Which makes me wonder about Debian, they backport the patches and have a slow release cycle. The systems appear to be old and vulnerable, with only half of it being true... doesn't really match this reporting.
Name a Middle Eastern state that hasn't funded terrorism.
That doesn't make it right for others. Regarding where the terrorists were located, islamic terrorists' vists to Baghdad before the fall of the regime have been documented. It was not just an occational pleasure trip.
You are however right in that a joint enemy doesn't always unite elements. Saudi and al-Qaeda is another example of that.
On the other hand, the USA was the principle fund raiser for the IRA, costing the lifes of countless civilians.
True, and it's probably not good. Though I do not have enough knowledge of the situation to know why the US supported the IRA. It's not like the US hate the brits.
Cheers guys. Can we invade you now?
Cheers at yourself, I'm a swede. You're free to try.
Also, the USA has trained just about every South American war criminal in terrorist and espionage operations.
You're just spitting out propaganda. Don't bother listing the cases of regimes supported by the US, you have proven yourself unable to handle an objective discussion. I am the last to claim that the US is perfect and always does the right things. I am, however, going to point out for you that the choice hasn't always been between good and bad, but between more or less evil. It's about which direction to move and how the world will react to that. Hints: Cold War, stabilization, proxy wars.
What exactly is your point, caller?
Can't read either? The answer to his question:
"what does Iraq have to do with terrorism?"
That they're manufacturing the old weapon isn't that big a deal. The weapons market for Soviet era weapons is flodded. There are tons of that, and the russian military doesn't exactly have the same size any more. Plus add what's left over in the countries they left... didn't pack it up and bring it home.
I'd expect that most (or at least many) of the people who work in the pentagon have the best of intentions, but they've gown up in an environment where might makes right and they have the most might. It's not generally the best crucible for peacemakers.
I happen to have the priveliege of being in contact with numerous people who has ties with or worked in the pentagon. Most of those are current or former military personnel, mainly Special Forces.
With that said I know that your claim of their upbringing is bullshit. They are a very smart group of people that puts their duty to the US, outlined in the various policies and assignments, first hand.
Might doesn't make right, but if you don't have any might at all it doesn't really matter how right you are, you have to be able to stir things up one way or another.
The leaders paradox is that the kinds of people who are willing to fight for power tend to be precisely the kinds of people that you don't want in power.
Those who can, do. Those can't do, teach. Those can't teach, teach the teachers. The Pentagon folks do.
Iraq gave money to the families of palestinan suicide bombers and hosted various terrorist organizations, al-Aqsa among others. Many camps have been uprooted there.
I would like to add though, that most of those here (Sweden) who hate the US doesn't do so because you have weapons. They hate you because they define morally correct actions by who executes them - and you're on the right wing - not by what the actions are. They also don't like you because they live in peace, in a society where you can negotiate. Most of them have never had a gun pointed at their forehead, which is when diplomacy wears down and you have to at least let the adversary know that you will defend yourself, before the bolo pulls the trigger. They simply do not get that some people will rather kill you than bend in even the slightest manner.
I on the other hand love the US, which is why you and I will stay modded down.:)
Of course, there's a lot of bad crap in your backyard too, but certainly not more than elsewhere. The thing about the US is simply that there is more of everything, and it's natural to highlight it where it's obvious.
I am saying that if ever there was a group of people capable of making an honest, accurate assessment of this sort of thing, it's a bunch of Nobel laureates.
Yeah, sure. All praise Arafat and the Iranian Sharia law loving woman who have won peace prizes!
A lot of people have eluded to this, but I'm going to be the smart ass to say it straight out: We need packaging/installation policy standards!
Imagine a centralized, yet somewhat distributed control, database over names of libraries/packages. The libraries name would not include version numbers or anything like that. In addition to this there's a standard scheme for naming packages, version numbers, etc.
