Superman, is that you? You must have used your x-ray vision to look through the masks of the men in the video footage. Even if Zarqawi claimed responsibility, that's what? Two dead Americans? Versus how many thousands with ruined retirement accounts, millions of dollars lost? We have no way of knowing how many deaths, let alone injuries, Lay's activities caused.
I'd say it's a safe bet that he injured more than two Americans however. See, I live in California, and I personally have been injured by the actions of Enron, the company Lay oversaw.
Presumably, you have links from the AP regarding these AQ funded labs? I have this link
which depicts Zarqawi as wanting to ally himself with AQ, but not being embraced by the terrorist organization's leadership. Furthermore, I have yet to find a mainstream media outlet which claims AQ was operating from Iraq before the war.
There is nothing absurd about calling Republicans traitors, it is indisputable: they seek to undermine the Constitution of the United States, and do not support the Constitution, the document upon which almost all of our laws depend. In so doing, they hope to destroy the United States, and are hence traitors, QED. There is nothing in the Constitution which allows violation of amendments one, five, or six, but there are the Republicans, supporting their violation each and every day.
Traitors all. To paraphrase the Traitor-in-Chief, "you're either with us, or you're with the Republicans."
You don't _have_ to be a traitor, you know. You can always read the Constitution, and educate yourself about this country's founding, and the ideals behind it.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi didn't join Al Qaeda until after the Iraq War began, so it's not really fair to hold him responsible for the actions of UBL and any AQ members who planned or participated in 9/11.
As far as I know, the poster is correct, because I'm not aware of Zarqawi hurting or killing any Americans.
Why not try doing your own thinking and research, rather than buying the lies of Republican, conservative traitors?
Oh come on. Are a dirt mound and Everest both mountains? Of course not. You're choosing one of the few scandals involving a Democrat and comparing it to dozens of scandals involving Republicans. Let's have a little perspective..
Right, Enron didn't violate the cardinal rule of a capitalist system: do not use anti-competitive practices to secure a monopoly, because then that monopoly is illegal.
Enron hurt thousands and thousands of people, but Microsoft slowed down the pace of software innovation by years if not decades. And that amount of damage is incalculable.
We should care because we are not alone on this planet. We have the largest economy, and the largest military, so we could always conquer the rest of the planet and force them to do our bidding. In such a world, terrorism against us would run rampant. We would be the enemy of hundreds of countries around the world. I figure that's the worst-case scenario.
By alienating other nations, and by attacking those nations without justification or provocation, we would engender ever-increasing terrorist attacks, because those nations can only fight us using those tactics. They don't have submarine or bomber fleets, or in most cases, even nuclear weapons. Their only tactic available is the one we can't defend against: terrorism.
You should care because you, or someone you care about, could end up dead because our government takes an increasingly hostile view of the world, and engenders more hatred and malevolence from those we attack. Peace is in everyone's best interest. Violence only ends badly for everyone, with lots of deaths, lots of destruction, and no end in sight.
I wouldn't have any problem with Bush acquiescing to Bin Laden's demand: get out of the middle east. OK, sure. We'll leave, but only with a very public truce with AQ: your future is completely in your hands. Leave us alone, and we'll leave you alone. However, if the United States gets attacked, even once, whether you're at fault or not, we'll use our nuclear arsenal to lay waste to the entire middle east, without pause for who started what, or who is responsible for the attack. In other words, keep your people in line, and everything will be fine..
Or, maybe it's not that simple. What would happen? We'd eventually get attacked by someone who didn't agree with Bin Laden's truce with us, and we'd have to destroy the middle east, spreading radiation all over the world, killing them and us, one rad at a time. See? The violence won't solve the problem. There are greater motivations at work here than "they hate us for our freedom" or "they hate us for our way of life."
We need to find out what those are so we can address them. Bin Laden is an extremist, and most Muslims aren't. So what's their beef with us? What is the real reason that otherwise moderate Muslims smile just a little when the U.S. gets attacked? What's the real reason they hate us, and how can we negotiate a peace that works for them and for us long-term?
