I don't think any higher up (in organized government) would be dumb enough to order a hit this sloppy. The FSB, underfunded and undermanned as they are, is still very professional. They (the FSB) would have known that the radioactive elements would be traced. Personally, I'd bet this was done by some elements of government that are mafia (very common and they can afford to be sloppy since they are much harder to track). The dead guy had a long history of making enemies...
Ever think they didn't care if it was going to be traced to them? Perhaps the murder of Anna Politkovskaya did not send the message loudly enough that they were trying to get out, It doesn't matter where in the world you hide, you will be killed and it will be painful.
Even with this traced back to Russia, Putin has enough plausible deniability to fend off any criticism from the west at this point. The message however is prettty clear if you've been following who has been shot or posioned in the Russian media lately.
Nah, the Cold War "victory" was of the same type as the "victory" over Germany after WW 1. The Allies beat the Germans, but they left an impoverished, dispirited people who were educated and in possession of fairly advanced technology. The time was ripe for a charismatic leader to come in with promises of wealth and victory and rebuild their war machine. Same goes for Russia ca. 2006.
-b.
The cold war never ended. The soviet empire coming down was a farce according to KGB agents who defected. Notice that book was published back in 1984.
Russia is slowly getting back onto her feet economically. She paid off the last of her Paris club debt from the Soviet era under Putin. She helped Bush stumble into the Iraqi war by provinding false intellegence much like America did to Russia to lure them into Afghanistan years ago. The spike in oil prices has helped the Russian economy. So why was Litvinenko killed? Well, he was alleged that al-Qaeda number two Ayman al-Zawahiri was trained by the FSB (KGB)in Dagestan in the years before the 9/11 attacks.
The US is still fighting the cold war by proxy, even if they don't realize it.
LOL! You really must be drinking a LOT of the republican kool-aid. The Republicans lost because they've not done anything about the Iraq war, and people are tired of it. They also lost because they've increased spending by a LOT. Combine that with all the scandals hitting the Republican party, and it's pretty obvious that they've dug their own grave. The Democrats are really the only ones you can't blame for this one.
Heh, the Dems do a lot of FUD. It wasn't that effective in the last election, but I saw claims ranging from how Bush was going to take us into Iran if the Republicans won again, or he would get rid of Social Security, Reinstitute the draft etc, etc. Never mind the nutty bloggers and the things they wrote.
You are right however, the Republicans, Bush specifically pissed off the base when it came to issues like Harriet Myers, Dubai ports, Illegal Immigration, Spending, etc. Second term incumbant presidents often lose the midterms anyway, because by then the US hasn't become the Democratic/Republican nirvana that the bases of the parties want so they usually find a reason to be pissed off. Also, since most presidents who are elected are somewhat centerist (by US standards), with 6 years in office they usually do at least one thing to tick off their supporters.
In some ways yes, in some ways no. There's not a lot of leadership in the Democratic party, more like a lot of common interests pooled together. The Republicans have a default leader of the President (though most Republicans have tried to distance themselves from him).
They actually did have some issues they ran on, but they didn't mention them much. Most candidates ran on a 'Bush is Bad' platform and won.
Funny, I didn't see any of those ads. It's almost as if you just made those ones up to try to exagerate a point. Of course they did run attack ads. The ones I saw were largely accurate,
It wasn't the attack ads as much as the third parties they got to make wild accusations. The Republicans are no way above this (If you elect the democrats the terrorists will win!).
like talking about a Republican candidate being against funding of stem-cell research. It also doesn't help that the jerk-off Senator in Virginia called some guy a "macacca" (a racial slur)
Considering the history of the term, I'm doubting he meant it like that, unless he just happened to know Macaca was a dismissive epithet used by francophone colonials in Central Africa's Belgian Congo for the native population. Or maybe he just meant to call the guy a monkey? I fail to see how calling someone a monkey is racist. What animals can you actually call someone nowadays without someone trying to make you out as a racist?
It's great that the Democrats blew it up to make the Republicans look like racists, and basically framed that whole election over the one incident rather than the issue at hand. I'm not delusional enough to think if the shoe was on the other foot the Republicans wouldn't do the same however.
and then said "welcome to America" even though the guy was born here, was accused of calling people niggers in College, at first denied his Jewish heritage (like he's ashamed of it), then had to admit to it.
And the guy who beat him, Jim Webb admitted to using the same word.
The funny thing is he almost won, which probbably says a lot about Virginia than anything else.
Maybe people voted on the issues rather than the character assassination? Or maybe it was that Jim Webb is more of a conservative than Allen? Have you ever listened to Jim Webb? He sounds like Pat Buchanan. At one point Allen's campaign manager actually said Webb was 'too conservative'. When a Republican is complaining about a Democrat being too conservative in Virginia, you know he's fucked.
Seriously, you deal with terrorism by NOT being afraid.
Is making the public aware the same as fear? I don't think so. Fear among the public would likely be worse if they didn't know and it happened.
You do NOT deal with it by hyping every single fantasy that they can post.
The more they make threats they don't follow through on, the more they look weak, the more they look weak, the less recruits they will get. Or didn't you read that whole NIE that was released?