Now, the bigger problem is not what installs where, rather what installs what. The policy standard for package management is not the format, the manager or whatever to use, but what each package should contain. I.e. a standardized policy regarding how much one is allowed to cram into a package. Of course they all need meta-information saying what they provide.
So if you have, e.g., a standardized policy of one package per lib and a naming scheme that is adopted by major distros... feel free to use whatever package management you want.
You see on 9/11 I found a weird shaped coin on the street. I then said to myself "as long as I have this coin in my pocket no further terrorist attacks will occur on US soil". As you well know since that time there have been no attacks on US soil so it's working as far as anyone can measure.
The difference being, of course, that your coin doesn't actually symbolize the increased security and precautions exercised while at code orange. The threat levels are bound together with an approximation as to how likely a threat is, and the need for anti/counter measures. Appropriate, as far as those with something to say can tell, actions are then taken to preserve safety.
The victories are seldom known, if the public is bothered, its bad. Transparency.
What reinforcements? Above someone called even the static defensive positions mere speedbumps.
US reinforcements from overseas. The armor can be knocked out by air (if the air can be cleared) and cruise missiles.
Why not nuke them while they're in Finland getting refuelled and rearmed...
Because then Finland's already lost? If you wear down the massive logistical operation of getting forces to Europe/Finland, you have increased your chances quite a bit. Takes more time being bogged down, less progress for their forces (->lower morale), costs money, less power in the end to use. During which you dig in and reinforce positions in Finland and elsewhere. More NATO forces can be mobilized. That would not have been possible earlier, when the Soviet forces were already in Europe.
I don't know if the above is possible without nukes, but enough Tomahawks (heavily defended) should do it.
Aw hell, if they're bogged down there, why not also move up through Afghanistan? That is, after all, the Russian underbelly.
Of course, you could let them take finland first, lose a lot of good men, let them dig in, and then have no option but to nuke.
But, this scenario probably won't happen because of those nukes (perhaps also because the times have changed, but I don't trust that KGB'er).
Aha, I get it! I don't know how much sense it makes to nuke Finland today... Albeit the Russians are no longer the primary threat, suppose they invaded Finland: what would they have to do? They would have to scramble their armor and move it to Europe, an logistical operation that they would not be able to keep hidden. NATO would have enough time to move up reinforcements, or nuke/tomahawk them on the way.
The Soviets had an extreme amount of armor in Europe during the cold war. The NATO bases around Europe would only be speed bumps for them, we had NOTHING conventional that would stop them. (after a lot of complaining about their military power in europe, they moved it to the other side of the Urals, where conscripts are maintaining it still)
As for nuking them in finland: Should they have nuked them earlier, while they were still in Soviet, thus instead starting WW3 themselves? Or should they have waited till Soviet had taken over another country, and nuke them there instead? It's not like they would go in and then pull back, sort of ruins the whole point.
The UN is not credible and yet if they pass a resolution and don't enforce it then we have to do it for them.
Yeah, that is what has happened. The UN lack credibility because they do not have the leverage (credibility/power of threats/action). Therefore, in the Iraq-situation, the US took care of it. Good work on behalf of the US! The UN, on the other hand, e.g., bringing Iraq (under Hussein) and Syria into the commitee for Human Rights, has issues with credibility.
I don't see where we disagree. Btw, you're not the Malcontent from SOCNET, are you?
Ok, you're furthering my parallell to the nuking of japan. The point was: it was different times, a lot has changed, plus you shouldn't judge people based on somebody rather distant.
Why the hell do you bring my ass into this? You're obviously the one who didn't understand it, not me.
Why on earth do you want ANYONE to improve their relationship with a country like Iran? First they begin to stop being a women degrading, public oppressing, murderous state, THEN we can talk a little. And no, the US is nowhere near their dilapidated affairs, so don't twist my words, please!
Thank the improved relationship between Iran and Russia for the most recent nuclear crisis. The world doesn't just need peace, it needs peace under good conditions. I won't buy peace with chains of slavery and torture, especially not for somebody else. That is not solidarity. I won't show solidarity with thugs.
