Sure it was. At least, that's what we tell the rednecks right? (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). You can repeat the lies above as often as you like, I am never going to believe them. The fact that a great many people in the US believe them is one of the more frightening ideas of the 21st century.
It's frightening to people like you because your current view on the world was shattered when evil and heinous acts continued on western civilization (9-11 for example). Truth be known, you must ALWAYS fight for what is right and good in this world. Evil must constantly be purged. But go on, you keep your head in the sand if it will at least make you feel better. I sure as hell won't. I will always stand my ground for what is right and pure in this world.
Correct, you said that the war in Iraq was about Islamic extremists. Which it isn't. Well at least not until you started killing civilians in large numbers. After that it became about Islamic extremists.
The overall goal is to eliminate the Middle Eastern terrorist organizations as they are a clear and present danger to the west. And this threat is motivated by pure hate and rage at the religious level.
When you really think about it, the war wasn't about Iraq, but rather about terrorism. Hence, Iraq was merely a "battle". The "War" is terrorism. Thus, it should be called "The Battle of Iraq". Not the War in Iraq.
God forbid that any American would do business with a brutal dictator!! Lucky for the rest of us the the Americans are such outstanding stand up guys (and gals). Think of the consequences if the world's richest nation did business with dictators!
I got news for you. Every nation has dirty hands. However, America has done far more good for this world in terms of aid, funding, and free services then anyone else has. Thats a fact.
BTW, the French sunk a ship in a New Zealand harbour in the 80's. Is that a declaration of war?
I've not heard of this incident. But yes. Had the issue not been resolved diplomatically after the fact, then I would say it could be construed as an act of war should it be a malicious and premeditated act.
You start with a false premise and lead right to your false conclusion. You have a particular belief of what the word "nation" means, and you think that everyone in the world shares that belief. The "nation" of Iraq is a fiction, but unlike the normal fictious idea of nation, the Iraq fiction was not created by the "Iraqis".
And so, the "nation" of which you speak does not really exist, except in the minds of those who wish to maintain the illusion. Currently, that would be the Americans.
Again, you fail to understand the point of democratic responsibility. Let me give you an example...
Because the people of Iraq were oppressed under a dictatorship via Saddam, it would not be ethical or moral to drop a nuclear bomb on that nation. Why free a nation when you will kill them in the process makes no sense? I mean, sure you will end up with innocent civilians killed, but that's NOT the goal. The goal is to isolate the oppressors in a non-free nation and eliminate them with tactful and surgical strikes to minimize innocent casualties.
Had Iraq however been a democratic country and attacked America or Israel, THEN it would be moral and ethical to drop an 80MT bomb on that nation. Again...a democracy entails civilian responsibility and thus everyone would either be innocent or guilty.
Well, perhaps your nation could do the rest of the world a favour and stop creating so many dictators then. It will certainly make your job easier.
This is BS. We don't create dictators around the world. If anything, we are trying to prevent them from taking root. But that would require a nation of super-power status like the US. And well...liberals don't like that. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
Well, in your country and mine, they can't. So what is your point? Can you give an example of a country where the citizens can impeach
That Iraq was the most secular country in the Middle East after Turkey only makes your statement all the more ridiculous.
Are you reffering perhaps to the Wahhabis? Or the Mujahadeen? You know that those people are not from Iraq right?
I never said or eluded from the fact the war in Iraq was not about Islamic extremists. The whole point about the Iraq war was twofold. The main reason was strategic in ensuring stability in the Middle East by promoting democracy. The second was to get rid of a thug no other nation was willing to do. In fact, Russia, France and Germany were the main countries opposed to this war because they were knee shit-deep in dubious activities such as the selling of arms and maintaining huge oil and construction contracts with Saddam. America might be the first country to come to your mind. Hence, I find so much irony in these political conflicts of interests.
Yes, Osama Bin Laden called a press conference in 1998 of mostly Pakistani journalists and give them some good old demogougery, and the video was not shown in the US until after Sept2001. Amazingly convenient that.
al Qaida bombed the the World Trade Center towers in 1993 using a van packed with explosives and detonated it in the parking garage. If that's not an official declaration of war, I don't know what is!.
What really pisses me off is that Clinton did nothing about this threat durring his two terms in office. Had he had the balls to do something about it rather then protecting his legacy, there would be a very good chance we douldn't be in this mess. But I digress.
