Actually this is even worse than 1930's Germany when you had evil personified to attack and destroy - subtle is the devil now.
Personally I think its the same devil as in 1930's. His names are Avarice and Lust to Dominate.
People tend to forget that the fascist movements of the time were made possible by cheerful support and financing from the wealthiest elites of the countries in question, who not only sought to become richer but also wanted to have a "destiny" in which they were "superior" to all others. In fact the rich sought to use fascism as means to create a modern rendition of conquest-driven feudalism (i.e. corporatism). With them of course as the new "nobility". This was the pattern in Germany with Krupp and others as well as in Japan with their "zaibatsu". The original template of fawning over and support for Fascism was of course present in Italy on which the others based theirs. All of these people made great efforts to fuel the feverent nationality and militarism until a point came when they were swept along with everyone else in the nations in question after having lost control over the monster they've created.
Now the same class of people is exerting their influence in another power center of the globe, the US. But they have learned the lesson of the past and are attempting to be far more careful and picky as to who they attack to prevent the re-occurance of that loss of control they experienced in WWII.
I didn't mean to troll anybody. I was just saying, if you know how Windows works inside-out already, then you sit down at a Linux box, it's going to take you a reasonable amount of time to get up to the same level of expertise on the new operating system: time you could spend working.
This should be a lesson in dangers of using open-ended, single-liners like "Unless you have no clue" or "unless your time is worth nothing" etc. I (and most Slashdotters it seems) had no way of knowing what you meant and the statement was formulated in a standard, brush-off, condescending tone most Linux/FOSS-bashing trolls use which lead me to believe you were one of them. Subsequently, what followed was pretty much inevietable.
What you were trying to refer to is the "learning curve" cost which rightfully belongs in the TCO calculations of Linux. Windows has a very similiar upfront cost but most organizations/individuals already paid that. But this cannot be simply referred to as "cost" of Linux as that implies the system itself.
I apologise for making fun of you but I would suggest you should try to avoid throwing these types of conversational grenades into the forum.
Folks participiating in this discussion, let me warn you...
I see that the Unwitting Self-Satire business is treating you well.
Now, bear in mind that this is the same person who is attempting to use the fact that the United States was one of the nations providing Saddam with materiel and money (at a time) to discredit any stance against Saddam whatsoever.
Of which you would have ample evidence, coming from my statements such as, oh I don't know, maybe the "I dont argue that Saddam should not have been removed" right in the post you are replying to.
I see logic is still as alien a concept to you as ever.
He knows quite well that, had the US fomented a popular revolution against Saddam and his kind through monetary and materiel support, he would be on these same message boards saying how the US is always trying to influence regime change through funded revolution, citing chapter and verse about how we horrible Americans tried this before and it failed, etc. Same rhetoric, different cause.
Ah yes, the Unsubstantiated Prognostication, one of the more dear to your heart pasttimes. Let me pre-empt the next thing coming in this line of thought: "And you can't prove that you would not have been doing that! Aha!"
he certainly cannot guarantee - or even logically suggest - that a civil war in Iraq funded by the US would have had less tragic results than what we have seen.
Civil war of course being the very last thing anyone sane would wish to provoke, and the very first thing Robocrop would labour to achieve, judging from this statement, no? Peaceful transition, you know, the slow and unglamorous kind, is definitely out of the question. Nowhere near enough explosions, carnage, flashy TV coverage and military hardware to be wasted on that kind of boring thing, therefore not something Robocrop would even consider.
Much like another 'solution' he proposed in which he claims he would have been supportive of US-funded assassination teams killing Saddam Hussein - again ignoring the civil unrest that would have resulted
Actually what I would have supported is a UN backed (by General Assembly) regime removal by means as least bloody as possible, assasination being a possibility but way down the list due to its dangers. Having said that, I can pretty much guarantee that removing Saddam that way, while having a skilfully developed international concensus for offering the new top dog of Ba'ath party all sorts of carrots for reforming Iraq, ala the old Soviet block, would be far less bloody (not to mention far less destructive economically) then the Iraqi Quagmire, US edition.
Take my advice and just disregard him.
That is your advice in regards to everybody who does not nod vigorously in rythm with your rants. Which means the vast majority of people world-wide and a growing majority within the US these days, as the smokescreen of deception and arrogant posturing clears from this affair and everyone can see the ugly truth about the Iraqi invasion.