What is the point of the above post being +4? What agreements? NPT? which requires India to give up the nukes before signing? what's the point in signing.
To avoid another UN-Iraq situation, where people are saying "we're doing something..." yet nothing happens, this is a way of forcing on the ratification of the agreement. Compare with Kyoto, which some countries have signed but not ratified.
By the way India has a declared No-First-Use policy, while USA has a declared Pre-emptive-strike policy. And, US has exercised that poilicy once, and with the new tactical nukes it plans to do so again and again.
Your arguments are completely flawed: The US has a pre-emptive strike policy, but that does not necessarily include NBC weaponry. The document which was created a few years ago, which upset a lot of slashdot, by the Bush administration, detailed the US use of NBC weaponry. Some people regarded that as "The cowboy is gonna nuke the world!" When it in reality was an investigation on how they can be effectively used and under what conditions. (and so on)
One of the conditions are to not be the first to use nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. But if you strike the US with either, you might see either heading your way (most likely the first, obviously).
It would be extremely irreponsible of the world's leading nuclear superpower to have an arsenal which it does not have conditions for and knowledge of its use.
By the way, the USA last used nuclear weapons 50 years ago, don't you think the world view has changed a bit? Perhaps the threats? Perhaps the administration? In other news, I think you're rude because your grandpa's ancestors said women are supposed to be house wifes only.
If you want to know who might be nuked, you ought to take a better look at North Korea rather than anything else. I personally believe that encitements for the use of tactical nuclear weapons have been meant in a threat to them - for their capability of taking out a possible underground uranium enrichment plant. That is an enourmous leverage, and unlike the UN, it doesn't lack credibility. First get the tools, make the other party aware of that, then slowly build up an alternative for the other party, in a way that it understands that oppressing it people or being a threat to your interests is a bad thing. When they realize that their options are exhausted, you can start moving somewhere. The UN didn't enforce their resolutions on Iraq, thuse leaving lucrative options for that regime. What happened?
You ask which nuke power is more dangerous?
I'd say China, Pakistan, etc, any hidden in or nearby major cities.
And by the way, I do not see it unlikely that India knocks out large portions of Pakistan's arsenal (especially the nuclear), with the supersonic cruise missiles they have, carrying nuclear warheads or not. It is not the words that are the meaning, it is the leverage, the actions behind them. History shows this, learn it and you might appreciate the Bush administration more, unless you don't like freedom.
Everything is poision in the right amounts. Beer is no different. Matter of fact is that it's loaded with nutritients. As stated, however, in the right amounts it is no longer good for the body.
True story: A scientist was once asked what food he would bring to a desert island. What did he answer? Beer.
I, on the other hand, suggested to my unit that we should ask our commanders if we could bring a keg out in the field.
You're mostly correct. I mixed up MiG and the Su series. Either way, Chinese is bad. An interesting point, however, is that they don't have a rush to build their 100% own aircraft. They can buy tons of armaments from other dealers, mainly Russia, and can if they so wish reverse engineer it. I think 20-30 is somewhat too long, but I don't want to bet on it.
They did buy MiGs from Russia, worth $3.5 billion (hey, why not, the people is just starving, but if they voice their opinion or don't follow the policy set by the government entire villages are, in fact, wiped out). They pulled in another contract at approx. $3 billion earlier, but the contents of it escapes my memory.
Anyway, these Su-27 fighters' secret fire control and system integration were duplicated by Zhu Rong Gong, officially admitted in June 2002. This enables them to make their own modern fighter jets.
Taiwan is under a direct threat, and so is everybody within reach of China. That is simply how it is. China is much worse than you'd expect.
Slashdot Mirror
Which makes me wonder about Debian, they backport the patches and have a slow release cycle. The systems appear to be old and vulnerable, with only half of it being true... doesn't really match this reporting.
