And that all countries, excluding USA, should have nukes implemented in all major cities. This design well maximizes global stability and would be a great tool in combating global terrorism.
is there any reason why the PLA would want to "take out our critical infastructure and military force"? Do you have any objective rational that can explain any reason why they would even attempt to attack, WITHOUT provocation? (everytime they said they will not give up use of military for reunfication, they had always included the clause that they would only do so should Taiwan declares independence, which is a provocation.)
You didn't hear them crying bloods out of their eye sockets now for letting everybody knows the invention of gunpower and rocketry(early form) way back? Can't we just move on, and maybe, get along once awhile? I believe PRC's missile tech will eventually be world class, the tech just speeded up the process. But the ends and means are inevitable. The best defense against them isn't some kind of missile shield, nuclear pre-emptive strike, star war, or whatever fancy ideas our government comes with. It's all about not being so paranoid to, ummm... everybody else.
oh yeah, it's just another case of patriot vs communist. I have no further input that could alter your rational.
Bush: linux can be use to launch rocket? The very thing that terrorist lacks? It's free and distributed widely on the Internet? We got a problem here
Ashcroft: not only that, but its source code is not encrypted, anyone could store a copy in their compueter.
Bush: Then I'm assuming that even if we EMP all the computers, the source might still be stored somewhere as a printed copy?
Ashcroft: I'm afraid so. I always have a problem tainting uses of technology
Bush: then let's ban printers as well, that will buy you sometime.
and then everybody thanks the cop, what a happy ending!
Except not. Turns out that 20 years ago it was this cop who let loose this killer. But to make the matter worst, the cop also had a number of killing under his belt.
But to make it even more worst, the cop is a cop because he proclaim himself as one, but almost everybody sees him as another crook. One that this one has a very big gun and a very loud mouth
why don't you listen to your own advice and educate yourself?
US put Saddam in power in the sense that without US support/supply, he wouldn't have enjoy using chemical to "stablize" his country. But during the 80s, such monsterous act is acceptable, if the host country is an ally right?
Well, shit. If we didn't sell Saddam a lot of weapon, I would be scare how much weapon we have. So what's your ponit?
"Finally, we're fixing some old mistakes. Better late than never! "
"fixing" is not the right word, "attempting to fix" is a more suitable term. At the mean time, let's make Iraq an extension of our economy!
Isn't it nice to have such a problem? Or is it really just an opportunity, instead of a problem in the first place?
"Maybe it'll be the government of Germany. We put'em there, about 50 years ago, and it begins to look as though they've gone sour. With France as an ally, they wouldn't stand a chance. "
And what does that have to do with C.I.A? I believe you know what I'm talking about, but just wants to trolling for the lack of excuse.
Mind you, alot of dirty business deal/operations conducted by the CIA during the Cold War is terrorism.
"but what are they supposed to do?"
Ummm... they are suppose to be the undevelope, backward, third world bad guy that we could bash everyday. =)
Any deviation from the above description could pose a threat to our freedom and superioirty!
Oh, so now you are not on the WMD high horse anymore? Is the US inspectors doing anything? Or are they stuck between nothingness and bureacratic propaganda?
An irony I always find amusing is project of UN from the hawks. Are you for or against UN resolutions? If you are for it, explain why US voids UN resolution and conduct military operation without UN approval. If you are against it, then stop bitching about Saddam voilating resolutions. Hint: pick one side and stick to it. The way I see it, be it Bush or Saddam, "evil" has little intention of letting others get in their way
I consider the adjective evil could be apply to someone who oppose landmine ban. Are you the supporter of evil now? Damn, Saddam is such a puppet, that he's implemented when he's needed, and now he's deposed when he's done? I wonder how much time Rumsfield spent washing his hands since he shake hands with Saddam. I would be quite happy to see a change of leadership in Iraq, but I in no way would agree a country could invade a country base distaste of leadership.
Simply put, there is little moral highground(the only one I could think of is "we want to clean up our own mess"), no holy reason in this conflict.
And since the conflict(there is still no formal declaration of war) is over, I guess we all have no choice but to seat and wait. However, should things go wrong, the Iraqis could care less your vote, and you couldn't carry any of their pain either. Isn't it nice to exercise your "responsibility" to determine other's fate? Mind you it's not a game where you can start over if things are screwed up.
Slashdot Mirror
And that all countries, excluding USA, should have nukes implemented in all major cities. This design well maximizes global stability and would be a great tool in combating global terrorism.
news at 12: the domain name www.sco.com is up for sell.
