note this "compliance" is relative - by democratic standards it was like pulling teeth, but by standards of most dictatorships, it was pretty good. However, when the U.N refused to consider easing the sanctions, Iraq started cooperating with the inspectors less (they had other complaints, such as accusing one who worked for the CIA as being a spy working for the CIA - go figure), to the point where the U.S warned the U.N to withdraw the inspectors (they were not kicked out) so they could get a clear shot at some of the sites they were looking at.
So, sanctions against Iraq lasted long enough for the government to adapt, they killed thousands of innocent civilians (probably more than the Iraqi government ever did), and Iraq wasn't given any incentive to continue cooperating since it looked to them like both the inspections and sanctions were going to be continued forever no matter what they did.
Iraq is not the cruelest or most beligerant country in the world. There are three main types of dictatorship - Stalinist, ideological, and personal. Personal dictators are only in it for their own wealth and power, like Idi Ami, Manuel Noriega, or Duvalier. Ideological dictatorships want to impose a morality on a population, like the Taliban or Khmer Rouge. Stalinist dictatorships are primarily about country building, and they are very efficient at it, but tend to decay when it comes to maintaining that industrialized standard (historical note - the Baath party traces its roots to Germany's Nazi party). Iraq had a relatively high standard of living for the Middle East, before the sanctions, and relative equality - in the sense, if you supported the governmen
In addition, the logo you see on all Subaru cars is a set of stars - a stylized version of the constellation itself.
As for "most readable" yet "least straining" colours, doesn't anyone remember word processors, terminal programs, and so on before the "paper" metaphore took over? With complete configurability of colours, both users and companies seemed to settle down on yellow or white on blue as the best choice. I still use a text-mode computer at home set to yellow on blue - I still think that's the best colour combination, if you don't have to worry about making the appearance of GUI junk on the screen look pretty.
Historical note - that's why the Blue Screen of Death is, in fact, blue, with white text. It simply was the universal standard colour scheme for presenting text at the time.
There are two things that make field laser weaponry problematic. One is the power, as you mentioned, but chemical reactants are a good bet. The second is dirt - if any dust or grime gets on the exit mirror, it will heat up and damage the mirror, maybe even explosively.
I'd been thinking of how to get around this for a while. I think the answer is cartriges. Two chamber cartriges, one with one of the gasses and the mirror elements, the other collapsable holding the other gas which reacts to cause the lasing emission. When fired, the cartrige is physically compressed to mix the gasses (maybe an initial stimulation would be needed - something like those disposable flash bulbs?). The external mirror would be protected by a plastic shell that would be physically cracked or popped off by the same motion that mixes the gasses for firing.
I bet you could make them cheap and reliable enough to be used like bullets. The only question is how big would you need them - they might not be small enough for hand-held guns.
That's 'cause the RFC number doesn't follow it's own standard. It should be RFC MMDLI (who can figure out what 2551 means? You need some sort of Greek math or something).
The compelling advantage of C and C++ are their translucency - you can see down to the level below what's happening, and confidently fiddle with the pointers and bits and so on. In C++, you can access stuff under the classes. It's fun, and powerful.
The problem comes when you start to work on larger programs which draw your attention to higher level design. At some point, you're spending your effort on object interactions, and external interfaces, and all the fun fiddly bits aren't useful anymore, 'cause you've got better things to think about. At that point, things that seemed like minor inconvenience (just remember to check if a every time?).
So you forget. Or figure you'll go back later when the rest is "done" (either it's never done, or you never have time, so that the holes just hang around).
This is the advantage of using a higher level language. The entire point of higher level languages is to have the computer handle mindless repetitive stuff, because computers are very thorough at mindless repetitive stuff. A Pascal compiler will never just get bored and forget to check an array boundary. That takes things off your mind.
Everyone starts with small programs or tasks, and C and C++ are nice for those, you get lots of experience. Most programmers just forget to give them up when they're no longer the right solution, because they're so used to them, and they work so well, and maybe they don't have time to learn another language. But the more mental effort you need to spend on higher level design, the more the low level stuff language should take care of. Maybe that only means graduating to C# or Java, maybe Python or Lisp - each one abstracts different amounts of the low level details.
That really depends on where you like to focus. High level design can be every bit as interesting as low level coding, but it takes a mental transition that some people just prefer not to make. And some people do really like the fun of efficient coding (I do) and don't want to lose that.
But in the end, the program suffers if you don't make the right choice.
I believe the argument starts with a false premise, namely that war can solve the problem to begin with. It's an appealing idea because people don't like complicated problems, and the idea that you can just step in to "solve" it in one swoop simplifies things. Unfortunately, the situation is far too complicated for that - Iraq currently resembles the former Ygoslavia more than, say, post WW II Japan.