You should care if you want to live in a world where you don't have to fear for your life all the time.
But why did those 3,000 people die? Did they die because the U.S. has been meddling in middle-eastern affairs for over half a century? Did they die because terrorist organizations can only wage war against the mightiest nation in history using guerilla tactics?
Putting those questions aside, it doesn't bode well for the United States to claim that terrorists killed 3,000 innocent civilians while killing thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq, or engaging in torture, or invading sovereign (albeit unfriendly) nations who never attacked the United States. Do you see where I'm going here?
We should defend ourselves, but we should do it in a fair manner or we risk looking to the world like a bogeyman. Who's next? Iran? Syria? North Korea? Just how many countries must we invade, and how many wars must we wage to achieve our goals of destroying terrorism? And what if it can't BE destroyed?
Bush has broken the law. He could have applied for permission under FISA, and he didn't. We impeached Nixon for less (he eavesdropped on far fewer people). Bush has broken his oath, and engaged in treason against the United States. Impeachment is not enough. The people of the United States should hold him accountable, just as the Rosenbergs were.
Actually, parts of the Constitution do pertain to non-citizens: some people are protected by clauses containing "no person" and other clauses contain "no citizen."
So, why didn't the framers use "no citizen" exclusively? This document was crafted over many weeks, so I think it unlikely that they just missed the inconsistency. No, they intended some rights to apply to citizens, and others to everyone.
Look at the fifth amendment: "..nor shall any person be subject.." Not any citizen, but any person.
With regard to your tumor analogy, are you really suggesting that we should take military action against any dictator or despot who just _might_ become a threat? That's what many of today's Republicans believe, and that's awfully dangerous. How quickly will we become hated if we just start bombing on the off chance some regime might become dangerous.
Hey, I've got news for you: it is IMPOSSIBLE to win the "war on terror," that's right, IMPOSSIBLE. We have to have a perfect record of stopping every threat, and they only have to get WMDs into the country ONCE. There is no way to secure a free society against guerilla tactics and terrorism. We are so big, and there are so many chinks in our armor, and they are so small, fast reacting, and mobile. This "war" was lost before it was ever fought.
No, you don't engage in war unless you're certain. Contained military strikes, like the kind taken in the Clinton administration, may contain your enemy without resorting to an invasion. Personally, I don't want one American life lost because we made a mistake.
And before you suggest that military inaction got us here, the exact opposite is true. UBL attacked the U.S. BECAUSE we had troops in what he considered to be holy land. Who knows what would have happened in the Middle East without our constant meddling in their affairs?
You're suggesting that because Saddam massacred his people, it's OK for us to do it in the name of freedom? Who says? Shouldn't that be left to the people of Iraq? If they want freedom so badly, let them rise up against the Republican Guard, or organize an insurgency large enough and popular enough that it's clear they want help in overthrowing their government.
You are dreaming. We tried to establish freedom by overthrowing dictators in the 60s and 70s, and by Vietnam and Korea, and it didn't work. What makes you so sure it's going to work THIS time? What is different THIS time? We should have learned by now that you can't force freedom on people.
North Korea never had any intention of developing nukes, it was all a gambit to get economic concessions from the U.S.; it was a bluff. Only yesterday, Kim Jong (sp?) said that he was backing out of the proliferation treaty unless we let him have a nuclear reactor. See? A bluff. He's just trying to negotiate.
I'm glad you brought up Germany after WWI; we ended up setting the stage for Hitler's rise to power. I assert that we've made the same mistake again: we've removed a dictator from a nation where there was little, if any, terrorism, and in the vacuum terrorists have sprung up in that country all over the place. Just today, the Saudi ambassador warned the U.S. that Iraq was disintegrating, and would lead to a civil war, possibly even violence enveloping the Middle East. I don't think destabilizing the region is in anyone's interests, but that's what happens when you try to play God, and start invading countries, hoping your solution will work.
Let's not forget that Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Somalia, and Kosovo were all optional wars for the United States; Milosovich and Hussein were not potential Hitlers, and lacked our military power. Why was it necessary for us to get involved?