While I realize you are trying to make a point, your ignorance keeps you from doing so. Ever hear of John Doe #2 at OKC? The guy they never caught? Funny how he looks like Jose Padilla . Even if he isn't Padilla, he was described as middle eastern looking by multiple witnesses even if Jose himself wasn't middle eastern.
not to mention the ira,
The guys that used to call in their bomb threats so they wouldn't kill any innocents? lol.
As for why they mention the MOOSLAMS in the article, here is a hint...they found the threat on a jihadist website which called for an attack 'until the infidel new year,'. That doesn't sound too much like white supremacist talk to me!
But hey, why not illogically cry racism at evey chance right? It's the most intellectually lazy way to say you 'hate' someone without actually saying it. Don't worry if 'Moslem' isn't really a race, most of the idiots will believe you anyway.
The United States of America carried out one of the most successful genocides in the history of mankind. How many American Indians (Native Americans) do you know?
A few, I happen to be related to one actually. To be quite honest with you, if the shoe was on the other foot the Indians would have killed all of the white men, and if any were left over today they sure as shit wouldn't be getting special rights and privileges in an Indian society. Nor would any of them be emotionally weak enough to feel guilty about a victory on the battlefield.
No, but there's a good chance that Iraq would at least be secure.
Well, for the Sunni at least. You know the Kurds are pretty happy.
You can't really have democracy in the middle of a damn war where civilians are being killed every day (somewhere around 50,000 total so far).
That number seems low.
Man, if only it were that easy. Killing people is really really easy. If all you had to do to win in Iraq was kill some people, we'd have won long ago.
If you only attack people who attack you, then killing them is the ultimate goal.
I think the thing you guys are forgetting is how you were acting. I know American soldiers are in a much more dangerous place compared to British troops but you should see the difference in how they act.
American soldiers basicly keep an arms length, they think everyones an enemy and act like it.
British soldiers are more exprienced in peace keeping and they realize people can be allies or enemies, so they give the kids sweets (sounds tiny, but it's something which builds a bridge in the community) and basicly try to blend in. While it may sound risky they also let kids try on their helmet and things like this. You become someone they want to see (even if they dislike why you're there), which makes them less likely to shoot you.
I'm not sure why you are under the impression that American soldiers don't do this, but I actually know a few people in Iraq, one of whom asks us to send him stuff for the kids. I don't doubt that the British military is better at occupying a country than Americans given the Brits history of colonization and suppressing native populations but your impression of American soldiers seems to be based on one experence, or story.
There is no reason the military can't rebuild a society, it just means you have to act like a person instead of a soldier. Which is something American troops seem to lack the ability to do as the moment. Maybe if the "Join the army, goto college, chick dig war heroes and guns" image was toned down a bit that might improve.
I'm not quite sure where you are getting that image from. Pretty much all of my friends who joined the military did so out of patriotism, and nothing else. There are easier ways to get money for college in America, and most young American girls don't dig military guys or guns unless a criminal type is carrying one.
Perhaps you are missing something in your sarcasm. Historically they should have known these groups were going to fight.
Many people knew that before they invaded, and I recall it being written about quite extensively.
They are not Iraqis until the 40's. Before that they were Sunni, Shia, et al.
I think you are the one missing something here. They are Iraqis, and they consider themselves Iraqis (I'm friends with one.). It's just that they consider themselves Sunni, Shia, Christians, and Kurds first, Iraqis second.
I dont know of a single Palestinian who considers him/herself Israeli.
1. He should have been allowed to leave on the 1st one and not used as some political posturing move
Is it political posturing or is Bush responding to the will of the people? I thought Bush should have let Rummy go a long time ago as well, but considering the timing, Bush isn't posturing for anything. He doesn't have to get elected again, and I doubt Rummy will mean much in the grand scheme of things come 2008.
2. Loaded question as hell. But lets point out our democracy has had more than a few problems lately in true representation of the will of the people.
How so? Voter Fraud? Long Lines at the election polls? You can honestly go back 40-50 years and find similar if not worse things going on. As for the will of the people, when so many don't vote, don't care, and have little interest in politics other than re-electing the shmuck who brings money and pet-projects back to their homestate what do you expect?
Are there Americans at fault, absolutely, are they the general populace...not really, at best you can blame 51% of the populace for the shenannagins going on
but really its our representives doing a piss poor job of representing us.
You can blame anyone of voting age.
3. Given his dealings with Saddam and crew, I can kinda understand why there may be some sketchy feelings about this guy in that part of the world. Is he making them fight...not exactly. But did the Rodney King verdict MAKE people go out rioting and looting? Not really, just the reaction to the stimulus happened to go that way. I think the key here is there would probably be much less fighting over there if America's involvement in the middle east didn't have so much dirty dealing going on.
I'm quite certain, that if America pulled all of their troops out of the middle east, there would be a lot of fighting over there over the next 10-20 years. The big difference would be that Americans wouldn't be getting killed or wasting money. Of course the wasting money thing is debatable, how much would a restricted oil flow out of the middle east cost us?
Unless you forget almost all of the problems we have over there are largley our own doing. Kerry gets nailed for flipflopping (I don't like Kerry either, just making a point) but it was Rummy who "Supported Saddam before I didn't support Saddam",
Sure, the US supported Saddam during the cold war. I'm happy we won that one, so I really don't mind.
it was the US that bailed in Afghanistan after the Russians were defeated leaving the Taliban to fill a void in a wartorn country,
Yup, and so we should have surrendered in the cold war rather than drain the Russian budget via proxy wars?
it was the US that mucked in Irans government and got caught leading to the anti-US regime being able to take power.
