They give you all the rules, so why not write it as a simple video game and record the output? In other words, use the human instinct for pattern matching and story telling as a part of your solution. Once you play it out to a successfull solution, then it's a simple matter to go back and program the virtual robot to do it with the same string.
The sucky part from the American point of view though is that nobody is bothering to even ASK. I'd gladly sign a contract that locks me into a job for 10-12 years; IF the other half of the contract is that they have to keep me the same amount of time. But nobody's bothering to ask- because the employer wants to hold all the cards and not let the employee bargain at all.
Okay, agreed. Let's just say there WAS some malicious hanky panky. Kerry's 3600 lawyers, and all of the major media organizations who searched high and low for a big story (remember how big of a deal Florida 2000 was), didn't think there was ENOUGH hanky panky (or errors) to warrant doing anything about it, since it is universally agreed by these same people that it wasn't enough to change the outcome of the election.
Did he? Did they? The concession speech came less than 36 hours after the election- exactly how much searching did they do?
Now that's the reason why he's president of ORTech and I found a job at the end of 26 months...I poured less effort into battling false advertising and H-1b fraud and more into finding myself a job.:-)
Achievers will never want to be in a union because unions bring down the salary/incentives to hardworks in order to bring "equality" to the slackers.
And in today's economy, the Achievers cost too much and get laid off in favor of that nice kid from IIT Hydrabad who costs 50% as much. That's why Mitch started ORTech to begin with.
Sooooo... why not just employ a new US graduate if they're intent on replacing a 10yr veteran with a new grad on an entry level salary?
Because there aren't any that are willing to work for 90% of base pay + $1/month (the minimum allowed by the H-1b visa law). And you don't get the bonus of being allowed to threaten them with deportation if they don't play yes man to your bad ideas. Americans are horribly adicted to things like whistleblowing and intellectual honesty; where asian cultures have a different honor system where loyalty is far more important.
Not since Clinton signed the AC21 act. An H1B can move to a new job without waiting for their transfer to be processed by the INS, so the threat of firing an H1B is pretty hollow these days.
When was the last time you were out of work? This act only gives them 20 days to find a new job- I needed 20 days just to RESEARCH into HR departments to send my resume to without spamming.
In my experience H1B's cost more than local workers because, apart from prevailing wage, the H1B application and relocation costs usually add up to many thousands of dollars.
And if you do it right (see my other message on the topic for an example) you can save hundreds of thousands in return for spending those thousands to begin with.
The most technologically advanced country in the world should welcome skilled foreign labor...it actually makes us more competitive.
Only if they're actually more SKILLED than the 10 year veterans we're laying off to make room for them.
Not quite sure I follow this... do you mean they're hiring new graduates and paying them less than someone with 10 years experience? Or do you mean they're somehow falsifying documentation to show the H1b guy with 10 years experience is a new graduate, and so they can pay him at entry level?
Given that India hasn't been pumping out graduates at current levels forever, the former is usually the truth. That, and as you say, it's damn hard to make a 10 year veteran look like a new graduate. The process usually goes something like this: The company advertises for a new entry-level position in a newspaper on the other side of the country from where their operation actually is. Since nobody's stupid enough to apply, they can then say that no American has applied for the job. They then fill out an LCA for the entry level guy, and bring him over. He usually has the correct education for the job, but much less experience. They then tell the 10 year American veteran that if he wants his severance pay, he has to train the young guy to do the job. Six months later, the 10 year American veteran of the job is on the unemployment line- they've cut his high pay position and successfully replaced it with a low pay one. Asside from the first step (of advertising on the other side of the country) the whole process is completely legal and hard to fight in court- and thus Americans are being replaced with H-1bs while the courts look the other way.
Okay, but the point is that there is an exisiting legal mechanism for going after such companies that can pursued instead of people whistling dixie and waiting for some 'tarrif' to be imposed,
Yes- but it's convoluted and there's a hell of a lot of roadblocks in it, and the final fines ($15,000 per infraction) don't even come close to the nearly 40% savings some companies are seeing with H-1bs over the 6 year life of the visa. So I'd call that existing legal method WORSE THAN USELESS for protecting American workers and jobs.
Now I'd agree that people should be using it anyway to go after companies RIGHT NOW- but you're not going to find a job that way and how are you going to pay for your lifestyle and family in the meantime?
Thus, in the final analysis, sure, the legal mechanisms currently available should be exercised, but so should the other two legal mechanisms available to us, filing free trade complaints and lobbying our congresscritters to impose the Grimes Labor Equalization Surcharge.