Any solution will be messy, long, and complicated. Afghanistan has not been solved - it is now a loose group of warlords who still have skirmishes. The difference is that now girls can go to school and travel is more dangerous because there are more bandits who will rob or kill. The only thing that war did was start the long complicated negotiation process (in which the U.S isn't interested in participating).
Iraq won't be any better. It consists of at least three main ethnic groups who hate each other (in Yugoslavia, they didn't hate each other 'till the war started), and even more sub-groups (after the no-fly zones were established, the Kurds were free to start fighting each other - they finally reached a peace of sorts a few years ago, but there are still a number of groups who have different goals for Kurdistan).
The totalitarian authority was the only thing keeping open civil war from tearing the country apart. Some expect the Shiite majority to start "ethnically cleansing" the south as soon as they're certain the Baath officials are powerless and the invading army has turned its back. Then you will see U.S and U.K soldiers faced with the problem of fighting against and killing the very people they claimed they were liberating.
Now, for the solutions.
The sanctions were not the answer. They can be effective politically only for a few years, after which the authorities take what they need from the people, and the civilians suffer. First step would be to lift the non-military trade embargo. But not all at once.
The lifting of sanctions should be tied to very specific actions of the Iraqi government. Actually, this is one of the things that cheesed off Iraq - the weapons inspectors claimed they were about 80% finished with the inspectors when they were pulled out, yet 100% of the sanctions were left in place. Lifitng of sanctions should have been tied to specific inspection and human rights reform goals.
Although Hussein had delusions of power and goals of conquest, he showed quite clearly that he learns from his mistakes. After Iran, he learned not to attack a bigger country, so he chose Kuwait next. After Kuwait, he quickly learned that attacking other countries is frowned upon. Knowing that, he could have been contained indefinitely, so he no longer posed a real military threat to other countries, as long as basic weapons inspections were maintained (as with the U.S and U.S.S.R).
The next problem was the Iraqi people. There are and were a number of countries in the same situation. Generally, Stalinist countries that have successfully reverted to democracy have done so after political stability was acheived, and a reasonable standard of living was introduced (Stalinist countries tend to reach that point quickly, but maintaining it doesn't work too well long term). At that point, the country can even be partitioned elong ethnic lines peacefully (e.g. U.S.S.R or Czecheslovakia).
Iraq could have gone several ways, left alone. Many communist countries have moved on to elections and democracy, with varying success. Others, like China and Cuba, have maintained political communism, but adopted a capitalist economic system. Iraq
UN weapon inspections:
The Al Samoud missiles have a range of 160km, I believe, but that is without warheads. Iraq argues that with the warheads, they fall within the limit, but agreed to destroy them anyway.
You have words from 30 countries (a few less since it actually started). You have troops from 3. That's not "support".
In either case, in fact, the President has declared war - the only niggly bit is using the actual word, which he constitutionally can't do. Actions speak louder than words, however.
Last night George W Bush said the Nazis were right, and international law is wrong.
http://www.gulufuture.com/news/kate_adie030310.htm
Motto: "If it's not U.S government approved American News, you don't need to hear it".
It never did, and Lucy always put his optimism in perspective with some quip. It might have been funny, but if you chose to think about it further, it made you reflect a bit on your own situation. You go to work/school/look for work every day, even if it doesn't seem like it'll make a difference, because of that same sort of optimism, right?
Not everyone gets the same thing out of Peanuts, or if they do, it's not always consciously. Sometimes it's kind of like those "Chicken Soup for the Simple Minded Optimist" books - kind of gives you a good feeling even if it doesn't really do much good.
Of course, you can always spend more effort and get as self-reflective about the Peanuts characters as you want. You can see the same things in Calvin and Hobbes and occasionally in a different way in Bloom County (but not Far Side - that was just plain wacky fun). But it wasn't fundamentally about being funny, so that's the wrong way to judge it.
I posted about the real reasons earlier. I still think it's correct.
If you know anything about topology, you'd know that coffee cups are doughnuts.
- About half of the members now have significant positions in the current U.S administration (there's that Rumsfeld guy for one...).
- They have explicitly advocated conquering Iraq since at least 1996 (possibly earlier), during the Clinton adminstration.
Take a look - the open letters give some of the real reasons for the Iraq war (note that merely disarming Iraq is not one of the options).behind the u.s shield.
And Canada's.
Don't laugh, Canada had a potent military when it counted. In World War II, about 10% of Canada's population - yes, that's 1/10 of everyone living in the country - were in the military. Canadian military might was respected around the world (but gradually the military was cut back because, frankly, who would want to attack Canada anyway? It's a country without enemies).
There's also the U.K. While the U.S spends about 5% of its GDP on the military, the U.K is close at a bit more than 4%. During the first Gulf War, Britain sent 50,000 troops, compared to 250,000 U.S troops - since it's about 1/5 the population of the U.S, that works out to the same commitment per capita. Britain has always been prepared to defend Europe during the Cold War.