Name a Middle Eastern state that hasn't funded terrorism.
That doesn't make it right for others. Regarding where the terrorists were located, islamic terrorists' vists to Baghdad before the fall of the regime have been documented. It was not just an occational pleasure trip.
You are however right in that a joint enemy doesn't always unite elements. Saudi and al-Qaeda is another example of that.
On the other hand, the USA was the principle fund raiser for the IRA, costing the lifes of countless civilians.
True, and it's probably not good. Though I do not have enough knowledge of the situation to know why the US supported the IRA. It's not like the US hate the brits.
Cheers guys. Can we invade you now?
Cheers at yourself, I'm a swede. You're free to try.
Also, the USA has trained just about every South American war criminal in terrorist and espionage operations.
You're just spitting out propaganda. Don't bother listing the cases of regimes supported by the US, you have proven yourself unable to handle an objective discussion. I am the last to claim that the US is perfect and always does the right things. I am, however, going to point out for you that the choice hasn't always been between good and bad, but between more or less evil. It's about which direction to move and how the world will react to that. Hints: Cold War, stabilization, proxy wars.
What exactly is your point, caller?
Can't read either? The answer to his question:
"what does Iraq have to do with terrorism?"
That they're manufacturing the old weapon isn't that big a deal. The weapons market for Soviet era weapons is flodded. There are tons of that, and the russian military doesn't exactly have the same size any more. Plus add what's left over in the countries they left... didn't pack it up and bring it home.
I'd expect that most (or at least many) of the people who work in the pentagon have the best of intentions, but they've gown up in an environment where might makes right and they have the most might. It's not generally the best crucible for peacemakers.
I happen to have the priveliege of being in contact with numerous people who has ties with or worked in the pentagon. Most of those are current or former military personnel, mainly Special Forces.
With that said I know that your claim of their upbringing is bullshit. They are a very smart group of people that puts their duty to the US, outlined in the various policies and assignments, first hand.
Might doesn't make right, but if you don't have any might at all it doesn't really matter how right you are, you have to be able to stir things up one way or another.
The leaders paradox is that the kinds of people who are willing to fight for power tend to be precisely the kinds of people that you don't want in power.
Those who can, do. Those can't do, teach. Those can't teach, teach the teachers. The Pentagon folks do.
Iraq gave money to the families of palestinan suicide bombers and hosted various terrorist organizations, al-Aqsa among others. Many camps have been uprooted there.
Are you claiming that North Korea is matching the USSR's roughly 70 million disappeared? I didn't know they even had that many in NK.
Well put!
:)
I would like to add though, that most of those here (Sweden) who hate the US doesn't do so because you have weapons. They hate you because they define morally correct actions by who executes them - and you're on the right wing - not by what the actions are. They also don't like you because they live in peace, in a society where you can negotiate. Most of them have never had a gun pointed at their forehead, which is when diplomacy wears down and you have to at least let the adversary know that you will defend yourself, before the bolo pulls the trigger. They simply do not get that some people will rather kill you than bend in even the slightest manner.
I on the other hand love the US, which is why you and I will stay modded down.
Of course, there's a lot of bad crap in your backyard too, but certainly not more than elsewhere. The thing about the US is simply that there is more of everything, and it's natural to highlight it where it's obvious.
I am saying that if ever there was a group of people capable of making an honest, accurate assessment of this sort of thing, it's a bunch of Nobel laureates.
Yeah, sure. All praise Arafat and the Iranian Sharia law loving woman who have won peace prizes!
A lot of people have eluded to this, but I'm going to be the smart ass to say it straight out:
We need packaging/installation policy standards!
Imagine a centralized, yet somewhat distributed control, database over names of libraries/packages. The libraries name would not include version numbers or anything like that. In addition to this there's a standard scheme for naming packages, version numbers, etc.