Yeah, that was quite a mess.
There are a whole gang of people and groups over there that need to be beaten with a large stick and hard for being worthless pricks
But who should do the beating?
but we need to have alot more integrity ourselves in our dealings with that for it to ever mean anything other than continued bloodshed and constant replacments of new evil dictator types.
There will be war in the middle east for a long time to come regardless of what we do over there. Not being involved might be a good idea, but of course if the whole region turns into an islamic empire we will pay at the pump, and perhaps eventually have to fight a larger war.
Somebody else in charge would not have invaded Iraq when we needed to win the war in Afghanistan.
Maybe, maybe not. Lets remember how many Democrats voted FOR the Iraq war, including Hillary Clinton. Lets also remember the un-needed military actions during the Clinton years.
I've seen you post before, and I realize you lean to the left Doc Ruby, but surely you must see that both parties are interventionist at heart. Both parties think America should be the policeman of the world. One may denounce the other at some point for political gain, but both engage in the idea of using the American military for things other than America's self defense.
"Bringing western style democracy to Iraq" has never been more than a slogan to win elections. It worked like a charm for 2 in the US, including one presidential.
Well, if you take the neocons at their word, that was a big part of it. President Bush especially has faith in democracy, and believes 'all people want to be free, and democracy is freedom' and that democracies are less likely to attack one another.
I remain skeptical on this. I think democracy has worked out well in certain countries not because 'all people want to be free' but because the cutural and economic condistions exist for liberal democracy to survive.
If Rumsfeld were a competent Defense Secretary, he would have protected the US by winning in Afghanistan
They did win the war in Afghanistan, although I think they probably could have fought it better. Yes, the Taliban still exists, and yes they may come back into power after we leave. That doesn't change the fact that we fought and killed many of them, and toppled their government.
The European wars of the past are long gone. Every war of the future the US is involved in will look like Afganistan, Iraq and Vietnam. The US will come stop the crap out of some third world shithole, then try to occupy it, and then have to deal with an insurgency, until they leave and both sides declare victory. I expect other large countries (Russia, China) to face these types of wars as well, where the only path to a 'real' victory will be out and out genocide which the American public doesn't have the stomach for which is probably a good thing.
and pursuing a counterintel global pursuit of our terrorist enemies.
They are, and hopefully the New York Times will stop outting every program they have.
Not created a catastrophic distraction that alienated our allies and our own citizens from each other.
To play devil's advocate here, if Clinton had went to war in Afganistan in 1999, captured and killed Bin Laden, lost 200 troops, but caused international outrage we would be saying the same thing, if not worse. The real problem with pre-emptive war, other than making people hate you is even if you are right, nobody will ever know it.
The timing says everything. With the potential for his agenda to be advanced now gone, he cuts and runs. A good man would have stayed on to finish the job properly no matter how stressful.
He's offered his resignation to Bush on at least three seperate occasions.
Afterall, we were led to believe that the war was at least partly for the benefit of the Iraqi people, who are clearly still suffering.
Is that the fault of the Americans? Or are the Iraqi people causing their own suffering?
However this poor excuse for a man failed to give even a cursory look to the troubled history of Iraq and the enormous problems an invasion would unleash. Either that or this is all very intentional... divide and conquer, and everything.
Yes, Rumsfield is making the Sunni's and Shitte's fight! They would surely get along just fine if America wasn't involved in the middle east!
Rumsfeld's resignation was timed such that Bush can force the nomination of his replacement through a Republican Senate. If he'd waited much longer, the Senate would be controlled by the Democrats and Bush might actually have to pick someone good.
Gates has served presidents of both parties, he would likely pass the Senate if it turns out democratic. Gates isn't related to PNAC or the Neocons as far as I've read either...
Militaries aren't designed for nation building.
they are designed to kill
thus the crux of the entire problem.
Which is what nobody seems to get nowadays. Does anyone think that had someone else been in charge they would have brought western style democracy to Iraq? Or has anyone woke up to the reality that you can't shove democracy down the throat of people who want Sharia?
Completely serious, it's more beneficial to society to allow a skilled engineer to spend several months or more looking for a suitable job than have him deskill himself serving hamburgers, installing cables or doing tech support
There is a pretty big gap between flipping burgers and doing tech support, no matter how much people joke about it on Slashdot.
If your country's s Supreme Court believes that it's ok to demolish local businesses to make place for Wallmart because it pays more taxes then it's also more beneficial to support a skilled person so he retains his skills and pays more taxes once he gets a suitable job.
You can start worrying about US tax revenues when whatever shithole country you are from passes the US in GDP. Also unemployment payments in the US typically cover workers when they are inbetween jobs.
US-UK-Israel: the real axis of Evil
Blame the US and the UK for your problems all you want, they basically created western civilization. If that didn't happen, instead of spouting off your half baked socialist values on Slashdot, you would be clubbing people for rights to the nearest puddle so you could get a drink of water.
Of course, because anyone who disagrees with you must be seriously ignorant, right?
there are untold numbers of programmers in the USA who had to accept low paying unskilled positions,
Being that I am a programmer, and I do work in the US, I can tell you that while the IT market isn't as robust as it was in 1998, a computer science degree will do plenty for you. I don't know anyone who worked as a programmer and found themselves flipping burgers in their next job.
in order not to starve to death.