I don't think you can honestly argue that the USA uses its power sparingly. Moreover, are you really serious that the USA should get praise for not taking over the world? So what if we have the military might to force any country to do our bidding..that doesn't mean we should.
I am truly sorry that you have to risk your life in Iraq, because the situation there will invariably disintegrate into civil war. You, and hundreds of other American servicemen are being sent to the slaughter by your Commander In Chief, and in the end, we will have nothing to show for it but dead Iraqis and Americans.
Did it ever occur to you that as an invading force, we in the USA just might be on the wrong end of this? Who told us to be the world's policeman? What ethical right do we have to invade sovereign nations, no matter how good our intentions? Only the United States could be so arrogant.
And if we do want to use our might as the only Ultrapower left on Earth, then let's use it to stop Hitlers, not these petty little tyrants who want to spill the blood of their own citizens. If the citizens want to rebel, they can do it themselves.
The United States can afford neither the lives nor the money for discretionary wars. Real wars are not optional, and threaten the planet: WWI and WWII.
In the end, you cannot "give" democracy to a people any more than you can force it upon them. They have to want it, and be willing to fight for it. Iraq may never be ready for a USA-style republic.
Tiger Server cannot act as an AD server, but it can tie-in to an existing one fairly seamlessly.
If you were really starting from scratch, configure a Mac as an Open Directory Master, and use ACLs to control access for users and groups. That should give 90% of admins all the granularity they'll need.
How much of Exchange's functionality will you really use? Would Tiger's built-in POP/IMAP mailserver do the job, or do you need an Exchange server replacement like Kerio MailServer (which runs great on OS X Server)?
Keep in mind all those CALs you're going to need to purchase or upgrade if you go with a W2K3/Exchange solution. Tiger Server will give you unlimited client licenses for $1,000, and Kerio's licensing is less expensive than Microsoft's.
Slashdot Mirror
Superman, is that you? You must have used your x-ray vision to look through the masks of the men in the video footage. Even if Zarqawi claimed responsibility, that's what? Two dead Americans? Versus how many thousands with ruined retirement accounts, millions of dollars lost? We have no way of knowing how many deaths, let alone injuries, Lay's activities caused.
c le/2006/06/09/AR2006060902040_2.html
I'd say it's a safe bet that he injured more than two Americans however. See, I live in California, and I personally have been injured by the actions of Enron, the company Lay oversaw.
Presumably, you have links from the AP regarding these AQ funded labs? I have this link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
which depicts Zarqawi as wanting to ally himself with AQ, but not being embraced by the terrorist organization's leadership. Furthermore, I have yet to find a mainstream media outlet which claims AQ was operating from Iraq before the war.
There is nothing absurd about calling Republicans traitors, it is indisputable: they seek to undermine the Constitution of the United States, and do not support the Constitution, the document upon which almost all of our laws depend. In so doing, they hope to destroy the United States, and are hence traitors, QED. There is nothing in the Constitution which allows violation of amendments one, five, or six, but there are the Republicans, supporting their violation each and every day.
Traitors all. To paraphrase the Traitor-in-Chief, "you're either with us, or you're with the Republicans."
You don't _have_ to be a traitor, you know. You can always read the Constitution, and educate yourself about this country's founding, and the ideals behind it.
Those policies were put in place by Peter Wilson, and Davis took the fall for them. Ah, more wonderful work of Republicans.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi didn't join Al Qaeda until after the Iraq War began, so it's not really fair to hold him responsible for the actions of UBL and any AQ members who planned or participated in 9/11.
As far as I know, the poster is correct, because I'm not aware of Zarqawi hurting or killing any Americans.
Why not try doing your own thinking and research, rather than buying the lies of Republican, conservative traitors?
Oh come on. Are a dirt mound and Everest both mountains? Of course not. You're choosing one of the few scandals involving a Democrat and comparing it to dozens of scandals involving Republicans. Let's have a little perspective..
Right, Enron didn't violate the cardinal rule of a capitalist system: do not use anti-competitive practices to secure a monopoly, because then that monopoly is illegal.