Sure it is. The fanatical muslim hordes are about to overrun your country at any minute. Better start buying some ammo and canned beans.
You might want to check out "The War on Terrorism: Osama bin Laden and al-Qa'ida" webpage. It contains over 130+ links regarding official reports and research regarding the subject. Of course, you will find none of that Michael Moore propaganda BS there. Sorry to disappoint...
http://www.lib.ecu.edu/govdoc/terrorism.html Yes, but just because that's what you are seeing doesn't mean it's true. You probably think that all of the homicides in the US are committed by black men too. But don't let the facts get in the way of sky falling on your head.
I don't think, I KNOW it to be true. According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics; blacks were seven time more likely to commit homicides then whites in the year 2002. As for why this is the case, I don't have solid answer. It could be black culture, genetics, or a mix of both. Who knows for sure? But the facts do state none the less. Just click on the offical link to see for yourself.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm I'm wondering. Do you know who supplied Iran with weapons for 8 years during the Iran/Iraq war?
Without question, it was Israel. But the political landscape changed dramatically after the war. And soon, that status of Iran went from "friend" to "foe". At the time it seemed like a good idea in the best interest of Israel to ally with Iran against Iraq. But again, the 80s are over and shit happens. Sometimes you just got to deal with events as the happen in real-time.
Yada, yada, yada. You heard that on talk back radio right? Iran had a democracy before the UK/US interfered and there is internal pressure on the theocracy to move back to a democracy again. Besides which, any election in Iraq is almost sure to be won by the Shia majority, which would suit Tehran just fine. This is really enjoyable! It's like arguing with the bullshit they broadcast on television.
Democrocy = Mullas losing their grip of theocratic control. It's clearly a conflict of interest. But time will tell as it's too early for me to comment. I'll just stand aside and pay close attention in the mean time as the events unfold.
Would that be the views
As is yours about Iraq having nuclear weapons. It's only because you are on some holy crusade against the Muslim world that you think there is a difference between the US owning nuclear weapons and Iraq.
Pure hyperbole, and that's saying it mildly.
This is about fanatics that want to KILL in the name of Allah. I could give a damn what the religious roots are behind such seething hatred and vile acts of inhumanity. Al Qaeda officially declared war on America. Now that the line is drawn in the sand, either they stand down, or die not doing so. I have a right to defend myself both a as a citizen and as a living breathing life form on the planet. It's either them, or me. And I'll be damned if it's me. Simple as that...no really, it's not that complicated of an issue.
Well, since you are so hung up on Israel (are you Jewish?), let's talk about that. The Jews believe that they are God's chosen people, and even go to great lengths to prevent Jews marrying the goiyim(sp?). That's religious bigotry in my book, but of course we have to hold the Jewish people to a different standard to everyone else because of the holocaust.
By the way, if you live in the "West", then your culture is founded on a religion that promotes the purging of heathens, pagans, muslims and Jews. The Christians have gone on pogroms, crusades and committed genocide in the name of their God, so I wouldn't be calling the entire Muslim world murderers if I were you, without looking like a complete hypocrite.
I agree with that. However, we are not dealing with fanatical Christians or Jews at this time. We might have to deal with them again in the future, but right now the enemy is radical Islamic militants. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not throwing all follower of the Islamic faith into the same bag. In fact, most around the world live peaceful lives like everyone else. But as of now, from the Middle East, Africa, China, Indonesia and the Europe (that reporter that got stabbed in the back for his criticism of the Islamic faith) we are seeing a rather disproportional violent uprising in relation to others that are followers of different faith.
Then you are clueless, or completely brainwashed with bullshit.
Tell that to the citizens of Israel and it's government. But why should it matter, your the only one with a clue and everyone else in Israel are fucking morrons, right? Yaaaa sure... keep thinking there buddy.
Your government does not even face the consequences of it's actions, so how on earth can we expect the populace to do so?
It's always someone else's fault isn't it. It's not that you armed a group of bored unemployed Saudi men with Stingers and M16's then left them to rot once they won the cold war for you, no. That would mean that YOU are responsible. No, it's that damn extremist barbarian religion Islam and it's crazy medieval followers, the Jihadists. It's their fault! Now let's nuke them back to the medieval age they enjoy so much.