Nobody starves to death here if they don't want to. People who are on welfare get free public housing (projects), and all kinds of social benefits.
I think your misconceptions about the US are from not having lived here, and perhaps reading too much propaganda.
Well, to this guys defense maybe he lives in a European country where one doesnt have to take the first job availible but actually got time to research what best suits his skills, without starving to death in the meantime that is.
Yes, we all see the news stories about the programmers who quit their jobs then starve to death in the evil USA.
From the article:
WoW Overwhelmed By Homophobes, Make Blood Elves Less "Feminine"
So, how is making male characters look more male than female is somehow homophobic?
I'm not sure why you'd blame western society for this. Korea, Japan and Singapore have exactly the same problem.
Honestly, I don't know the demographic problems of Korea and Singapore. I do know about Japan, and I would consider them a 'western' type society even though they have an eastern culture.
In any case, how would you define 'western society'? Would Russia and Brazil count? They certainly speak languages that originated west of my land in a Meractor's projection.
Liberal Democracies, or countries that at least try to have them. That probably would have been a better choice of words.
The dumber you are and the poorer you are, the more kids you have.
Those aren't the only factors.
It is a defense mechanism that all animals possess. When your survival is in jeopardy, start popping out offspring with the slim hope that some will actually survive to adulthood. In the animal kingdom all but the most fit just die off. But in our world of welfare, the rest of us keep them alive and make the problem worse.
It's not really nature, if we followed 'nature', we'd probably all be having 6-8 children if not more. The basic issue is, if you are a poor girl in her teens, and you know you aren't going anywhere in life, the prospect of getting knocked up doesn't look so bad. If you are a middle class girl, who wants to go to college, and is doing well in school, the idea of getting knocked up is a pretty horrifying one.
There are all kinds of other social factors, for example, very devout families tend to have more children.
It is just a problem of morality. I could never look at a 1 year old baby that is starving and say that we should just let it die. But to fix most of our societies problems, we shouldnt be helping them. But because most of us are not immoral monsters, the lowest class of our citizens will continue to reproduce rapidly.
The welfare reform signed into law a few years ago limits the number of children you receive benefits for to 3 if I recall correctly. At this point, we in the US should be happy for the legal immigrants and those that have more than 2 children, those children will be paying our social security bills in the future.
I also think at some point western society has to do more to encourage reproduction among it's middle and upper middle classes, perhaps in the form of offering more incentives to women who have children at a desirable age (ie over 21).
Anyone know why the US is stilling growing significantly, as opposed to most European countries? Which demographics are producing most children? How much does the number of legal immigrants contribute to the growth?
Legal immigration and hispanic birthrates are what contribute to the growth. In some states (ie Utah) Caucasian birthrate is above replacement level, but in most states it is not. Europe has the same problem, Caucasian people are pretty much dying out. African Americans aren't much better, as they are right around replacement rate (2.1), and I suspect in a few years they will fall below it.
As cultures/people become intigrated into western society they tend to have less children. The availability of Birth Control, higher education, and workplace oppurtunity for women are what I believe causes it, along with dropping sperm counts.
an't you just key cars in parking lots, put superglue in ATM cardslots, go mailbox-bashing, or otherwise engage in petty destruction and random vandalism?
I never really did such things, even when I was young. I wouldn't screw up anyones real-life experence or anything that costs real money. How much is someones online gaming time worth really? Not much. All of the things you listed above would take time and money to fix, what I did would take disconnecting from a server and going to another one to fix. It's not even close to the same thing.
Or is it a particular thrill to you, to fuck up other people's life experience at random, if you do it in a really nerdy way? And before you go claiming that there's a difference between vandalizing a mailbox and cheating in online Halo games... recognize that others have paid money to play Xbox online.
I don't play x-box online, as for your line with cheating in video games...If someone camps they are fucking up your life experence so isn't it the same thing? If someone plays really well, you could argue they are fucking up your game so is that the same thing? When someone threw you at street fighter 10 years ago in the arcade, was that the same thing? Really it's no different, and easy to agitate people like you are the ones who make it so much fun. You act like an aimbotter is the reincarnation of Hitler. Your emphasis on how much the game matters is what makes you an attractive target.
I'm willing to bet most people that cheat in games won't have a girlfriend. Otherwise why would they be so obsessed with 'winning' an online game? People with a SO have better things to do that worry about if they won or lost..
You are wrong, I created and released an aimbot for a certain FPS game and I had a girlfriend at the time. It's amazing people still don't understand what a griefer is. It never mattered to me if I won or lost, just as long as I pissed someone off, and got a laugh out of it.
Also the author of the article claims that "Modders", aimbotters, whatever..cheat because they have no skill. That isn't true either, as I've played for first place on a very popular online gaming ladder for the game I used to cheat at, and I know other people who were good players who botted just for the hell of it.
There are some players who use bots, mods, whatever and try to pass them off as 'skill', but for the most part they are just losers. It's much more fun to cheat, and let everyone know about it.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think any higher up (in organized government) would be dumb enough to order a hit this sloppy. The FSB, underfunded and undermanned as they are, is still very professional. They (the FSB) would have known that the radioactive elements would be traced. Personally, I'd bet this was done by some elements of government that are mafia (very common and they can afford to be sloppy since they are much harder to track). The dead guy had a long history of making enemies...