He doesn't understand what he's speaking about, and is just one of the many who have decided to judge the past with the knowledge of the present.
This would not have such a hollow ring if I were not on record on this very Slashdot before the invasion, with the same message. But the likes of you, having failed miserably, after being forced to reinvent all your fabricated "evidence" over and over are now attempting to pretend, again, that "no one could have foreseen this". Well I have news for you, again, we did foresee it. That Scott Ritter I keep quoting? That is the same quote I was using then, you see, it was published before the war. Not that you noticed then either.
Not to actually affect positive change, or to help clean up a bad situation: but to soapbox against the United States.
If "Positive change" is being defined by "support whatever Bush administration does", then I am guilty of not s
Only because of British democracy was social protests effective, or would you debate that?
And after discussing that you will proceed to try to pull me down into some meandering tunnels of arguments over British society, culminating at the discussion of the undergarnments of the Queen. As soon as you explain the relevancy of any of this to the question of building a political concensus in the UN, I will be happy to oblige.
By the way, you really think this is going to work, dont you? Your question (completely unrelated to the discussion on hand) was, quote: "Because we all know that being "shamed by a skilled politician" has resulted in so many of the freedoms we enjoy today." which implies there aren't any. I gave you examples of just that, one applying even to recent US history. And now you demand that I start producing examples (no doubt of ever increasing difficulty) suiting your next (ever changing) set of requirements. You must be used to some really slow oponents to even try this.
You presented a claim, I provided examples which invalidate it. That is all what was required of me, never you mind that it was off topic. Any further requests you will have to formulate in a manner of a coherent statment instead of "yea but you did not account for the average velocity of a sparrow in your US policy critique".
Otherwise I will safely assume you are a common troll.
No, you didn't. The thread went from an appointee with Jewish friends to a Jewish appointee with no text to support or explain your thoughts.
I apologise, I thought no one would be so slow in comprehension as not to realise that I was rejecting the original poster's assertion. After all, what could possibly give a reader such a hint? My reply to him, containing a mere correction, without explicitely dissecting the original, surely could be interpreted as some sort of clandestine, insidious, secret, ploy. And it was!
But the netizens of Slashdot should rest easy, ILikeRed is on the lookout for the patently obvious! And when he finds the elusive, sneaky obvious and he sees it not properly, obviously, explained, he will object to it at every turn! As a public service, of course. For the good of the civilization.
Because we all know that being "shamed by a skilled politician" has resulted in so many of the freedoms we enjoy today.
I will skip for the moment the fact that I was referring to building a multinational concensus for an intervention and play along pretending that we were discussing civil liberities and other freedoms.
Very well then, let me see, how about this one? Rather then through flowery oratory (which he thought was for wimps) he did not dilly-dally and organized an army and a lot of nasty urban tank warfare followed, no? How about this one? A man of decisive action, instead of using sissy words, he was renown for his masterful deployment of precision dive bombers to advance his cause, no?
There was no logic flaw. The poster claimed that some unspecified appointee was rejected because he had "jewish friends". I responded by pointining out that much stronger criteria were indeed used and were quite justified. You leaped out of woodwork claiming that I somehow failed to respond properly to his argument by refusing to accept his unsubstantiated allegation on its face value. I asked you to provide evidence for the allegation which you appear to be accusing me of ignoring. You return pretending that this would involve performing "intuitive leaps" follwing which you attempt to weasle out by claiming that I am asking you to "support my theory".
All in all a rather mediocre attempt at dodging and diversion on your part.
Explain to me how Japan has remained so backwards because of our forcing of our egalitarian morals on their culture?
I am not sure what do you mean? Japan was a parlimentary monarchy, complete with advanced legal system which featured few "medieval" laws.
Japanese Empire was characterised by out-of-control nationalism, very much in vouge until the break-out of WWII, and demagougery of power elites who sought to enrich themselves via conquest.
The changes introduced by the US occupation were comparatively minor and having mostly to do with dismantling massive corporations who were blamed for orchestrating the drive to war (a lesson the US seem to have forgotten all too soon). The changes such as abolishment of Shinto as a national religion and reducing the Emperor's political power were largely symbolic as Japan's intellectuals paid only lip service to both. One major change was to allow women to vote, something which would probably occur sooner or later on its own.
And speaking of imposing things by force, there are even now a large number (and growing) of "conservatives" who want the empire back and ooze with hatred of the US.