About human beings from New Jersey- does our lack of body hair also count (at least for those of use who are more fortuneate than I am- it's not thick but it's everywhere)? Seems like it would make us more streamlined.
Hahahaha- not that union. It's a subset of the CWA, and for the privilidge of being president of OR Tech Mitch gets to pay his $29/year along with the rest of us.
I'm leaving it soon though- if I get on permanent with the state I'll be joining State Employee's International Union instead.
And what was that drive to do something? Tear down all the forests, commit genocide against the 10 million people already here (now down to a few hundred thousand- 90% genocide rate is far better than Hitler did against the Jews), drive several species to the brink of extinction, and destroy the natural order over several million square miles? Immigration isn't just bad now- it's been bad for life on this continent since day one. Continuing a bad idea is just stupid.
Try state government- you may have to commute to Salem, but agencies like ODOT are hiring, and can't afford the people with the pretty paperwork (I'm currently working on going permanent into a position of Remedy Developer- I've used Remedy but have never programmed for it in my life, but people with Remedy Certs get paid twice as much in private industry as the State is willing to pay, and to top it off, they're willing to provide training).
Bullshit- the President of my union, http://www.ortech.org/, has a Master's Degree in Computer Science- and hasn't held a full time job in three years.
2. Perhaps in your company- but the average wage of an H-1b worker in Hillsboro, OR at Intel is $28,000/year according to their public Labor Condition Applications (the application form for the H-1b visa filed by the company is public knowledge. One way to battle this trend is whenever you are unemployed, go around to local companies and ask to see their LCAs).
As noted in a footnote to the article), U.S. employers *must* pay foreign workers the prevailing wage for their job fields and show that qualified U.S. workers are not being passed over.
Yeah- but the H-1b is a new graduate when the US techie has 10 years of experience, therefore 25k-35k is the going wage for the experience and the business still saves money. And in my experience, getting the BCIS to actually investigate anything requires several months of 8-hour-a-day work researching and showing your eveidence to different beaurucrats.
In my experience the BCIS (formerly INS) has pretty stringent about these requirements and as a result companies end up paying H1 workers the *same* amount as they would pay a domestic worker. Please do the research or atleast RTFA.
http://www.ortech.org/ has a spreadsheet where they show that Intel pays it's H-1bs EXACTLY 90%(Minimum Going Wage For Entry Level)+$1- in over 4000 Labor Condition Applications. So no- you are wrong with this conclusion.
If that's happening, then you already have legal options without needing new legislation for tariff's on imported labor: H-1B's are, by law, supposed to be paid in line with US workers -- one of the hurdles in getting a H-1B is getting the state's department of labor to sign off that the wage level is kosher. Most of the stories you here about dramatically underpaid foreign H1-B's turn out to be urban legends.
While back in reality ORTech succeeded in nearly putting Everest Consulting out of business- 99% of the LCAs we looked at for that case were reporting the wrong going wage and/or had the "this business is not dependant on H-1bs" box checked despite the fact that an American couldn't get hired there with a Phd and willing to work for $12k/year. Abuses do happen- and in fact are quite common. And sometimes, like in the case of Sun- the courts decide in favor of the business anyway.
Your definition of terrorism includes just about any act of war or resistance.
Yep- and that's on purpose. Acts of war and resistance are often terrorism.
For me, "terrorism" is more accurately used to describe acts that specifically target innocents for political reasons. By your definition I'm not sure how you reach the conclusion that Jewish resistance to Rome is "terrorism" whereas Rome's attacks on Jews are not terrorism.
Ah- but they were! Foreign oppression most certainly is terrorism as well- but the point is that it takes terrorism to stop terrorism, at least actively.
I'm also not sure how 9-11 was terrorism whereas the campaign in Iraq or Afghanistan - which also killed innocents, directly and indirectly - are not.
Whoever said that the United States isn't using terror to fight terror?
For me something must specifically target innocents and use the destruction of innocents for political purposes to be considered "terrorism."
Well, it's pretty obvious that the United States and Israel have targeted innocents in Iraq, so I'm not sure how you can not consider the Iraq front of the war on terror to be terrorism in and of itself from the point of view of the other side.
As for your notion of surrender, I am all for decreasing US military engagement in the Middle East. But the rest is totally impractical, not to mention a horrible assault on liberties.
Really? How so? What civil liberty do you have to trade with another nation or in fact to cross a border illegally in the first place?