First of all, the citizens of America and the government are one-in-the-same being that it's a democrocy. It would be best to not get this little fact out of perspective. The only time you can seperate the two is if the people of a country do not have the vote to support and change the government...such as China for example and previously Iraq (which will change once the people vote for it's own representatives)
Second, it doesn't matter if we give them nukes or the weapon to destroy the universe. It's THEIR fault for making the final decision to use them at the end of the day. Surely if they have the brains to use such weapons, they too should have the will to use self restraint. But...they didn't. So now the threat must be dealt with in kind. With FORCE!
Based on my observation of you separating the power of government and its citizens, and de voiding yourself of personal responsibility or understanding the lack there of; I would say you fit the classic American definition of a liberal.
There is no accountability in times
At that time the explanation was that Saddam Hussein posed am imminent threat to the United States, was collaberating with Al Qaeda, attempting to buy yellow cake uranium, and aluminum tubes for nukes, developing remote controlled aircraft to deliver chemical and biological weapons and if we waited until we had enough evidence to prove it, the proof could come in the form of a mushroom cloud and millions of dead.
All of that turned out to be untrue.
I agree that it turned out to be false information. And thank God too. Perhaps had Saddam let the inspectors in and searched Iraq for the supposed "WMDs", he would still be left in power as nothing would have been found. Ironically, it was Saddams own hubris that ended up being his downfall.
I did hear guest on a local radio program talk about how Saddam actually thought he had a weapons program in place. In reality however, none of his senior management actually had their act togeather. It was such to the degree that no one would utter words of program failure to Saddam out of the fear of being killed or tortured. So Saddam though he had a WMD program, we thought he had a WMD program...but at the end of the day, it was the people in charge that was lying all along to save their own ass.
Honestly, I don't know of this conspiracy theory still holds weight. But if it's true, it will be the worlds biggest bluff in all of mankind.
We did not turn out backs on Afganistan. That war is over, the people voted, and now there is a democrocy in place. Officially, it's victory. The only job left is to maintain security in that region and keep a watchfull eye to make sure the tides don't change.
As for Osama...we may never find him unless someone from the inside rats him out. Time will tell.
Let's say the United States of America, a known aggressor, had nuclear weapons. Oh wait... it does."
This *might* come as a shock to you, but all major countries have a history of aggression regardless if they possess nukes or not. So your statement is a moot point.
In attack or defense? Israel had nuclear weapons before the Iraqi nuclear program even started.
If you your a citizen of Israel, you should sleep better knowing your country has them as a deterrent against Iran and Pakistan. Speaking of which, Israel is not founded on a culture or religion (Islam) that promotes the purging of "infidels" (anyone that is NOT Muslim). If I was living in Israel, I would be worried shitless over Iran.
I'm not exactly sure what your point is here. You are saying that if Iraq has a democratically elected government, and it attacks one of it's neighbours (for example, Israel), then it's OK for it's neighbour to retaliate and massacre large numbers of Iraqi's. And somehow this will "restore order"?
Yes, exactly. In fact, if you're an American citizen and find we have done crimes against humanity...well I suggest you take yourself to court. Because, your just as guilty as the next man as we are all equal. You may not have voted for Bush, but your fellow citizens have. And unless you don't want to also be held accountable in times of war, I suggest you leave the country. Remember, you are part of the democratic process too. So what ever actions our government makes, its citizens too may also face the consequences.
Again, it's all about democratic accountability in times of warfare. The door also swings both ways. Should Iran launch a nuclear weapon against Israel, then Israel's government has the sovereign right to counter the attack regardless of the bloodshed it ensues. At this point, you can only have peace through victory regardless of the winner.
That pretty much sums up war. It's an action to resolve irreconcilable differences when all diplomatic options have failed.
Order is a relative term. Once a country has elected their representatives, that country as a whole can be held accountable for the actions taken place by that government be it good OR bad. This puts global politics at an equal when having to deal diplomatically during times of war and peace.
For example, lets say saddam did have nuclear weapons (he doesn't, but I wouldn't put the goal past him had he remained in power) and used them against the Israel. At that point, would it be fair for Israel to retaliate against a country that was oppressed by a dictator that did not reflect the majority of its people? I would say no. However, let's say saddam was elected in a fair and democratic way. Then at that point, it's fair game in order for Israel to preserve its nation and take out its aggressor.
Based on current political events in the middle east, conflicts of interest have always been in place for at least a thousand years. It's only a matter of time before they become a threat technologically (Nukes, bio-weapon programs...etc). Had we just turned a blind eye, I fear that not only would the middle east be in a state anarchy, but we could have nukes being smuggled into our borders.