So not only did US not force egalitarian ways onto already rather advanced (but in clutches of greedy spin-doctors) Japanese society but even that small increment is still resented.
You are changing the argument, he said the appointee had Jewish friends, not that he was Jewish.
While this is how he presented it, it is my understanding that the real objection was to appointing a Jew or someone who was actively engaged in activities of AIPAC. The poster provided no evidence for the controversy revolving around "friendship" he claims to have existed and I can find no references to it on Google. Perheaps if you were so kind...
I don't believe the US should try to right every moral wrong, but I also believe that "establishing clear concensus amongst nations" is an impossible hurdle to reach, your arguments here have much in common with Charles Lindbergh's isolationist arguments against going to war with Germany. (you brought up the Nazis twice now)
And yet such a concesus was precisely what resulted in WWII with the Axis countries being utterly isolated. That very concensus is in fact UN, as it was merely a formalization of the WWII Alliance. The difference of course is in an ability to build concensus, in political skill and in demonstrating that the action is just and justified.
I venture to say that many of these countries with backward views on liberties would be swayed, were they either convinced that Saddam was indeed a threat to neighbours (or was committing attrocities internally) or were they shamed by a skilled politician into supporting such an action.
Arbitrarily exluding their voices based on their imperfect state is the worst possible course of action as it sets them up as "second class" participants to be lectured and admonished by the "adults" in the room. A guaranteed way to produce support for the other side. This is really Diplomacy 101 and I am quite astonished that people do not realize that in diplomacy one has to be able to deal with those of diametrically opposing views and still manouver the whole caboodle forward into some progress. Just throwing hands up and saying "screw that, me and my buddies will do it ourselves and show all these ragheads who's the boss" is not a wise course of action in such an environment.
Everytime I hear things like "complexities of the region" I understand it to mean being culturely sensitive to norms we should never accept on a moral basis. These are cultures that think burning your wife to death on the street is OK, and hang people for sodomy.
While true, the "complexities" involve medieval barabrisms, the only way to get rid of them is to allow for the place to catch up to civilisation at its own pace (while prodding it skillfully). By imposing views which we know to be wise and egalitarian on them by force, all we do is to delay the transition by many decades by associating these progressive views with wanton destruction, pain, suffering and foreign domination. Cutting off your own nose to spite your face is a good analogy here.
You do realize that the only major difference between what the US did and what you want is the fig leaf of UN support.
That "fig leaf" makes all the difference in the world. It is a difference of a concensus "policing" activity versus a rogue vigilante action of a few.
So the US didn't bow and scrape enough or appease the French and Russian creditors who were holding most of Saddam's debt.
This argument is so tired that is beyond belief. US was one of the main creditors of Saddam and unlike the others, it actually granted Saddam money, at the US taxpayer's expense. The others were merely trying to peddle their wares to Saddam, not that it was any more moral, but at least they did not outright fund him. So turning around and claiming that their desire to get their money back was somehow contributing to their support for Saddam is utterly stupid. Were it so, they would not have allowed any sanctions to be imposed, since it made the repayment of their investment far less likely. You would do wisely to stop using this tired distortion.
Thus the US went in with the support of other nations, hardly unilateral.
As I already pointed out to some other poster here, all the other nations were either led into it by lies or by outright bribery. Hardly a "multilateral" concensus building activity to grant a superior moral ground, not to mention that no other options other then murderous sanctions followed by a brutal war were explored to get rid of Saddam.
Soon the UN(the general assembly at least), will be judged as effective as the league of nations.
That might be true, as the US is working as hard as it possibly can to ensure that no international organizations exist capable of interfering with its "New American Century" agenda. It remains to be seen if the international community can organize an effective counter-action.
To some, racial hatred is a valid cultural trait to be cherished in the tapestry of cultural diversity.
I am sure you would see things differently where you under 50 years of occupation and treated like an inmate of an internment camp for all that time. Like it or not, for reasons both valid and bigotted, Jews are not a good choice to be appointed to a position of oversight of an occupied Arab nation, just like, were in some imaginary scenario, Isreal require a "regime change", Palestinians would not have been wise to appoint to oversight there. It is called common sense.
Now you can argue that many Arabs have a bigotted hatred of Jews and it would indeed be true. But on the other hand, were you ingenious, you would have to acknlowedge that the same is true for Jews, with a significant number claiming to be granted the lands on which Arabs live "by God".