The only way that could work is if there were no interdependent global economy,
BINGO! That's the point. The interdependent global economy is the problem- we aren't going to be rid of terrorism entirely until we rid ourselves of the interdependent global economy.
if all Americans were one race and had absolutely no relatives or friends or business associates in any other country including Canada and Mexico.
No- no problem with that. Just go to customs and get a transponder before you leave. Return it when you get back. No problem at all.
Doing this requires more than a "paradigm shift", but even that isn;t going to happen, given the economic problems that would result.
So you put earning a profit over actually keeping your family safe from terrorists?
It's not even desirable in any way -- the only advantage you cite for this is that it will make bin Laden happy.
Well, actually, I've cited other advantages, including a full employment in the United States (because we'd be reopening our factories here rather than deal with customs) and a rising instead of falling standard of living, plus keeping our families safe, but none of that matters to people like you who'd rather shop yourselves out of a job at Wal*Mart.
I think we can decrease US involvement there and make the US less hated among the Arab masses without just appeasing bin Laden.
True enough- this has a much larger effect than just bin Laden. It means the end of another terrorist organization- the World Trade Organization.
I think we should kill bin Laden and destroy al Qaeda. In fact I think we should have done that September 12th. But I also think we should decrease US military involvement in the Middle East and allow the people there to have more control over their own affairs.
You can't do that without ruining the US economy anyway- we're too dependant on their oil.
I think it's both- you can do the surrender method on the small scale as well as the large, and thanks to Northern Ireland, the Brits have gotten VERY good at the "armed conditional surrender" method, aka the original Just War Theory of St. Augustine. If they hadn't, the Orangemen would have long ago invaded Southern Ireland- and in return the IRA would have blown up London.
If that were the case, then you're on the wrong side.
We're all on the wrong side according to somebody- after all, we're all living in 6 billion different universes.
What do you really consider terrorism?
Any act that harms an innocent for political reasons.
Resistance to empire?
Resistance to empire often takes the form of terrorism in the end- because only terrorism can get the attention of an empire.
In that case the term has no meaning.
Why would you say that?
So your solution is surrender. OK, but count me out. (Who are you planning to surrender to, anyway? bin Laden?)
You might want to find out what I mean by surrender first- I'm not talking about an unconditional surrender. But I wouldn't be surprised if you were greedy and selfish enough to opt out- America is sitting pretty good as long as we can keep the Saudi people oppressed in return for oil.
The Augustinian method of Armed Surrender doesn't need anybody in particular to surrender TO- it's more of a defensive posture than an actual surrender. The standard method takes the form of a ban on FOREIGN WARS and WARS OF CONQUEST. In other words- defend yourselves against an invading enemy, but don't, when you're done, go back to his homeland and take revenge on his relatives. In 460 AD- this was a really radical idea. In 21st century America, not so much; we don't do it because we're adicted to the profit that comes from free trade (despite the fact that free trade hasn't been profitable overall for 40 years, it was once and on an individual basis it still is). Armed surrender means that we set up a perimeter around the country, and don't let anything through that doesn't have the proper transponder frequency and valid RFID in the database. This includes shutting our southern and northern borders in the lower 48, isolating Alaska, Hawaii, and the Protectorates, and lowering our rate of importation to levels where every single stinkin' cargo container can be checked. By pulling out of the middle east, we let bin Laden and his ilk win- for the Islamofascists, without US intervention, will certainly take over Israel and the Arabic world, and even parts of Europe in a few years. But by that time, we won't have any economic interests over there anymore- no more imports from that area of the world, it's simply too dangerous. Good police work and making sure everybody has what they need and have a good chance at the right of puruit of happiness will take care of the rest.
Others have said this is not sustainable- but they forget that some of my ancestors successfully lived on this continent alone with no outside contact for 9000 years, so it is doable- it's just a matter of a paradigm shift from a global economy to a local one only.
(and lets talk about history since the Industrial revolution, for fucks sake)
2nd response because I'm curious- why do you think history begins with the Industrial Revolution, when there is clearly at least 9,000 years RECORDED history before that, and 40,000 years of verbal history, and close to two million of pre-history? Why should we not take our lessons in what works and what doesn't from the WHOLE of human history, instead of limiting ourselves to just the last 2-3 centuries?
Slashdot Mirror
They give you all the rules, so why not write it as a simple video game and record the output? In other words, use the human instinct for pattern matching and story telling as a part of your solution. Once you play it out to a successfull solution, then it's a simple matter to go back and program the virtual robot to do it with the same string.