Ever think they didn't care if it was going to be traced to them? Perhaps the murder of Anna Politkovskaya did not send the message loudly enough that they were trying to get out, It doesn't matter where in the world you hide, you will be killed and it will be painful.
Even with this traced back to Russia, Putin has enough plausible deniability to fend off any criticism from the west at this point. The message however is prettty clear if you've been following who has been shot or posioned in the Russian media lately.
Nah, the Cold War "victory" was of the same type as the "victory" over Germany after WW 1. The Allies beat the Germans, but they left an impoverished, dispirited people who were educated and in possession of fairly advanced technology. The time was ripe for a charismatic leader to come in with promises of wealth and victory and rebuild their war machine. Same goes for Russia ca. 2006.
-b.
The cold war never ended. The soviet empire coming down was a farce according to KGB agents who defected. Notice that book was published back in 1984.
Russia is slowly getting back onto her feet economically. She paid off the last of her Paris club debt from the Soviet era under Putin. She helped Bush stumble into the Iraqi war by provinding false intellegence much like America did to Russia to lure them into Afghanistan years ago. The spike in oil prices has helped the Russian economy. So why was Litvinenko killed? Well, he was alleged that al-Qaeda number two Ayman al-Zawahiri was trained by the FSB (KGB)in Dagestan in the years before the 9/11 attacks.
The US is still fighting the cold war by proxy, even if they don't realize it.
LOL! You really must be drinking a LOT of the republican kool-aid. The Republicans lost because they've not done anything about the Iraq war, and people are tired of it. They also lost because they've increased spending by a LOT. Combine that with all the scandals hitting the Republican party, and it's pretty obvious that they've dug their own grave. The Democrats are really the only ones you can't blame for this one.
Heh, the Dems do a lot of FUD. It wasn't that effective in the last election, but I saw claims ranging from how Bush was going to take us into Iran if the Republicans won again, or he would get rid of Social Security, Reinstitute the draft etc, etc. Never mind the nutty bloggers and the things they wrote.
You are right however, the Republicans, Bush specifically pissed off the base when it came to issues like Harriet Myers, Dubai ports, Illegal Immigration, Spending, etc. Second term incumbant presidents often lose the midterms anyway, because by then the US hasn't become the Democratic/Republican nirvana that the bases of the parties want so they usually find a reason to be pissed off. Also, since most presidents who are elected are somewhat centerist (by US standards), with 6 years in office they usually do at least one thing to tick off their supporters.
In some ways yes, in some ways no. There's not a lot of leadership in the Democratic party, more like a lot of common interests pooled together. The Republicans have a default leader of the President (though most Republicans have tried to distance themselves from him).
They actually did have some issues they ran on, but they didn't mention them much. Most candidates ran on a 'Bush is Bad' platform and won.
Funny, I didn't see any of those ads. It's almost as if you just made those ones up to try to exagerate a point. Of course they did run attack ads. The ones I saw were largely accurate,
It wasn't the attack ads as much as the third parties they got to make wild accusations. The Republicans are no way above this (If you elect the democrats the terrorists will win!).
like talking about a Republican candidate being against funding of stem-cell research. It also doesn't help that the jerk-off Senator in Virginia called some guy a "macacca" (a racial slur)
Considering the history of the term, I'm doubting he meant it like that, unless he just happened to know Macaca was a dismissive epithet used by francophone colonials in Central Africa's Belgian Congo for the native population. Or maybe he just meant to call the guy a monkey? I fail to see how calling someone a monkey is racist. What animals can you actually call someone nowadays without someone trying to make you out as a racist?
It's great that the Democrats blew it up to make the Republicans look like racists, and basically framed that whole election over the one incident rather than the issue at hand. I'm not delusional enough to think if the shoe was on the other foot the Republicans wouldn't do the same however.
and then said "welcome to America" even though the guy was born here, was accused of calling people niggers in College, at first denied his Jewish heritage (like he's ashamed of it), then had to admit to it.
And the guy who beat him, Jim Webb admitted to using the same word.
The funny thing is he almost won, which probbably says a lot about Virginia than anything else.
Maybe people voted on the issues rather than the character assassination? Or maybe it was that Jim Webb is more of a conservative than Allen? Have you ever listened to Jim Webb? He sounds like Pat Buchanan. At one point Allen's campaign manager actually said Webb was 'too conservative'. When a Republican is complaining about a Democrat being too conservative in Virginia, you know he's fucked.
So, I guess I can't
Seriously, you deal with terrorism by NOT being afraid.
Is making the public aware the same as fear? I don't think so. Fear among the public would likely be worse if they didn't know and it happened.
You do NOT deal with it by hyping every single fantasy that they can post.
The more they make threats they don't follow through on, the more they look weak, the more they look weak, the less recruits they will get. Or didn't you read that whole NIE that was released?
those guys in oklahoma city, sure looked moslem,
While I realize you are trying to make a point, your ignorance keeps you from doing so. Ever hear of John Doe #2 at OKC? The guy they never caught? Funny how he looks like Jose Padilla . Even if he isn't Padilla, he was described as middle eastern looking by multiple witnesses even if Jose himself wasn't middle eastern.
not to mention the ira,
The guys that used to call in their bomb threats so they wouldn't kill any innocents? lol.