Is that a "valid cultural trait to be cherished in the tapestry of cultural diversity"? Certainly not. But one is not going to change that by flaunting one's unquestioning solidarity with one set of people, no matter how bigotted and supermacist while demanding that the other side "abandons prejudice". Such a position is simply laughable and, to anyone who can think, it indicates that the person so siding is in fact subscribing to his chosen side's bigotries.
He used the term "unilateral" to describe a situation involving several nations. That is a good example of throwing a word around without having any idea what it means.
While normally "unilateral" stands for actions of one side of an argument, it is a commonly (just google for it) used term to describe US activities because the UK and other's involvement was predicated on lies and bribery. The action had only one true proponent and executor. Adding a band of mercenaries does not make a uniliateral action of an instigator into a democratic process. All of the nations in question, including UK, were promised things in return for their support (Poland a no-visa entry for example, on which Bush administration reneged).
"Unilateral" is also used to describe a difference between a negotiated concensus (such as UN-approved action) in contrast to a small band of for-profit vigilantes setting up their own rogue "justice" system.
Seriously though, I don't think you can claim a moral high ground for defending "cultural and historical" nor even sovereignty of nations against the overthrow of a tyranical govenment that allows things like Saddam's Iraq did. The sad thing is that the UN did not act a long time ago - International law sucks
One can argue that UN is ineffective or in need of reforms. I am myself of a similar opinion. But the UN's ineffectiveness in many areas stems from the activities of its "security council" members, the US prominently on many occasions.
Before one nation or a group of nations can claim "high moral ground" high enough to justify a barbarous and last resort thing such as a war, they have to fulfill a lot of requirements, establishing clear concensus amongst nations being one of them. And then there is a long list of ulterior motives and idiotic six-shooter "diplomacy" to get into.
Lacking both clarity of purpose and concesus, in addition to the complexities of the region, is what should have prevented the US from employing that particular set of measures.
Look, I dont argue that Saddam should not have been removed, but there were many, many ways for it to be acomplished, most involving supporting an internal Iraqi action, which should all have been explored, as being far less bloody then a full scale war. Then there is the cost-benefit calculation, which a lot of knowledgeable people made before the attack, which now looks utterly miserable.
Simply put, the attack was unjustified from many angles, international law and common sense being just but a few.
I see this attitude of yours a lot, whereby one claims that the US should go around removing tyrants because they "harm their own people". I will skip for the moment the question of the previous support for the same tyrants, when it was expedient, and go to this: the US, on its own, lacking a concensus, has no authority to arbitrarily decide which nations are in need of "liberating" and "re-organizing". The fact that the US "intelligence" and its media are so easilly duped should have been a dire warning of a fallacy which such a policy is. Godwin notwithstanding, most Germans in 1939 thought that Poland was the aggressor and that Adolph was fulfilling a long standing German "destiny" to right "wrongs" against Germany and while doing so, he was bestowing the "blessing" of German culture on the hethen Slavs.
A position which is frighteningly remniscent of what some people here on Slashdot espouse.
The parent didn't mention one word about Windows. Just because he thinks Linux isn't free does not mean he's claiming that Windows is free or even cheaper.
Actually no, the parent was trying to create an impression that Linux itself is not free because it requires time to configure. Which implies a contrast with all other OS's (I picked Windows for fun) whose configuration time he assumes should not be counted in their cost.
The obvious fact is of course that Linux (and BSD + others) is free but just as any other system it requires time to configure/maintain, time which is not a part of its cost (just like for Windows). The term which is used to describe the cost inlcuding this time is "Total Cost Of Ownership" or TCO for short. Should he mention that TCO for Linux is not $0 I would have not argued.
The only reason is that they do not have enough shovels and don't have permission to search in Syria. The fact was that these WMD's existed. They were used, and this is documented. There is no documentantion of the destruction (or use) of the remaining stockpiles which had been previously inventoried.
Besides the wee little fact that all of these WMDs from the time of Iraq-Iran war had shelf life of max 5 years.
Quoth Scott Ritter:
I bear personal witness through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations to both the scope of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of the UN weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them.
While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq.
With the exception of mustard agent, all chemical agent produced by Iraq prior to 1990 would have degraded within five years (the jury is still out regarding Iraq's VX nerve agent program - while inspectors have accounted for the laboratories, production equipment and most of the agent produced from 1990-91, major discrepancies in the Iraqi accounting preclude any final disposition at this time.)