Now you tell me, would you rather we wait till that happens and have a few cities glassed? Or, deal with the threat by promoting democrocy in order to restore order to that region. I prefer the later as it's a win/win situation for everyone.
You remember the 2nd amendment? If raghead come screeming at me with a bloated chest (bomb) and screeming jihad at me, I will inforce my right to bare arms.
That surplus was PROJECTED based on the current dot-com trends and growing employment. Even if Clinton was still in office today, we would still be in debt.
As for the war, it HAD to be done. That..or just wait till the middle east turns into a chaotic pack of rats armed with nukes in the future. You choice if you want the risk. Damned if you do, even more damned if you dont.
Secondly your ignorant "They fuck like rabbits..." statement shows a basic lack of understanding of mammalian biology and human social systems.
Hey, thanks. I needed the laugh =) But you are correct, we tend to do the deed missionary style.
Anyways, I agree with what you said now that I think about it more. But I think this whole cure for AIDs is a patch to a much larger problem. While were doing research, we should be trying to educate the as best as possible. I here everyone talking about the use of condoms. But lets face it, sex is addictive once your active. So while they are protected more or less when using condoms, all it takes is one time unprotected. It's only a matter of time when a couple decide to at it without protection. On a positive note: should they be using protection as it's intended and with responsibility, it could dramitically reduce the spread of AIDs.
What I'm basically trying to say is that they should be aware of who their previous partners are. I know it's a sensitive subject at a personal level, but when you start having unprotected sex, your making a gamble with your life. What they need is a cultural change (they will have to decide on that) and not be so promiscuous. If they are unsure about their partner, they should not have sex with him/her...period. There is a reason that having a monogomous relationship is the safest.
This is slashdot (and I don't care about my karma anymore). You should expect America, White men, Rich, and ummmm...Conservitives to be EVIL!
So I'll just say it now. We should stop funding Africa and let them all die of AIDs. I mean, lets not be politically correct for once. They fuck like rabbits and pop out babies like they are going out of style. Hell, 12 year olds giving birth is not uncommon in that part of the world. If they are not educated enough or fail to be educated, why continue?
You can lead a horse to the water, but you can't force him to drink.
Climatic change has always happend and will continue to do so regardless if Man is here or not. Rather then worring about it, we should do what all life here on Earth does.
ADAPT or DIE!
It's the cycle of life. And who knows, my number may be up next to meet the wrath of nature. Oh well, such as life.
IBM isn't doing this because they are "nice" and "charitable". They are doing this as a business strategy in hopes it will payoff later. Personally, I wish more companies would try this tactic. But, it is a risk not many companies are willing to risk. So......
Saddam followers are (for the most part) sunnis muslems. It's the Sunnies that supported Saddam that funneled money to Al-Qaeda. As for Saddam, he was NOT a religious zelot. He was a dictator; pure and simple. But I seriously doubt he didn't know what was going on. He just chose to not personally get involved in the islamic jihad.
Uh huh. And just how did the CIA manage to pull that off? Did they point a gun to the citizens of said countries to prevent them from having a voice and opinion? Answer is obviously "no".
So let me sum up your point of view (or from what I gather) of America.
1. If shit hits the fan, it's Americas fault. 2. If something good happens for the world, America had nothing to do with it.
I admit that this is pure hyperbole of the above mentioned. But the humorous value of the Micheal Moore crowed is really wearing thin at the intellectual level.
...which is why he is on my foe list. He simply does not like America for no reason at all. Fine, by me then. I just decided to not like Grishnakh either.
Unlike Apple, Microsoft does not have tight control over the hundreds of thousands of parts that go into the development of a PC. At least Apple can maintain a high level of quality control over hardware along with their OS.
I would say that almost always a BSOD is caused by a 3rd party device driver or bad RAM (or faultly memory timing). But that said, microsoft should have at least burned in that PC before using it in the presentation had it been a hardware/driver.
Because the idiology of the left is based more on feelings and less on grounded logic. So naturally, feelings will capture more attention and thus the audience of a forum.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure it was. At least, that's what we tell the rednecks right? (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). You can repeat the lies above as often as you like, I am never going to believe them. The fact that a great many people in the US believe them is one of the more frightening ideas of the 21st century.