And don't discount the European armies that made up NATO were quite heavily armed when an actual threat existed.
The U.S might have been the largest Western military power, but it was not the only one. The difference is, once the military threat disappeared, most countries sensibly spent less on defense (sometimes to extremes - see Canada and helicoptors). The U.S, by contrast, seems to have done its best to make more enemies...
BTW, military force is useless against terrorism - terrorism is designed to bypass military confrontation, and succeeds. Israel has seen more military deployments in the past year than some countries have in the past century, and still...
However, that is not war. Remember, much of the funding for the IRA came from the U.S.A - that does not mean America was at war with England. In addition, PLO and other organisations are also funded by Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and most other Arab countries which the U.S calls "allies".
The military patrols of the no-fly zones were never authorized by the U.N. - the U.N had passed a resolution forbidding Iraqi agression against the Kurds, but did not authorise force. Details get murky about what this actually means, but most countries have accepted the U.S/U.K interpretation of patrolled no-fly zones.However, the partols are not "peacekeeping" activities. "Peacekeeping" means stopping military activity - that is, keeping peace. Attacks on air defense installations are military activity - not peacekeeping. Most countries don't deny Iraq has the right to try.
If Iraq ever brought down an aircraft, things would get complicated. Luckily, it's academic at the moment.
Definitely a bad thing, but again, not "war". A country killing one's own citizens (e.g. at Kent State?) is immoral, but an "internal matter". I'd certainly like to stop it, but in a way that doesn't result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands more (if killing tens of thousands is bad for Iraq, why would it not be bad for the U.S and U.K?). Rhetorical. The point was, the demands contradicted themselves. Formerly agressive - Iraq hasn't been militarily agressive against anyone for a decade.I explained why its irrelevant - if they're never used, it makes no difference. The important thing is to ensure they are never used. This is why most countries want to possess them - for deterrence, not for use.
In his way, I suppose, but there's a lot of people who think otherwise. He is fairly inarticulate when he departs from a prepared script, and doesn't do much more than double-talk when challenged or asked an unexpected question. He doesn't give much public indication of having a lot of deep thought (I'm a bit less charitable - I think he sounds like a football coach when he speaks on his own, and about as smart).From what I've read, it's mostly Powell who came up with the U.N strategy.
That's a pretty empty assertion. "Handle the truth" means...? Assuming it is the truth - his more recent speech seems to indicate it wasn't.A good place to start is probably the book "The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush" by David Frum. I haven't read it, but he also writes a column for Canada's National Post newspaper, which published exerpts that I've read.
I want one too. But since you'd have to pay for the design, manufacture, and software development, I don't think I could afford it.
The official position is, of course, "weapons of mass destruction". The argument is, if inspectors find such weapons, it shows Iraq has violated U.N resolutions and must be disarmed by force (war). If inspectors find nothing, it shows Iraq is hiding evidence and is violating U.N resolutions, so must be disarmed by force (war). The absurdity is obvious - I'd like to see someone challenge Bush or Cheney to explain their self-contradiction here.
There is more - the mere fact that the U.S has allied itself with Pakistan, which boasts of its weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear. And other countries which possess them, like Israel. This is because possession of such weapons is irrelevant anyway. There is no guarantee that whatever administration takes over in Iraq won't develop its own chemical or biological weapons, if current American allies are allowed to (after all, Iraq was such an American ally). The issue is trusting the country not to use them.
Is it possible to convince Iraq not to use chemical or biological weapons? Obviously yes - the threat of equal or greater retaliation convinced Iraq not to use them during the last Gulf War, when it both posessed them and had them ready to deploy. The policy of containment worked against the Soviet Union until it fell apart, it can easily work against a powerless Iraq indefinitely.
So the arguments are both logically flawed, and just plain too dumb to believe. But the American administration is not that dumb. Nobody is dumb enough to believe that without being diagnosed as mentally retarded. It is, however, an international lever that I think they hoped to use to get U.N approval (apparently Powell thinks this is important and was the one advocating it). Unfortunately for them, there are others who are every bit as skillful manipulating international opinion as they are, so this hasn't gone as well as they had boped.
Bush isn't really smart enough to have planned this all out on his own, and it's probably against his nature - he likes being straightforward in what he says. Which probably explains why he's done so badly at trying to mislead the world.
Given that, speculation abounds as to what the real reason is. The number one choice is oil, but that doesn't make sense either for a variety of reasons. The easiest way to get the oil would be to lift the embargo, then just buy it - prices are set internationally, so it doesn't really matter if American, French, or Russian companies control production in Iraq.
There's more, but the oil argument is pretty flimsy.