The same holds true for biological agent, which would have been neutralized through natural processes within three years of manufacture. Effective monitoring inspections, fully implemented from 1994-1998 without any significant obstruction from Iraq, never once detected any evidence of retained proscribed activity or effort by Iraq to reconstitute that capability which had been eliminated through inspections.
Inspection/patrols to ensure and monitor compliance were part of the cease-fire agreement after the first Gulf War.
Except that the "no fly zones" were not part of the agreement, only IAEA and UNMOVIC inspections were, under a strict set of rules, in accordance with international law.
Well, duh! Realize that there is no difference between inspection and spying. Under the cease fire agreements at the end of the first Gulf War, Saddam had no right to complain. There would have been no second "war". if he had bothered to comply.
There is a massive difference. One is a legal activity under auspicies of UN and the other an attempt to overthrow a government of one country for the personal gain of the spymaster's and installation of "friendly" regime, i.e. "regime change". You can be all pissed about Saddam but unless he was engaged in a direct action against another nation, his removal was a matter for Iraqis to accomplish. What US did was an insult to all Iraqis, all Arabs and all Muslims, a result of "daddy knows best" arrogance combined with ulterior motives. History will judge US very harshly on this one.
While you attempt to sugar-coat it, you do mention Saddam's terrorist actions to try to exterminate the Jews.
And here goes the inane crap of "poor innocent Israelis who did nothing ever wrong" and "the evil Palestinians who are born with the desire to push all Jews into the sea" etc. This does not even deserve a reply. Familiarize yourself with words such as "supermacist" and "bigot" and then return to the discussion.
one of the arguments used in support of Saddam Hussein and his aggression have any validity.
You should get it into your head that noone is "supporting" Saddam. People are supporting the rule of international law and sovereignty of nations. People are opposing "unilateral", "pre-emptive", "might is right" and "who's gonna stop us!" crap which reaks of 1930s Germany. People are opposing hubris motivated stupididty like "exporting democracy" at a point of a gun to the Middle East while ignoring every last bit of cultural and historical data about the region. That is what is going on. Saddam and his impotent antics are secondary.
As opposed to Windows which plans its own deployment, installs itself, configures itself (all of that while serving you tea and biscuits), updates itself automatically and flawlessly (on production servers) and manages its own licencing schemes so that the corporation does not need 5 dedicated staff just to stay legal, no?
Sir, your bridge is beckoning you back, its so cool in its shadow, do not leave it lonely.
Google currently has a wildly-inflated stock price that's in large part been supported by a fawning press. Therefore severe discipline of the press is called for when it doesn't fawn, in order to maintain and build further the unrealistic market valuation that will allow CEO Schmidt to increase his personal wealth beyond a mere 1.5 billion.
Spot on! All the other posters missed this, which is very likely the true cause of the hissy fit. For some reason Google can do no wrong, you see, because... because.... they are Cool, man! And cool doodez do no wrong, even if they exhibit all the attributes of multi-national corporate statehood. No siree! Google good. Microsoft greedy and bad. Google benevolent and benign. Verizon a bloodsucking scum. Google angelic. Halliburton a bunch of murderous thieves. Google only living off some fool's retirement money and utter vapour of "web ads", google cool! Etc and so on.
It apparently never occured to these knuckleheads that Google is just another corporation, whose main "product" is hype and bullshit and whose major claim to fame is to have a functional search engine. One would think making a search engine would require supernatural powers or something, instead of fairly simple software combined with assloads of bandwith and racks of hardware. The fact that google is "the" search engine has very little to do with their tech and everything to do with herd mentality, the very same reason eBay is "the" flea market of the net, despite being total pain in the ass in most respects. Herd mentality will always screw the herd in the end. Every time. But the herd never learns it seems. And so, minutes after getting burned, off they go to the next hero-worship, personality cult or brand beatifcation.
That is how some lame ass CEO can accumulate 1.5 billion dollars for something which is not worth 1% of that sum. Never you mind the company as a whole.
That is also how any competing products get shut out entirely, because in the herd mentality world, there can only be one idol, and perheaps sometimes a perpetual underdog rebel challenger whose purpose is to provide contrast against which the herd can glorify their idol.