It's frightening to people like you because your current view on the world was shattered when evil and heinous acts continued on western civilization (9-11 for example). Truth be known, you must ALWAYS fight for what is right and good in this world. Evil must constantly be purged. But go on, you keep your head in the sand if it will at least make you feel better. I sure as hell won't. I will always stand my ground for what is right and pure in this world.
Correct, you said that the war in Iraq was about Islamic extremists. Which it isn't. Well at least not until you started killing civilians in large numbers. After that it became about Islamic extremists.
The overall goal is to eliminate the Middle Eastern terrorist organizations as they are a clear and present danger to the west. And this threat is motivated by pure hate and rage at the religious level.
When you really think about it, the war wasn't about Iraq, but rather about terrorism. Hence, Iraq was merely a "battle". The "War" is terrorism. Thus, it should be called "The Battle of Iraq". Not the War in Iraq.
God forbid that any American would do business with a brutal dictator!! Lucky for the rest of us the the Americans are such outstanding stand up guys (and gals). Think of the consequences if the world's richest nation did business with dictators!
I got news for you. Every nation has dirty hands. However, America has done far more good for this world in terms of aid, funding, and free services then anyone else has. Thats a fact.
BTW, the French sunk a ship in a New Zealand harbour in the 80's. Is that a declaration of war?
I've not heard of this incident. But yes. Had the issue not been resolved diplomatically after the fact, then I would say it could be construed as an act of war should it be a malicious and premeditated act.
You start with a false premise and lead right to your false conclusion. You have a particular belief of what the word "nation" means, and you think that everyone in the world shares that belief. The "nation" of Iraq is a fiction, but unlike the normal fictious idea of nation, the Iraq fiction was not created by the "Iraqis". And so, the "nation" of which you speak does not really exist, except in the minds of those who wish to maintain the illusion. Currently, that would be the Americans.
Again, you fail to understand the point of democratic responsibility. Let me give you an example...
Because the people of Iraq were oppressed under a dictatorship via Saddam, it would not be ethical or moral to drop a nuclear bomb on that nation. Why free a nation when you will kill them in the process makes no sense? I mean, sure you will end up with innocent civilians killed, but that's NOT the goal. The goal is to isolate the oppressors in a non-free nation and eliminate them with tactful and surgical strikes to minimize innocent casualties.
Had Iraq however been a democratic country and attacked America or Israel, THEN it would be moral and ethical to drop an 80MT bomb on that nation. Again...a democracy entails civilian responsibility and thus everyone would either be innocent or guilty.
Well, perhaps your nation could do the rest of the world a favour and stop creating so many dictators then. It will certainly make your job easier.
This is BS. We don't create dictators around the world. If anything, we are trying to prevent them from taking root. But that would require a nation of super-power status like the US. And well...liberals don't like that. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
Well, in your country and mine, they can't. So what is your point?
Can you give an example of a country where the citizens can impeach
It's not our fault the terrorists hate us. Their actions against us have have nothing to do with our actions.
Understand this. IT IS NOT OUR FAULT!
The terrorist deserve to die like the vermin they are.
That Iraq was the most secular country in the Middle East after Turkey only makes your statement all the more ridiculous.
Are you reffering perhaps to the Wahhabis? Or the Mujahadeen? You know that those people are not from Iraq right?
I never said or eluded from the fact the war in Iraq was not about Islamic extremists. The whole point about the Iraq war was twofold. The main reason was strategic in ensuring stability in the Middle East by promoting democracy. The second was to get rid of a thug no other nation was willing to do. In fact, Russia, France and Germany were the main countries opposed to this war because they were knee shit-deep in dubious activities such as the selling of arms and maintaining huge oil and construction contracts with Saddam. America might be the first country to come to your mind. Hence, I find so much irony in these political conflicts of interests.
Yes, Osama Bin Laden called a press conference in 1998 of mostly Pakistani journalists and give them some good old demogougery, and the video was not shown in the US until after Sept2001. Amazingly convenient that.
al Qaida bombed the the World Trade Center towers in 1993 using a van packed with explosives and detonated it in the parking garage. If that's not an official declaration of war, I don't know what is!.
What really pisses me off is that Clinton did nothing about this threat durring his two terms in office. Had he had the balls to do something about it rather then protecting his legacy, there would be a very good chance we douldn't be in this mess. But I digress.
Sure it is. The fanatical muslim hordes are about to overrun your country at any minute. Better start buying some ammo and canned beans.