Other arguments are a personal vendetta (finish Daddy's unfinished business), Israeli conspiracy (popular among the the Arabs), or simply that Saddam Hussein is can't be bought and is disobedient to the American masters of the world.
This last one is probably closer to the truth. Most countries in the world can be persuaded by diplomacy (Britain), or by simple bribery (Turkey), to do what America wants. Especially the small, insignificant countries like those in the Middle East. Iraq and Iran are alone in the area in having actual principles, and refusing to be bought (hence being included in the axis of evil and all that).
But this still ignores important things, such as Cuba. It has been a festering thorn in the American side since the revolution. Incidentally, it also has a very advanced pharmaceutical industry - so advanced that the U.S trade embargo was pardoned for one of the vaccines (for a type of hepatitis, I think) developed in Cuba but not available in the U.S. Ths means that Cuba has a capacity for chemical and biological weapons exceeding Iraq, plus is disobedient, and on America's doorstep.
But there's no cry for war with Cuba. Or other countries that vex U.S demands.
There is an alternative possibility. One that is not only unlikely, but outrageously unbelievable, but at the same time has a moral strength to it that would appeal to someone like Bush.
As I said, it's unbelievable, so feel free to not believe it. But consider it.
In a recent speech, Bush detailed a rosy future for post-war Iraq, where democracy and human rights flourish, and which serves as an inspiration for democracy throughout the Middle East. What if... what if he believes that?
David Frum, a former speechwriter for Bush (the one who's credited with the "Axis of Evil" phrase, but actually wrote "Axis of Hate") explains it in a book recently published. It is the American (Republican) point of view that America has served as a force of good in the world, and a bringer of democracy. As Bush remarked in his speech, they believe that America was responsible for making Germany and Japan democratic after the WW II, and further strengthened it with the Martial Plan for rebuilding Europe, as well as the other countries it had liberated, including Korea (before the war) and the Philippines among others. And later, their intervention stabilized Central America and brought human rights and elected governments to the region.
Please stop laughing. The facts don't matter, it's what they believe.
According to Frum, it is the sincere belief that American influence "fixed" Central America. And the Republican administration wants to now turn its attention to the formerly neglected Middle East and reform those countries there.
In this scenario. Iraq is the single biggest obstacle - it is the most repressive, most totalitarian, and most beligerant country in the region. In order for any progress to be made, it must be dealt with, and that means "fixing" it first. War is the only option, given it's leadership.
You know, this isn't a new policy. You can be sure that America (under presidents such as Reagan and Nixon) would have done the same thing against the Soviet Union, if they had the ability - you can see it in Reagan's "bombing begins in five minutes" quip when he didn't know a microphone was turned on. And I think they really believe it would have worked - after all, there's the refrain "look at Japan and Germany, and remember the Marshal Plan" (the Marshal Plan is held in almost religious reverence by U.S foreign policy advocates, overshadowing all other "missteps").
It also explians their position on North Korea, doesn't it?
Why wouldn't Bush and company have said this in the first place? Probably two reasons. First, there is the lack of universal support for it - a nice way of saying that they've got a reputation for shitting on the faces of countries they've tried to help, and nobody trusts them. The first response would have pointed out Chile (ask them what "September 11" means to them), Vietnam, Cambodia, Nicaragua, and more, and it would have turned into a shouting match of who's more moral than whom.
At least nobody's going to say "but I think Iraq should have weapons of mass destruction!".
The second is that they would lose immediate support from almost every country in the Middle East - in that area, only Turkey and Israel are democratic (and almost the Palistinian territories, if Israel would ever allow an election). All the others have a vested interest in keeping things as they are. Nobody would allow the U.S to use their territory, or cooperate in other ways, even in exchange for massive foreign aid - they would be paying for their own eventual overthrow.
Already, there has been significant negative reaction to what Bush has said about his post-Iraq vision.
Of course, Iraq is not the end solution, and the administration realizes this. It would be a decades long project to bring democracy to the Middle East. And, I fear, they are both ignorant and short sighted about a number of things.
A war and regeime change will probably create more chaos than they imagine, and may cause the disintegration of everything they expect in the area. Bad. They also have a poor track record of success when interfering with other countries, often making them worse than when they started. More bad. And they're counting on future adminstrations to carry on the policy that they are starting. There is no guarantee, or even likelihood, of that.
I think war with Iraq is going to be the first step into a giant swamp of muddy problems that will bit their asses like, you know, swamp alligators or something. That is the real danger, and that is also far more frightening than even the worse speculations involving oil or chemical weapons. The United States may be starting what amounts to a low level war with the entire region for the next fourty years. And associated terrorsm. And the cost!
Honestly, I'm glad I don't live in the U.S.
Maybe the CoCo 4 could! Really, someone's put some serious thought into it - three CPUs even: The CoCo 4 - Some Ideas