As for why they mention the MOOSLAMS in the article, here is a hint...they found the threat on a jihadist website which called for an attack 'until the infidel new year,'. That doesn't sound too much like white supremacist talk to me!
But hey, why not illogically cry racism at evey chance right? It's the most intellectually lazy way to say you 'hate' someone without actually saying it. Don't worry if 'Moslem' isn't really a race, most of the idiots will believe you anyway.
The United States of America carried out one of the most successful genocides in the history of mankind. How many American Indians (Native Americans) do you know?
A few, I happen to be related to one actually. To be quite honest with you, if the shoe was on the other foot the Indians would have killed all of the white men, and if any were left over today they sure as shit wouldn't be getting special rights and privileges in an Indian society. Nor would any of them be emotionally weak enough to feel guilty about a victory on the battlefield.
No, but there's a good chance that Iraq would at least be secure.
Well, for the Sunni at least. You know the Kurds are pretty happy.
You can't really have democracy in the middle of a damn war where civilians are being killed every day (somewhere around 50,000 total so far).
That number seems low.
Man, if only it were that easy. Killing people is really really easy. If all you had to do to win in Iraq was kill some people, we'd have won long ago.
If you only attack people who attack you, then killing them is the ultimate goal.
I think the thing you guys are forgetting is how you were acting. I know American soldiers are in a much more dangerous place compared to British troops but you should see the difference in how they act. American soldiers basicly keep an arms length, they think everyones an enemy and act like it. British soldiers are more exprienced in peace keeping and they realize people can be allies or enemies, so they give the kids sweets (sounds tiny, but it's something which builds a bridge in the community) and basicly try to blend in. While it may sound risky they also let kids try on their helmet and things like this. You become someone they want to see (even if they dislike why you're there), which makes them less likely to shoot you.
I'm not sure why you are under the impression that American soldiers don't do this, but I actually know a few people in Iraq, one of whom asks us to send him stuff for the kids. I don't doubt that the British military is better at occupying a country than Americans given the Brits history of colonization and suppressing native populations but your impression of American soldiers seems to be based on one experence, or story.
There is no reason the military can't rebuild a society, it just means you have to act like a person instead of a soldier. Which is something American troops seem to lack the ability to do as the moment. Maybe if the "Join the army, goto college, chick dig war heroes and guns" image was toned down a bit that might improve.
I'm not quite sure where you are getting that image from. Pretty much all of my friends who joined the military did so out of patriotism, and nothing else. There are easier ways to get money for college in America, and most young American girls don't dig military guys or guns unless a criminal type is carrying one.
Perhaps you are missing something in your sarcasm. Historically they should have known these groups were going to fight.
Many people knew that before they invaded, and I recall it being written about quite extensively.
They are not Iraqis until the 40's. Before that they were Sunni, Shia, et al.
I think you are the one missing something here. They are Iraqis, and they consider themselves Iraqis (I'm friends with one.). It's just that they consider themselves Sunni, Shia, Christians, and Kurds first, Iraqis second.
I dont know of a single Palestinian who considers him/herself Israeli.
That is a different situation
1. He should have been allowed to leave on the 1st one and not used as some political posturing move
Is it political posturing or is Bush responding to the will of the people? I thought Bush should have let Rummy go a long time ago as well, but considering the timing, Bush isn't posturing for anything. He doesn't have to get elected again, and I doubt Rummy will mean much in the grand scheme of things come 2008.
2. Loaded question as hell. But lets point out our democracy has had more than a few problems lately in true representation of the will of the people.
How so? Voter Fraud? Long Lines at the election polls? You can honestly go back 40-50 years and find similar if not worse things going on. As for the will of the people, when so many don't vote, don't care, and have little interest in politics other than re-electing the shmuck who brings money and pet-projects back to their homestate what do you expect?
Are there Americans at fault, absolutely, are they the general populace...not really, at best you can blame 51% of the populace for the shenannagins going on but really its our representives doing a piss poor job of representing us.
You can blame anyone of voting age.
3. Given his dealings with Saddam and crew, I can kinda understand why there may be some sketchy feelings about this guy in that part of the world. Is he making them fight...not exactly. But did the Rodney King verdict MAKE people go out rioting and looting? Not really, just the reaction to the stimulus happened to go that way. I think the key here is there would probably be much less fighting over there if America's involvement in the middle east didn't have so much dirty dealing going on.
I'm quite certain, that if America pulled all of their troops out of the middle east, there would be a lot of fighting over there over the next 10-20 years. The big difference would be that Americans wouldn't be getting killed or wasting money. Of course the wasting money thing is debatable, how much would a restricted oil flow out of the middle east cost us?
Unless you forget almost all of the problems we have over there are largley our own doing. Kerry gets nailed for flipflopping (I don't like Kerry either, just making a point) but it was Rummy who "Supported Saddam before I didn't support Saddam",
Sure, the US supported Saddam during the cold war. I'm happy we won that one, so I really don't mind.
it was the US that bailed in Afghanistan after the Russians were defeated leaving the Taliban to fill a void in a wartorn country,
Yup, and so we should have surrendered in the cold war rather than drain the Russian budget via proxy wars?
it was the US that mucked in Irans government and got caught leading to the anti-US regime being able to take power.
Yeah, that was quite a mess.