You might want to check out "The War on Terrorism: Osama bin Laden and al-Qa'ida" webpage. It contains over 130+ links regarding official reports and research regarding the subject. Of course, you will find none of that Michael Moore propaganda BS there. Sorry to disappoint...
http://www.lib.ecu.edu/govdoc/terrorism.html
Yes, but just because that's what you are seeing doesn't mean it's true. You probably think that all of the homicides in the US are committed by black men too. But don't let the facts get in the way of sky falling on your head.
I don't think, I KNOW it to be true. According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics; blacks were seven time more likely to commit homicides then whites in the year 2002. As for why this is the case, I don't have solid answer. It could be black culture, genetics, or a mix of both. Who knows for sure? But the facts do state none the less. Just click on the offical link to see for yourself.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
I'm wondering. Do you know who supplied Iran with weapons for 8 years during the Iran/Iraq war?
Without question, it was Israel. But the political landscape changed dramatically after the war. And soon, that status of Iran went from "friend" to "foe". At the time it seemed like a good idea in the best interest of Israel to ally with Iran against Iraq. But again, the 80s are over and shit happens. Sometimes you just got to deal with events as the happen in real-time.
Yada, yada, yada. You heard that on talk back radio right? Iran had a democracy before the UK/US interfered and there is internal pressure on the theocracy to move back to a democracy again. Besides which, any election in Iraq is almost sure to be won by the Shia majority, which would suit Tehran just fine. This is really enjoyable! It's like arguing with the bullshit they broadcast on television.
Democrocy = Mullas losing their grip of theocratic control. It's clearly a conflict of interest. But time will tell as it's too early for me to comment. I'll just stand aside and pay close attention in the mean time as the events unfold.
Would that be the views
As is yours about Iraq having nuclear weapons. It's only because you are on some holy crusade against the Muslim world that you think there is a difference between the US owning nuclear weapons and Iraq.
Pure hyperbole, and that's saying it mildly.
This is about fanatics that want to KILL in the name of Allah. I could give a damn what the religious roots are behind such seething hatred and vile acts of inhumanity. Al Qaeda officially declared war on America. Now that the line is drawn in the sand, either they stand down, or die not doing so. I have a right to defend myself both a as a citizen and as a living breathing life form on the planet. It's either them, or me. And I'll be damned if it's me. Simple as that...no really, it's not that complicated of an issue.
Well, since you are so hung up on Israel (are you Jewish?), let's talk about that. The Jews believe that they are God's chosen people, and even go to great lengths to prevent Jews marrying the goiyim(sp?). That's religious bigotry in my book, but of course we have to hold the Jewish people to a different standard to everyone else because of the holocaust. By the way, if you live in the "West", then your culture is founded on a religion that promotes the purging of heathens, pagans, muslims and Jews. The Christians have gone on pogroms, crusades and committed genocide in the name of their God, so I wouldn't be calling the entire Muslim world murderers if I were you, without looking like a complete hypocrite.
I agree with that. However, we are not dealing with fanatical Christians or Jews at this time. We might have to deal with them again in the future, but right now the enemy is radical Islamic militants. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not throwing all follower of the Islamic faith into the same bag. In fact, most around the world live peaceful lives like everyone else. But as of now, from the Middle East, Africa, China, Indonesia and the Europe (that reporter that got stabbed in the back for his criticism of the Islamic faith) we are seeing a rather disproportional violent uprising in relation to others that are followers of different faith.
Then you are clueless, or completely brainwashed with bullshit.
Tell that to the citizens of Israel and it's government. But why should it matter, your the only one with a clue and everyone else in Israel are fucking morrons, right? Yaaaa sure... keep thinking there buddy.
Your government does not even face the consequences of it's actions, so how on earth can we expect the populace to do so?
It's always someone else's fault isn't it. It's not that you armed a group of bored unemployed Saudi men with Stingers and M16's then left them to rot once they won the cold war for you, no. That would mean that YOU are responsible. No, it's that damn extremist barbarian religion Islam and it's crazy medieval followers, the Jihadists. It's their fault! Now let's nuke them back to the medieval age they enjoy so much.
First of all, the citizens of America and the government are one-in-the-same being that it's a democrocy. It would be best to not get this little fact out of perspective. The only time you can seperate the two is if the people of a country do not have the vote to support and change the government...such as China for example and previously Iraq (which will change once the people vote for it's own representatives)
Second, it doesn't matter if we give them nukes or the weapon to destroy the universe. It's THEIR fault for making the final decision to use them at the end of the day. Surely if they have the brains to use such weapons, they too should have the will to use self restraint. But...they didn't. So now the threat must be dealt with in kind. With FORCE!