Hmm... I wonder what it will feel like to be overwhelm by nanorobots
maybe it would be like a slashdot effect on organic matter =)
I think their glory ended when they started sending out CD-roms instead of floppies =)
is there any reason why the PLA would want to "take out our critical infastructure and military force"? Do you have any objective rational that can explain any reason why they would even attempt to attack, WITHOUT provocation? (everytime they said they will not give up use of military for reunfication, they had always included the clause that they would only do so should Taiwan declares independence, which is a provocation.)
You didn't hear them crying bloods out of their eye sockets now for letting everybody knows the invention of gunpower and rocketry(early form) way back? Can't we just move on, and maybe, get along once awhile? I believe PRC's missile tech will eventually be world class, the tech just speeded up the process. But the ends and means are inevitable. The best defense against them isn't some kind of missile shield, nuclear pre-emptive strike, star war, or whatever fancy ideas our government comes with. It's all about not being so paranoid to, ummm... everybody else.
oh yeah, it's just another case of patriot vs communist. I have no further input that could alter your rational.
Well, it would be very unfortunate to ruin my right hand, because certainty regular activity is more enjoyable when the right hand is employed.
Unless you are a leftie
"That questioning the truth is a bad thing?"
Well, there are plenty of people that believe evolution doesn't exist, the earth was/is flat, and god hates Saddam Hussein =)
Bush: linux can be use to launch rocket? The very thing that terrorist lacks? It's free and distributed widely on the Internet? We got a problem here Ashcroft: not only that, but its source code is not encrypted, anyone could store a copy in their compueter. Bush: Then I'm assuming that even if we EMP all the computers, the source might still be stored somewhere as a printed copy? Ashcroft: I'm afraid so. I always have a problem tainting uses of technology Bush: then let's ban printers as well, that will buy you sometime.
nah, if you are to trace the root of rocket design, then ultimately it goes back to China.
and then everybody thanks the cop, what a happy ending!
Except not. Turns out that 20 years ago it was this cop who let loose this killer. But to make the matter worst, the cop also had a number of killing under his belt.
But to make it even more worst, the cop is a cop because he proclaim himself as one, but almost everybody sees him as another crook. One that this one has a very big gun and a very loud mouth
why don't you listen to your own advice and educate yourself? US put Saddam in power in the sense that without US support/supply, he wouldn't have enjoy using chemical to "stablize" his country. But during the 80s, such monsterous act is acceptable, if the host country is an ally right? Well, shit. If we didn't sell Saddam a lot of weapon, I would be scare how much weapon we have. So what's your ponit?
"Finally, we're fixing some old mistakes. Better late than never! " "fixing" is not the right word, "attempting to fix" is a more suitable term. At the mean time, let's make Iraq an extension of our economy! Isn't it nice to have such a problem? Or is it really just an opportunity, instead of a problem in the first place? "Maybe it'll be the government of Germany. We put'em there, about 50 years ago, and it begins to look as though they've gone sour. With France as an ally, they wouldn't stand a chance. " And what does that have to do with C.I.A? I believe you know what I'm talking about, but just wants to trolling for the lack of excuse. Mind you, alot of dirty business deal/operations conducted by the CIA during the Cold War is terrorism.
"which tyrant is next" the one that US put into power 30 years ago or could be 20 years ago ask the CIAs, they would have a definite answer.
well, since a certain group of people are willing to let Bush demonstrate his success... it's a free world
"but what are they supposed to do?" Ummm... they are suppose to be the undevelope, backward, third world bad guy that we could bash everyday. =) Any deviation from the above description could pose a threat to our freedom and superioirty!
Oh, so now you are not on the WMD high horse anymore? Is the US inspectors doing anything? Or are they stuck between nothingness and bureacratic propaganda? An irony I always find amusing is project of UN from the hawks. Are you for or against UN resolutions? If you are for it, explain why US voids UN resolution and conduct military operation without UN approval. If you are against it, then stop bitching about Saddam voilating resolutions. Hint: pick one side and stick to it. The way I see it, be it Bush or Saddam, "evil" has little intention of letting others get in their way I consider the adjective evil could be apply to someone who oppose landmine ban. Are you the supporter of evil now? Damn, Saddam is such a puppet, that he's implemented when he's needed, and now he's deposed when he's done? I wonder how much time Rumsfield spent washing his hands since he shake hands with Saddam. I would be quite happy to see a change of leadership in Iraq, but I in no way would agree a country could invade a country base distaste of leadership. Simply put, there is little moral highground(the only one I could think of is "we want to clean up our own mess"), no holy reason in this conflict. And since the conflict(there is still no formal declaration of war) is over, I guess we all have no choice but to seat and wait. However, should things go wrong, the Iraqis could care less your vote, and you couldn't carry any of their pain either. Isn't it nice to exercise your "responsibility" to determine other's fate? Mind you it's not a game where you can start over if things are screwed up.