There are a whole gang of people and groups over there that need to be beaten with a large stick and hard for being worthless pricks
But who should do the beating?
but we need to have alot more integrity ourselves in our dealings with that for it to ever mean anything other than continued bloodshed and constant replacments of new evil dictator types.
There will be war in the middle east for a long time to come regardless of what we do over there. Not being involved might be a good idea, but of course if the whole region turns into an islamic empire we will pay at the pump, and perhaps eventually have to fight a larger war.
Somebody else in charge would not have invaded Iraq when we needed to win the war in Afghanistan.
Maybe, maybe not. Lets remember how many Democrats voted FOR the Iraq war, including Hillary Clinton. Lets also remember the un-needed military actions during the Clinton years.
I've seen you post before, and I realize you lean to the left Doc Ruby, but surely you must see that both parties are interventionist at heart. Both parties think America should be the policeman of the world. One may denounce the other at some point for political gain, but both engage in the idea of using the American military for things other than America's self defense.
"Bringing western style democracy to Iraq" has never been more than a slogan to win elections. It worked like a charm for 2 in the US, including one presidential.
Well, if you take the neocons at their word, that was a big part of it. President Bush especially has faith in democracy, and believes 'all people want to be free, and democracy is freedom' and that democracies are less likely to attack one another.
I remain skeptical on this. I think democracy has worked out well in certain countries not because 'all people want to be free' but because the cutural and economic condistions exist for liberal democracy to survive.
If Rumsfeld were a competent Defense Secretary, he would have protected the US by winning in Afghanistan
They did win the war in Afghanistan, although I think they probably could have fought it better. Yes, the Taliban still exists, and yes they may come back into power after we leave. That doesn't change the fact that we fought and killed many of them, and toppled their government.
The European wars of the past are long gone. Every war of the future the US is involved in will look like Afganistan, Iraq and Vietnam. The US will come stop the crap out of some third world shithole, then try to occupy it, and then have to deal with an insurgency, until they leave and both sides declare victory. I expect other large countries (Russia, China) to face these types of wars as well, where the only path to a 'real' victory will be out and out genocide which the American public doesn't have the stomach for which is probably a good thing.
and pursuing a counterintel global pursuit of our terrorist enemies.
They are, and hopefully the New York Times will stop outting every program they have.
Not created a catastrophic distraction that alienated our allies and our own citizens from each other.
To play devil's advocate here, if Clinton had went to war in Afganistan in 1999, captured and killed Bin Laden, lost 200 troops, but caused international outrage we would be saying the same thing, if not worse. The real problem with pre-emptive war, other than making people hate you is even if you are right, nobody will ever know it.
The timing says everything. With the potential for his agenda to be advanced now gone, he cuts and runs. A good man would have stayed on to finish the job properly no matter how stressful.
He's offered his resignation to Bush on at least three seperate occasions.
Afterall, we were led to believe that the war was at least partly for the benefit of the Iraqi people, who are clearly still suffering.
Is that the fault of the Americans? Or are the Iraqi people causing their own suffering?
However this poor excuse for a man failed to give even a cursory look to the troubled history of Iraq and the enormous problems an invasion would unleash. Either that or this is all very intentional... divide and conquer, and everything.
Yes, Rumsfield is making the Sunni's and Shitte's fight! They would surely get along just fine if America wasn't involved in the middle east!
Rumsfeld's resignation was timed such that Bush can force the nomination of his replacement through a Republican Senate. If he'd waited much longer, the Senate would be controlled by the Democrats and Bush might actually have to pick someone good.
Gates has served presidents of both parties, he would likely pass the Senate if it turns out democratic. Gates isn't related to PNAC or the Neocons as far as I've read either...
Militaries aren't designed for nation building. they are designed to kill thus the crux of the entire problem.
Which is what nobody seems to get nowadays. Does anyone think that had someone else been in charge they would have brought western style democracy to Iraq? Or has anyone woke up to the reality that you can't shove democracy down the throat of people who want Sharia?
Completely serious, it's more beneficial to society to allow a skilled engineer to spend several months or more looking for a suitable job than have him deskill himself serving hamburgers, installing cables or doing tech support
There is a pretty big gap between flipping burgers and doing tech support, no matter how much people joke about it on Slashdot.
If your country's s Supreme Court believes that it's ok to demolish local businesses to make place for Wallmart because it pays more taxes then it's also more beneficial to support a skilled person so he retains his skills and pays more taxes once he gets a suitable job.
You can start worrying about US tax revenues when whatever shithole country you are from passes the US in GDP. Also unemployment payments in the US typically cover workers when they are inbetween jobs.
US-UK-Israel: the real axis of Evil
Blame the US and the UK for your problems all you want, they basically created western civilization. If that didn't happen, instead of spouting off your half baked socialist values on Slashdot, you would be clubbing people for rights to the nearest puddle so you could get a drink of water.
Assuming you're serious (seriously ignorant)
Of course, because anyone who disagrees with you must be seriously ignorant, right?
there are untold numbers of programmers in the USA who had to accept low paying unskilled positions,
Being that I am a programmer, and I do work in the US, I can tell you that while the IT market isn't as robust as it was in 1998, a computer science degree will do plenty for you. I don't know anyone who worked as a programmer and found themselves flipping burgers in their next job.
in order not to starve to death.