The sucky part from the American point of view though is that nobody is bothering to even ASK. I'd gladly sign a contract that locks me into a job for 10-12 years; IF the other half of the contract is that they have to keep me the same amount of time. But nobody's bothering to ask- because the employer wants to hold all the cards and not let the employee bargain at all.
Okay, agreed. Let's just say there WAS some malicious hanky panky. Kerry's 3600 lawyers, and all of the major media organizations who searched high and low for a big story (remember how big of a deal Florida 2000 was), didn't think there was ENOUGH hanky panky (or errors) to warrant doing anything about it, since it is universally agreed by these same people that it wasn't enough to change the outcome of the election.
Did he? Did they? The concession speech came less than 36 hours after the election- exactly how much searching did they do?
Now that's the reason why he's president of ORTech and I found a job at the end of 26 months...I poured less effort into battling false advertising and H-1b fraud and more into finding myself a job. :-)
Achievers will never want to be in a union because unions bring down the salary/incentives to hardworks in order to bring "equality" to the slackers.
And in today's economy, the Achievers cost too much and get laid off in favor of that nice kid from IIT Hydrabad who costs 50% as much. That's why Mitch started ORTech to begin with.
Sooooo... why not just employ a new US graduate if they're intent on replacing a 10yr veteran with a new grad on an entry level salary?
Because there aren't any that are willing to work for 90% of base pay + $1/month (the minimum allowed by the H-1b visa law). And you don't get the bonus of being allowed to threaten them with deportation if they don't play yes man to your bad ideas. Americans are horribly adicted to things like whistleblowing and intellectual honesty; where asian cultures have a different honor system where loyalty is far more important.
Not since Clinton signed the AC21 act. An H1B can move to a new job without waiting for their transfer to be processed by the INS, so the threat of firing an H1B is pretty hollow these days.
When was the last time you were out of work? This act only gives them 20 days to find a new job- I needed 20 days just to RESEARCH into HR departments to send my resume to without spamming.
In my experience H1B's cost more than local workers because, apart from prevailing wage, the H1B application and relocation costs usually add up to many thousands of dollars.
And if you do it right (see my other message on the topic for an example) you can save hundreds of thousands in return for spending those thousands to begin with.
The most technologically advanced country in the world should welcome skilled foreign labor...it actually makes us more competitive.
Only if they're actually more SKILLED than the 10 year veterans we're laying off to make room for them.
Not quite sure I follow this... do you mean they're hiring new graduates and paying them less than someone with 10 years experience? Or do you mean they're somehow falsifying documentation to show the H1b guy with 10 years experience is a new graduate, and so they can pay him at entry level?
Given that India hasn't been pumping out graduates at current levels forever, the former is usually the truth. That, and as you say, it's damn hard to make a 10 year veteran look like a new graduate. The process usually goes something like this: The company advertises for a new entry-level position in a newspaper on the other side of the country from where their operation actually is. Since nobody's stupid enough to apply, they can then say that no American has applied for the job. They then fill out an LCA for the entry level guy, and bring him over. He usually has the correct education for the job, but much less experience. They then tell the 10 year American veteran that if he wants his severance pay, he has to train the young guy to do the job. Six months later, the 10 year American veteran of the job is on the unemployment line- they've cut his high pay position and successfully replaced it with a low pay one. Asside from the first step (of advertising on the other side of the country) the whole process is completely legal and hard to fight in court- and thus Americans are being replaced with H-1bs while the courts look the other way.
Okay, but the point is that there is an exisiting legal mechanism for going after such companies that can pursued instead of people whistling dixie and waiting for some 'tarrif' to be imposed,
Yes- but it's convoluted and there's a hell of a lot of roadblocks in it, and the final fines ($15,000 per infraction) don't even come close to the nearly 40% savings some companies are seeing with H-1bs over the 6 year life of the visa. So I'd call that existing legal method WORSE THAN USELESS for protecting American workers and jobs.
Now I'd agree that people should be using it anyway to go after companies RIGHT NOW- but you're not going to find a job that way and how are you going to pay for your lifestyle and family in the meantime?
Thus, in the final analysis, sure, the legal mechanisms currently available should be exercised, but so should the other two legal mechanisms available to us, filing free trade complaints and lobbying our congresscritters to impose the Grimes Labor Equalization Surcharge.
About human beings from New Jersey- does our lack of body hair also count (at least for those of use who are more fortuneate than I am- it's not thick but it's everywhere)? Seems like it would make us more streamlined.