Based on my observation of you separating the power of government and its citizens, and de voiding yourself of personal responsibility or understanding the lack there of; I would say you fit the classic American definition of a liberal.
There is no accountability in times
At that time the explanation was that Saddam Hussein posed am imminent threat to the United States, was collaberating with Al Qaeda, attempting to buy yellow cake uranium, and aluminum tubes for nukes, developing remote controlled aircraft to deliver chemical and biological weapons and if we waited until we had enough evidence to prove it, the proof could come in the form of a mushroom cloud and millions of dead.
All of that turned out to be untrue.
I agree that it turned out to be false information. And thank God too. Perhaps had Saddam let the inspectors in and searched Iraq for the supposed "WMDs", he would still be left in power as nothing would have been found. Ironically, it was Saddams own hubris that ended up being his downfall.
I did hear guest on a local radio program talk about how Saddam actually thought he had a weapons program in place. In reality however, none of his senior management actually had their act togeather. It was such to the degree that no one would utter words of program failure to Saddam out of the fear of being killed or tortured. So Saddam though he had a WMD program, we thought he had a WMD program...but at the end of the day, it was the people in charge that was lying all along to save their own ass.
Honestly, I don't know of this conspiracy theory still holds weight. But if it's true, it will be the worlds biggest bluff in all of mankind.
Utter BS!
We did not turn out backs on Afganistan. That war is over, the people voted, and now there is a democrocy in place. Officially, it's victory. The only job left is to maintain security in that region and keep a watchfull eye to make sure the tides don't change.
As for Osama...we may never find him unless someone from the inside rats him out. Time will tell.
Let's say the United States of America, a known aggressor, had nuclear weapons. Oh wait ... it does."
This *might* come as a shock to you, but all major countries have a history of aggression regardless if they possess nukes or not. So your statement is a moot point.
In attack or defense? Israel had nuclear weapons before the Iraqi nuclear program even started.
If you your a citizen of Israel, you should sleep better knowing your country has them as a deterrent against Iran and Pakistan. Speaking of which, Israel is not founded on a culture or religion (Islam) that promotes the purging of "infidels" (anyone that is NOT Muslim). If I was living in Israel, I would be worried shitless over Iran.
I'm not exactly sure what your point is here. You are saying that if Iraq has a democratically elected government, and it attacks one of it's neighbours (for example, Israel), then it's OK for it's neighbour to retaliate and massacre large numbers of Iraqi's. And somehow this will "restore order"?
Yes, exactly. In fact, if you're an American citizen and find we have done crimes against humanity...well I suggest you take yourself to court. Because, your just as guilty as the next man as we are all equal. You may not have voted for Bush, but your fellow citizens have. And unless you don't want to also be held accountable in times of war, I suggest you leave the country. Remember, you are part of the democratic process too. So what ever actions our government makes, its citizens too may also face the consequences.
Again, it's all about democratic accountability in times of warfare. The door also swings both ways. Should Iran launch a nuclear weapon against Israel, then Israel's government has the sovereign right to counter the attack regardless of the bloodshed it ensues. At this point, you can only have peace through victory regardless of the winner.
That pretty much sums up war. It's an action to resolve irreconcilable differences when all diplomatic options have failed.
Order is a relative term. Once a country has elected their representatives, that country as a whole can be held accountable for the actions taken place by that government be it good OR bad. This puts global politics at an equal when having to deal diplomatically during times of war and peace.
For example, lets say saddam did have nuclear weapons (he doesn't, but I wouldn't put the goal past him had he remained in power) and used them against the Israel. At that point, would it be fair for Israel to retaliate against a country that was oppressed by a dictator that did not reflect the majority of its people? I would say no. However, let's say saddam was elected in a fair and democratic way. Then at that point, it's fair game in order for Israel to preserve its nation and take out its aggressor.
Based on current political events in the middle east, conflicts of interest have always been in place for at least a thousand years. It's only a matter of time before they become a threat technologically (Nukes, bio-weapon programs...etc). Had we just turned a blind eye, I fear that not only would the middle east be in a state anarchy, but we could have nukes being smuggled into our borders.
Now you tell me, would you rather we wait till that happens and have a few cities glassed? Or, deal with the threat by promoting democrocy in order to restore order to that region. I prefer the later as it's a win/win situation for everyone.