Now, the bigger problem is not what installs where, rather what installs what. The policy standard for package management is not the format, the manager or whatever to use, but what each package should contain. I.e. a standardized policy regarding how much one is allowed to cram into a package. Of course they all need meta-information saying what they provide.
So if you have, e.g., a standardized policy of one package per lib and a naming scheme that is adopted by major distros... feel free to use whatever package management you want.
If you don't think there's a lot more going on than that, you are naiive.
You see on 9/11 I found a weird shaped coin on the street. I then said to myself "as long as I have this coin in my pocket no further terrorist attacks will occur on US soil". As you well know since that time there have been no attacks on US soil so it's working as far as anyone can measure.
The difference being, of course, that your coin doesn't actually symbolize the increased security and precautions exercised while at code orange. The threat levels are bound together with an approximation as to how likely a threat is, and the need for anti/counter measures. Appropriate, as far as those with something to say can tell, actions are then taken to preserve safety.
The victories are seldom known, if the public is bothered, its bad. Transparency.
No, the UN is not irrelevant, they lack credibility because they do not stand up for the values that they claim to hold so dear.
What reinforcements? Above someone called even the static defensive positions mere speedbumps.
US reinforcements from overseas. The armor can be knocked out by air (if the air can be cleared) and cruise missiles.
Why not nuke them while they're in Finland getting refuelled and rearmed...
Because then Finland's already lost? If you wear down the massive logistical operation of getting forces to Europe/Finland, you have increased your chances quite a bit. Takes more time being bogged down, less progress for their forces (->lower morale), costs money, less power in the end to use. During which you dig in and reinforce positions in Finland and elsewhere. More NATO forces can be mobilized. That would not have been possible earlier, when the Soviet forces were already in Europe.
I don't know if the above is possible without nukes, but enough Tomahawks (heavily defended) should do it.
Aw hell, if they're bogged down there, why not also move up through Afghanistan? That is, after all, the Russian underbelly.
Of course, you could let them take finland first, lose a lot of good men, let them dig in, and then have no option but to nuke.
But, this scenario probably won't happen because of those nukes (perhaps also because the times have changed, but I don't trust that KGB'er).
Good talking to you!
Aha, I get it! I don't know how much sense it makes to nuke Finland today... Albeit the Russians are no longer the primary threat, suppose they invaded Finland: what would they have to do? They would have to scramble their armor and move it to Europe, an logistical operation that they would not be able to keep hidden. NATO would have enough time to move up reinforcements, or nuke/tomahawk them on the way.
The Soviets had an extreme amount of armor in Europe during the cold war. The NATO bases around Europe would only be speed bumps for them, we had NOTHING conventional that would stop them. (after a lot of complaining about their military power in europe, they moved it to the other side of the Urals, where conscripts are maintaining it still)
As for nuking them in finland: Should they have nuked them earlier, while they were still in Soviet, thus instead starting WW3 themselves? Or should they have waited till Soviet had taken over another country, and nuke them there instead? It's not like they would go in and then pull back, sort of ruins the whole point.
It seems like an odd jusposition of statements.
The UN is not credible and yet if they pass a resolution and don't enforce it then we have to do it for them.
Yeah, that is what has happened. The UN lack credibility because they do not have the leverage (credibility/power of threats/action). Therefore, in the Iraq-situation, the US took care of it. Good work on behalf of the US! The UN, on the other hand, e.g., bringing Iraq (under Hussein) and Syria into the commitee for Human Rights, has issues with credibility.
I don't see where we disagree. Btw, you're not the Malcontent from SOCNET, are you?
Ok, you're furthering my parallell to the nuking of japan. The point was: it was different times, a lot has changed, plus you shouldn't judge people based on somebody rather distant.
Why the hell do you bring my ass into this? You're obviously the one who didn't understand it, not me.
Why on earth do you want ANYONE to improve their relationship with a country like Iran? First they begin to stop being a women degrading, public oppressing, murderous state, THEN we can talk a little. And no, the US is nowhere near their dilapidated affairs, so don't twist my words, please!