Enron hurt thousands and thousands of people, but Microsoft slowed down the pace of software innovation by years if not decades. And that amount of damage is incalculable.
"When the President does it, that means that it's not illegal."
Richard M. Nixon
We should care because we are not alone on this planet. We have the largest economy, and the largest military, so we could always conquer the rest of the planet and force them to do our bidding. In such a world, terrorism against us would run rampant. We would be the enemy of hundreds of countries around the world. I figure that's the worst-case scenario.
By alienating other nations, and by attacking those nations without justification or provocation, we would engender ever-increasing terrorist attacks, because those nations can only fight us using those tactics. They don't have submarine or bomber fleets, or in most cases, even nuclear weapons. Their only tactic available is the one we can't defend against: terrorism.
You should care because you, or someone you care about, could end up dead because our government takes an increasingly hostile view of the world, and engenders more hatred and malevolence from those we attack. Peace is in everyone's best interest. Violence only ends badly for everyone, with lots of deaths, lots of destruction, and no end in sight.
I wouldn't have any problem with Bush acquiescing to Bin Laden's demand: get out of the middle east. OK, sure. We'll leave, but only with a very public truce with AQ: your future is completely in your hands. Leave us alone, and we'll leave you alone. However, if the United States gets attacked, even once, whether you're at fault or not, we'll use our nuclear arsenal to lay waste to the entire middle east, without pause for who started what, or who is responsible for the attack. In other words, keep your people in line, and everything will be fine..
Or, maybe it's not that simple. What would happen? We'd eventually get attacked by someone who didn't agree with Bin Laden's truce with us, and we'd have to destroy the middle east, spreading radiation all over the world, killing them and us, one rad at a time. See? The violence won't solve the problem. There are greater motivations at work here than "they hate us for our freedom" or "they hate us for our way of life."
We need to find out what those are so we can address them. Bin Laden is an extremist, and most Muslims aren't. So what's their beef with us? What is the real reason that otherwise moderate Muslims smile just a little when the U.S. gets attacked? What's the real reason they hate us, and how can we negotiate a peace that works for them and for us long-term?
You should care if you want to live in a world where you don't have to fear for your life all the time.
But why did those 3,000 people die? Did they die because the U.S. has been meddling in middle-eastern affairs for over half a century? Did they die because terrorist organizations can only wage war against the mightiest nation in history using guerilla tactics?
Putting those questions aside, it doesn't bode well for the United States to claim that terrorists killed 3,000 innocent civilians while killing thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq, or engaging in torture, or invading sovereign (albeit unfriendly) nations who never attacked the United States. Do you see where I'm going here?
We should defend ourselves, but we should do it in a fair manner or we risk looking to the world like a bogeyman. Who's next? Iran? Syria? North Korea? Just how many countries must we invade, and how many wars must we wage to achieve our goals of destroying terrorism? And what if it can't BE destroyed?
Bush has broken the law. He could have applied for permission under FISA, and he didn't. We impeached Nixon for less (he eavesdropped on far fewer people). Bush has broken his oath, and engaged in treason against the United States. Impeachment is not enough. The people of the United States should hold him accountable, just as the Rosenbergs were.
Actually, parts of the Constitution do pertain to non-citizens: some people are protected by clauses containing "no person" and other clauses contain "no citizen."
So, why didn't the framers use "no citizen" exclusively? This document was crafted over many weeks, so I think it unlikely that they just missed the inconsistency. No, they intended some rights to apply to citizens, and others to everyone.
Look at the fifth amendment: "..nor shall any person be subject.." Not any citizen, but any person.
With regard to your tumor analogy, are you really suggesting that we should take military action against any dictator or despot who just _might_ become a threat? That's what many of today's Republicans believe, and that's awfully dangerous. How quickly will we become hated if we just start bombing on the off chance some regime might become dangerous.