You remember the 2nd amendment? If raghead come screeming at me with a bloated chest (bomb) and screeming jihad at me, I will inforce my right to bare arms.
P2P that!
That surplus was PROJECTED based on the current dot-com trends and growing employment. Even if Clinton was still in office today, we would still be in debt.
As for the war, it HAD to be done. That..or just wait till the middle east turns into a chaotic pack of rats armed with nukes in the future. You choice if you want the risk. Damned if you do, even more damned if you dont.
Michael Crichton is what you would call an insightful person, not one that is very informative.
"Yes sir, I have a BS in Social Engineering"
Secondly your ignorant "They fuck like rabbits..." statement shows a basic lack of understanding of mammalian biology and human social systems.
Hey, thanks. I needed the laugh =) But you are correct, we tend to do the deed missionary style.
Anyways, I agree with what you said now that I think about it more. But I think this whole cure for AIDs is a patch to a much larger problem. While were doing research, we should be trying to educate the as best as possible. I here everyone talking about the use of condoms. But lets face it, sex is addictive once your active. So while they are protected more or less when using condoms, all it takes is one time unprotected. It's only a matter of time when a couple decide to at it without protection. On a positive note: should they be using protection as it's intended and with responsibility, it could dramitically reduce the spread of AIDs.
What I'm basically trying to say is that they should be aware of who their previous partners are. I know it's a sensitive subject at a personal level, but when you start having unprotected sex, your making a gamble with your life. What they need is a cultural change (they will have to decide on that) and not be so promiscuous. If they are unsure about their partner, they should not have sex with him/her...period. There is a reason that having a monogomous relationship is the safest.
This is slashdot (and I don't care about my karma anymore). You should expect America, White men, Rich, and ummmm...Conservitives to be EVIL!
So I'll just say it now. We should stop funding Africa and let them all die of AIDs. I mean, lets not be politically correct for once. They fuck like rabbits and pop out babies like they are going out of style. Hell, 12 year olds giving birth is not uncommon in that part of the world. If they are not educated enough or fail to be educated, why continue?
You can lead a horse to the water, but you can't force him to drink.
Climatic change has always happend and will continue to do so regardless if Man is here or not. Rather then worring about it, we should do what all life here on Earth does.
ADAPT or DIE!
It's the cycle of life. And who knows, my number may be up next to meet the wrath of nature. Oh well, such as life.
Add:
"This call is being monitored for quality assurance."
And so once again, God shall hear the bloody screams of billions of humans burning under its wrath.
IBM isn't doing this because they are "nice" and "charitable". They are doing this as a business strategy in hopes it will payoff later. Personally, I wish more companies would try this tactic. But, it is a risk not many companies are willing to risk. So......
Wow, you got modded insightful! Didn't you know that most of slashdot believes in free handouts and government to support them? Like...DUH!!!
Remember kiddies. Government = virtual titty to suck on.
Yes!!!! Now were talking! But the damn thing better not short out on me while going giving me a BJ.
Saddam followers are (for the most part) sunnis muslems. It's the Sunnies that supported Saddam that funneled money to Al-Qaeda. As for Saddam, he was NOT a religious zelot. He was a dictator; pure and simple. But I seriously doubt he didn't know what was going on. He just chose to not personally get involved in the islamic jihad.
Uh huh. And just how did the CIA manage to pull that off? Did they point a gun to the citizens of said countries to prevent them from having a voice and opinion? Answer is obviously "no".
So let me sum up your point of view (or from what I gather) of America.
1. If shit hits the fan, it's Americas fault.
2. If something good happens for the world, America had nothing to do with it.
I admit that this is pure hyperbole of the above mentioned. But the humorous value of the Micheal Moore crowed is really wearing thin at the intellectual level.
...which is why he is on my foe list. He simply does not like America for no reason at all. Fine, by me then. I just decided to not like Grishnakh either.
Unlike Apple, Microsoft does not have tight control over the hundreds of thousands of parts that go into the development of a PC. At least Apple can maintain a high level of quality control over hardware along with their OS.
I would say that almost always a BSOD is caused by a 3rd party device driver or bad RAM (or faultly memory timing). But that said, microsoft should have at least burned in that PC before using it in the presentation had it been a hardware/driver.
Because the idiology of the left is based more on feelings and less on grounded logic. So naturally, feelings will capture more attention and thus the audience of a forum.