Thank the improved relationship between Iran and Russia for the most recent nuclear crisis. The world doesn't just need peace, it needs peace under good conditions. I won't buy peace with chains of slavery and torture, especially not for somebody else. That is not solidarity. I won't show solidarity with thugs.
What is the point of the above post being +4?
What agreements? NPT? which requires India to give up the nukes before signing? what's the point in signing.
To avoid another UN-Iraq situation, where people are saying "we're doing something..." yet nothing happens, this is a way of forcing on the ratification of the agreement. Compare with Kyoto, which some countries have signed but not ratified.
By the way India has a declared No-First-Use policy, while USA has a declared Pre-emptive-strike policy. And, US has exercised that poilicy once, and with the new tactical nukes it plans to do so again and again.
Your arguments are completely flawed: The US has a pre-emptive strike policy, but that does not necessarily include NBC weaponry. The document which was created a few years ago, which upset a lot of slashdot, by the Bush administration, detailed the US use of NBC weaponry. Some people regarded that as "The cowboy is gonna nuke the world!" When it in reality was an investigation on how they can be effectively used and under what conditions. (and so on)
One of the conditions are to not be the first to use nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. But if you strike the US with either, you might see either heading your way (most likely the first, obviously).
It would be extremely irreponsible of the world's leading nuclear superpower to have an arsenal which it does not have conditions for and knowledge of its use.
By the way, the USA last used nuclear weapons 50 years ago, don't you think the world view has changed a bit? Perhaps the threats? Perhaps the administration? In other news, I think you're rude because your grandpa's ancestors said women are supposed to be house wifes only.
If you want to know who might be nuked, you ought to take a better look at North Korea rather than anything else. I personally believe that encitements for the use of tactical nuclear weapons have been meant in a threat to them - for their capability of taking out a possible underground uranium enrichment plant. That is an enourmous leverage, and unlike the UN, it doesn't lack credibility. First get the tools, make the other party aware of that, then slowly build up an alternative for the other party, in a way that it understands that oppressing it people or being a threat to your interests is a bad thing. When they realize that their options are exhausted, you can start moving somewhere. The UN didn't enforce their resolutions on Iraq, thuse leaving lucrative options for that regime. What happened?
You ask which nuke power is more dangerous?
I'd say China, Pakistan, etc, any hidden in or nearby major cities.
And by the way, I do not see it unlikely that India knocks out large portions of Pakistan's arsenal (especially the nuclear), with the supersonic cruise missiles they have, carrying nuclear warheads or not. It is not the words that are the meaning, it is the leverage, the actions behind them. History shows this, learn it and you might appreciate the Bush administration more, unless you don't like freedom.
Everything is poision in the right amounts. Beer is no different. Matter of fact is that it's loaded with nutritients. As stated, however, in the right amounts it is no longer good for the body. True story: A scientist was once asked what food he would bring to a desert island. What did he answer? Beer. I, on the other hand, suggested to my unit that we should ask our commanders if we could bring a keg out in the field.
You're mostly correct. I mixed up MiG and the Su series. Either way, Chinese is bad. An interesting point, however, is that they don't have a rush to build their 100% own aircraft. They can buy tons of armaments from other dealers, mainly Russia, and can if they so wish reverse engineer it. I think 20-30 is somewhat too long, but I don't want to bet on it.
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=84
They did buy MiGs from Russia, worth $3.5 billion (hey, why not, the people is just starving, but if they voice their opinion or don't follow the policy set by the government entire villages are, in fact, wiped out). They pulled in another contract at approx. $3 billion earlier, but the contents of it escapes my memory. Anyway, these Su-27 fighters' secret fire control and system integration were duplicated by Zhu Rong Gong, officially admitted in June 2002. This enables them to make their own modern fighter jets. Taiwan is under a direct threat, and so is everybody within reach of China. That is simply how it is. China is much worse than you'd expect.