Nobody starves to death here if they don't want to. People who are on welfare get free public housing (projects), and all kinds of social benefits.
I think your misconceptions about the US are from not having lived here, and perhaps reading too much propaganda.
The macho crap amuses me.
Quitting your job because you are bored isn't macho, it is dumb. Dragging your ass to a job you hate for 40 years for your family is macho.
Well, to this guys defense maybe he lives in a European country where one doesnt have to take the first job availible but actually got time to research what best suits his skills, without starving to death in the meantime that is.
Yes, we all see the news stories about the programmers who quit their jobs then starve to death in the evil USA.
From the article: WoW Overwhelmed By Homophobes, Make Blood Elves Less "Feminine" So, how is making male characters look more male than female is somehow homophobic?
I'm not sure why you'd blame western society for this. Korea, Japan and Singapore have exactly the same problem.
Honestly, I don't know the demographic problems of Korea and Singapore. I do know about Japan, and I would consider them a 'western' type society even though they have an eastern culture.
In any case, how would you define 'western society'? Would Russia and Brazil count? They certainly speak languages that originated west of my land in a Meractor's projection.
Liberal Democracies, or countries that at least try to have them. That probably would have been a better choice of words.
No, but the guns create a culture of violence that tells them its ok to shoot people.
Really? The little guns do that? Or do the people do that as well...
By this logic, slashdot create a culture of slacking that tell people it's ok not to do work.
The dumber you are and the poorer you are, the more kids you have.
Those aren't the only factors.
It is a defense mechanism that all animals possess. When your survival is in jeopardy, start popping out offspring with the slim hope that some will actually survive to adulthood. In the animal kingdom all but the most fit just die off. But in our world of welfare, the rest of us keep them alive and make the problem worse.
It's not really nature, if we followed 'nature', we'd probably all be having 6-8 children if not more. The basic issue is, if you are a poor girl in her teens, and you know you aren't going anywhere in life, the prospect of getting knocked up doesn't look so bad. If you are a middle class girl, who wants to go to college, and is doing well in school, the idea of getting knocked up is a pretty horrifying one.
There are all kinds of other social factors, for example, very devout families tend to have more children.
It is just a problem of morality. I could never look at a 1 year old baby that is starving and say that we should just let it die. But to fix most of our societies problems, we shouldnt be helping them. But because most of us are not immoral monsters, the lowest class of our citizens will continue to reproduce rapidly. The welfare reform signed into law a few years ago limits the number of children you receive benefits for to 3 if I recall correctly. At this point, we in the US should be happy for the legal immigrants and those that have more than 2 children, those children will be paying our social security bills in the future.
I also think at some point western society has to do more to encourage reproduction among it's middle and upper middle classes, perhaps in the form of offering more incentives to women who have children at a desirable age (ie over 21).
Anyone know why the US is stilling growing significantly, as opposed to most European countries? Which demographics are producing most children? How much does the number of legal immigrants contribute to the growth?
Legal immigration and hispanic birthrates are what contribute to the growth. In some states (ie Utah) Caucasian birthrate is above replacement level, but in most states it is not. Europe has the same problem, Caucasian people are pretty much dying out. African Americans aren't much better, as they are right around replacement rate (2.1), and I suspect in a few years they will fall below it.
As cultures/people become intigrated into western society they tend to have less children. The availability of Birth Control, higher education, and workplace oppurtunity for women are what I believe causes it, along with dropping sperm counts.
an't you just key cars in parking lots, put superglue in ATM cardslots, go mailbox-bashing, or otherwise engage in petty destruction and random vandalism?
I never really did such things, even when I was young. I wouldn't screw up anyones real-life experence or anything that costs real money. How much is someones online gaming time worth really? Not much. All of the things you listed above would take time and money to fix, what I did would take disconnecting from a server and going to another one to fix. It's not even close to the same thing.
Or is it a particular thrill to you, to fuck up other people's life experience at random, if you do it in a really nerdy way? And before you go claiming that there's a difference between vandalizing a mailbox and cheating in online Halo games... recognize that others have paid money to play Xbox online.
I don't play x-box online, as for your line with cheating in video games...If someone camps they are fucking up your life experence so isn't it the same thing? If someone plays really well, you could argue they are fucking up your game so is that the same thing? When someone threw you at street fighter 10 years ago in the arcade, was that the same thing? Really it's no different, and easy to agitate people like you are the ones who make it so much fun. You act like an aimbotter is the reincarnation of Hitler. Your emphasis on how much the game matters is what makes you an attractive target.
I'm willing to bet most people that cheat in games won't have a girlfriend. Otherwise why would they be so obsessed with 'winning' an online game? People with a SO have better things to do that worry about if they won or lost..
:)
You are wrong, I created and released an aimbot for a certain FPS game and I had a girlfriend at the time. It's amazing people still don't understand what a griefer is. It never mattered to me if I won or lost, just as long as I pissed someone off, and got a laugh out of it.
Also the author of the article claims that "Modders", aimbotters, whatever..cheat because they have no skill. That isn't true either, as I've played for first place on a very popular online gaming ladder for the game I used to cheat at, and I know other people who were good players who botted just for the hell of it.
There are some players who use bots, mods, whatever and try to pass them off as 'skill', but for the most part they are just losers. It's much more fun to cheat, and let everyone know about it.