Hey, I've got news for you: it is IMPOSSIBLE to win the "war on terror," that's right, IMPOSSIBLE. We have to have a perfect record of stopping every threat, and they only have to get WMDs into the country ONCE. There is no way to secure a free society against guerilla tactics and terrorism. We are so big, and there are so many chinks in our armor, and they are so small, fast reacting, and mobile. This "war" was lost before it was ever fought.
No, you don't engage in war unless you're certain. Contained military strikes, like the kind taken in the Clinton administration, may contain your enemy without resorting to an invasion. Personally, I don't want one American life lost because we made a mistake.
And before you suggest that military inaction got us here, the exact opposite is true. UBL attacked the U.S. BECAUSE we had troops in what he considered to be holy land. Who knows what would have happened in the Middle East without our constant meddling in their affairs?
You're suggesting that because Saddam massacred his people, it's OK for us to do it in the name of freedom? Who says? Shouldn't that be left to the people of Iraq? If they want freedom so badly, let them rise up against the Republican Guard, or organize an insurgency large enough and popular enough that it's clear they want help in overthrowing their government.
You are dreaming. We tried to establish freedom by overthrowing dictators in the 60s and 70s, and by Vietnam and Korea, and it didn't work. What makes you so sure it's going to work THIS time? What is different THIS time? We should have learned by now that you can't force freedom on people.
North Korea never had any intention of developing nukes, it was all a gambit to get economic concessions from the U.S.; it was a bluff. Only yesterday, Kim Jong (sp?) said that he was backing out of the proliferation treaty unless we let him have a nuclear reactor. See? A bluff. He's just trying to negotiate.
I'm glad you brought up Germany after WWI; we ended up setting the stage for Hitler's rise to power. I assert that we've made the same mistake again: we've removed a dictator from a nation where there was little, if any, terrorism, and in the vacuum terrorists have sprung up in that country all over the place. Just today, the Saudi ambassador warned the U.S. that Iraq was disintegrating, and would lead to a civil war, possibly even violence enveloping the Middle East. I don't think destabilizing the region is in anyone's interests, but that's what happens when you try to play God, and start invading countries, hoping your solution will work.
Let's not forget that Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Somalia, and Kosovo were all optional wars for the United States; Milosovich and Hussein were not potential Hitlers, and lacked our military power. Why was it necessary for us to get involved?
I don't think you can honestly argue that the USA uses its power sparingly. Moreover, are you really serious that the USA should get praise for not taking over the world? So what if we have the military might to force any country to do our bidding..that doesn't mean we should.
I am truly sorry that you have to risk your life in Iraq, because the situation there will invariably disintegrate into civil war. You, and hundreds of other American servicemen are being sent to the slaughter by your Commander In Chief, and in the end, we will have nothing to show for it but dead Iraqis and Americans.
Did it ever occur to you that as an invading force, we in the USA just might be on the wrong end of this? Who told us to be the world's policeman? What ethical right do we have to invade sovereign nations, no matter how good our intentions? Only the United States could be so arrogant.
And if we do want to use our might as the only Ultrapower left on Earth, then let's use it to stop Hitlers, not these petty little tyrants who want to spill the blood of their own citizens. If the citizens want to rebel, they can do it themselves.
The United States can afford neither the lives nor the money for discretionary wars. Real wars are not optional, and threaten the planet: WWI and WWII.
In the end, you cannot "give" democracy to a people any more than you can force it upon them. They have to want it, and be willing to fight for it. Iraq may never be ready for a USA-style republic.
Tiger Server cannot act as an AD server, but it can tie-in to an existing one fairly seamlessly.
If you were really starting from scratch, configure a Mac as an Open Directory Master, and use ACLs to control access for users and groups. That should give 90% of admins all the granularity they'll need.
How much of Exchange's functionality will you really use? Would Tiger's built-in POP/IMAP mailserver do the job, or do you need an Exchange server replacement like Kerio MailServer (which runs great on OS X Server)?
Keep in mind all those CALs you're going to need to purchase or upgrade if you go with a W2K3/Exchange solution. Tiger Server will give you unlimited client licenses for $1,000, and Kerio's licensing is less expensive than Microsoft's.