Hahahaha- not that union. It's a subset of the CWA, and for the privilidge of being president of OR Tech Mitch gets to pay his $29/year along with the rest of us.
I'm leaving it soon though- if I get on permanent with the state I'll be joining State Employee's International Union instead.
And what was that drive to do something? Tear down all the forests, commit genocide against the 10 million people already here (now down to a few hundred thousand- 90% genocide rate is far better than Hitler did against the Jews), drive several species to the brink of extinction, and destroy the natural order over several million square miles? Immigration isn't just bad now- it's been bad for life on this continent since day one. Continuing a bad idea is just stupid.
Try state government- you may have to commute to Salem, but agencies like ODOT are hiring, and can't afford the people with the pretty paperwork (I'm currently working on going permanent into a position of Remedy Developer- I've used Remedy but have never programmed for it in my life, but people with Remedy Certs get paid twice as much in private industry as the State is willing to pay, and to top it off, they're willing to provide training).
Bullshit- the President of my union, http://www.ortech.org/, has a Master's Degree in Computer Science- and hasn't held a full time job in three years.
1. No you don't- show that in the law.
2. Perhaps in your company- but the average wage of an H-1b worker in Hillsboro, OR at Intel is $28,000/year according to their public Labor Condition Applications (the application form for the H-1b visa filed by the company is public knowledge. One way to battle this trend is whenever you are unemployed, go around to local companies and ask to see their LCAs).
As noted in a footnote to the article), U.S. employers *must* pay foreign workers the prevailing wage for their job fields and show that qualified U.S. workers are not being passed over.
Yeah- but the H-1b is a new graduate when the US techie has 10 years of experience, therefore 25k-35k is the going wage for the experience and the business still saves money. And in my experience, getting the BCIS to actually investigate anything requires several months of 8-hour-a-day work researching and showing your eveidence to different beaurucrats.
In my experience the BCIS (formerly INS) has pretty stringent about these requirements and as a result companies end up paying H1 workers the *same* amount as they would pay a domestic worker. Please do the research or atleast RTFA.
http://www.ortech.org/ has a spreadsheet where they show that Intel pays it's H-1bs EXACTLY 90%(Minimum Going Wage For Entry Level)+$1- in over 4000 Labor Condition Applications. So no- you are wrong with this conclusion.
If that's happening, then you already have legal options without needing new legislation for tariff's on imported labor: H-1B's are, by law, supposed to be paid in line with US workers -- one of the hurdles in getting a H-1B is getting the state's department of labor to sign off that the wage level is kosher. Most of the stories you here about dramatically underpaid foreign H1-B's turn out to be urban legends.
While back in reality ORTech succeeded in nearly putting Everest Consulting out of business- 99% of the LCAs we looked at for that case were reporting the wrong going wage and/or had the "this business is not dependant on H-1bs" box checked despite the fact that an American couldn't get hired there with a Phd and willing to work for $12k/year. Abuses do happen- and in fact are quite common. And sometimes, like in the case of Sun- the courts decide in favor of the business anyway.
Don't forget the other added bonus- that you can threaten the techie with deportation in addition to being fired if he acts up.
And this is why Augustine's method of armed surrender works- because it gives local populations control over their own areas.
Your definition of terrorism includes just about any act of war or resistance.
Yep- and that's on purpose. Acts of war and resistance are often terrorism.
For me, "terrorism" is more accurately used to describe acts that specifically target innocents for political reasons. By your definition I'm not sure how you reach the conclusion that Jewish resistance to Rome is "terrorism" whereas Rome's attacks on Jews are not terrorism.
Ah- but they were! Foreign oppression most certainly is terrorism as well- but the point is that it takes terrorism to stop terrorism, at least actively.
I'm also not sure how 9-11 was terrorism whereas the campaign in Iraq or Afghanistan - which also killed innocents, directly and indirectly - are not.
Whoever said that the United States isn't using terror to fight terror?
For me something must specifically target innocents and use the destruction of innocents for political purposes to be considered "terrorism."
Well, it's pretty obvious that the United States and Israel have targeted innocents in Iraq, so I'm not sure how you can not consider the Iraq front of the war on terror to be terrorism in and of itself from the point of view of the other side.
As for your notion of surrender, I am all for decreasing US military engagement in the Middle East. But the rest is totally impractical, not to mention a horrible assault on liberties.
Really? How so? What civil liberty do you have to trade with another nation or in fact to cross a border illegally in the first place?
The only way that could work is if there were no interdependent global economy,
BINGO! That's the point. The interdependent global economy is the problem- we aren't going to be rid of terrorism entirely until we rid ourselves of the interdependent global economy.
if all Americans were one race and had absolutely no relatives or friends or business associates in any other country including Canada and Mexico.
No- no problem with that. Just go to customs and get a transponder before you leave. Return it when you get back. No problem at all.
Doing this requires more than a "paradigm shift", but even that isn;t going to happen, given the economic problems that would result.
So you put earning a profit over actually keeping your family safe from terrorists?
It's not even desirable in any way -- the only advantage you cite for this is that it will make bin Laden happy.
Well, actually, I've cited other advantages, including a full employment in the United States (because we'd be reopening our factories here rather than deal with customs) and a rising instead of falling standard of living, plus keeping our families safe, but none of that matters to people like you who'd rather shop yourselves out of a job at Wal*Mart.
I think we can decrease US involvement there and make the US less hated among the Arab masses without just appeasing bin Laden.
True enough- this has a much larger effect than just bin Laden. It means the end of another terrorist organization- the World Trade Organization.
I think we should kill bin Laden and destroy al Qaeda. In fact I think we should have done that September 12th. But I also think we should decrease US military involvement in the Middle East and allow the people there to have more control over their own affairs.
You can't do that without ruining the US economy anyway- we're too dependant on their oil.
If all our borders had been better defended, with the latest databases and communications equipment, 9-11 wouldn't have happened.
I think it's both- you can do the surrender method on the small scale as well as the large, and thanks to Northern Ireland, the Brits have gotten VERY good at the "armed conditional surrender" method, aka the original Just War Theory of St. Augustine. If they hadn't, the Orangemen would have long ago invaded Southern Ireland- and in return the IRA would have blown up London.
If that were the case, then you're on the wrong side.
We're all on the wrong side according to somebody- after all, we're all living in 6 billion different universes.
What do you really consider terrorism?
Any act that harms an innocent for political reasons.
Resistance to empire?
Resistance to empire often takes the form of terrorism in the end- because only terrorism can get the attention of an empire.
In that case the term has no meaning.
Why would you say that?
So your solution is surrender. OK, but count me out. (Who are you planning to surrender to, anyway? bin Laden?)
You might want to find out what I mean by surrender first- I'm not talking about an unconditional surrender. But I wouldn't be surprised if you were greedy and selfish enough to opt out- America is sitting pretty good as long as we can keep the Saudi people oppressed in return for oil.
The Augustinian method of Armed Surrender doesn't need anybody in particular to surrender TO- it's more of a defensive posture than an actual surrender. The standard method takes the form of a ban on FOREIGN WARS and WARS OF CONQUEST. In other words- defend yourselves against an invading enemy, but don't, when you're done, go back to his homeland and take revenge on his relatives. In 460 AD- this was a really radical idea. In 21st century America, not so much; we don't do it because we're adicted to the profit that comes from free trade (despite the fact that free trade hasn't been profitable overall for 40 years, it was once and on an individual basis it still is). Armed surrender means that we set up a perimeter around the country, and don't let anything through that doesn't have the proper transponder frequency and valid RFID in the database. This includes shutting our southern and northern borders in the lower 48, isolating Alaska, Hawaii, and the Protectorates, and lowering our rate of importation to levels where every single stinkin' cargo container can be checked. By pulling out of the middle east, we let bin Laden and his ilk win- for the Islamofascists, without US intervention, will certainly take over Israel and the Arabic world, and even parts of Europe in a few years. But by that time, we won't have any economic interests over there anymore- no more imports from that area of the world, it's simply too dangerous. Good police work and making sure everybody has what they need and have a good chance at the right of puruit of happiness will take care of the rest.
Others have said this is not sustainable- but they forget that some of my ancestors successfully lived on this continent alone with no outside contact for 9000 years, so it is doable- it's just a matter of a paradigm shift from a global economy to a local one only.
(and lets talk about history since the Industrial revolution, for fucks sake)
2nd response because I'm curious- why do you think history begins with the Industrial Revolution, when there is clearly at least 9,000 years RECORDED history before that, and 40,000 years of verbal history, and close to two million of pre-history? Why should we not take our lessons in what works and what doesn't from the WHOLE of human history, instead of limiting ourselves to just the last 2-3 centuries?
policework and addressing the causes of terrorism is the best way of ending terrorosim.
And thus, the armed surrender method, as first suggested by St. Augustine of Hippo in 460 A.D.
Thanks for agreeing with me just because you didn't understand what I meant by the word "surrender".