The other stockholders also depend on Google to "earn" them more by manipulating the press. Thus it would be a breach of Google's fiduciary responsibility to fail to do so.
Bravo! I think you just described the frightening state of affairs for most stocks on the "market". Long gone are the days when quaint things like dividends had any effect on the stock. Hype. Bullshit. Coolness. Fawning. These are the new reasons for "earning" money on the stock market.
Given that a lot of indicators are today very close to the ratios present in 1929, and given that the "consumer" market is now driven chiefly by forces such as herd psychology and other mental disorders, I expect to see some major enterntainment very soon.
Just don't have any money in that crooked casino when the shit hits the fan, if you can. That's my advice.
A small biography of you: The Artful Dodger. Perhaps mixed with a little bit of Nitpick.
Well if that is how you see it, here is one specially for you.
You are nothing more than a flamer.
Coming from you, it must me a compliments of sorts. Why, thank you.
Pointing out that you have yet to address any real points of this argument is, undoubtedly, a worthless endeavor. Yet still I persist.
I think you are getting lost in that hulking volume of confused misinformation you so fondly labour to spread across the net as I am rather sure it was you who failed to address any of the points in question (probably due to that propensity for straw and matches I mentioned) and ended up skulking away in the end.
But hey, I don't complain, you provide almost the same amount of amusement running in cricles and chewing on footware on other threads as you do on mine. Its a cheap enterntainment. I only regret taking you semi-seriously at the beginning, a mistake I wont repeat, rest assured.
If you don't mind me interjecting, but I could not help but to recollect this from our earlier little... ehrm... difference of opinions of not so long ago:
Robocrop speaking of the Strawman Fallacy, when confronted, after he attempted to employ it repeatedly:
Let's look at this, shall we? You have accused me - six times no less! - of creating weak or sham arguments for you to easily refute. Interesting. So you are claiming that I am purposefully making weak arguments for you to defeat? (emphasis mine)
And now:
Your response to the facts I quoted regarding this issue is a typical strawman. Realizing that you have lost the point on facts, you attempt to change the argument to one of definition - then set the definition to something so ridiculous that even you cannot possibly believe it. (emphasis mine)
Great Scott! So he can learn! My, my! That's quite a shocker, no doubt about it. Too bad that it takes about 1.5 seconds for him to absorb an entire Rush Limbaugh's 'sermon' and about 2 weeks of 10 page long posts to do the same with some basic logical fallacies.
Not to mention that in the series of posts in question he not only did refuse to admit the definiton, but insisted to the bitter end that by pointing out his flaming strawmen... I conceded the points where he erected them!
What a difference a few weeks makes.
But hey, I am glad, it is still progress, of sorts....
However when it came time to declare actual war on Iraq - when this last resolution was defied - it was obvious that many members of the UN did not want to follow through on the consequences promised by the UN. So, in essence, the UN failed.
The actual explanation accepted by just about everyone but the warmongers is that the UN members, after realizing that they had been had by the US/UK and that UNSCOM ended up being a CIA front, had no desire to assist any further neocon idiocies. But since an amalgamate of Neocon crap with supremacist White Man's Burden ideology is your entire philosophy, I find it as no surprise that you would foam at the snout about how "UN did not want to follow through on the consequences promised by the UN".
"Since the point was that the UN felt Iraq was a threat (which they clearly did)"
No, UN was strong armed into going along with what US wanted, and yes indeed, US thought "Iraq was a threat", a great, gigantic, world-destroying, cosmic, shiver-in-your-fallout-shelter with duck tape and pissing your pants from dread, Armageddon, get minutemen ready because Iraqis are at the shore of New Jersey type threat, which always was a total baloney. And other UN members knew that, following which they refused (perhaps with the exception of UK) to cooperate past the point of demanding that Iraq be "inspected" to placate the US based madmen like you. Which I already described. End of story.
"and had threatened Iraq with the same 'consequences' language used during the first Gulf War (which they clearly did)"
They had also "threatened" Israel with the same language, which, based on your own "logic", must result in invasion of Israel any day now.
"then it follows that the UN failed in not following through on its resolution."
No, UN merely did not follow on it the way you would like. Which of course, given your absolute egoism and self-assuredness, "must" lead to the "conclusion" of total "failure" by anyone who does not immediately implement your suggestions. You should try that approach with some cops. That would be a comedy I would pay to see.
"Again I have clearly proven my point"
Was that the point that the UN security council is quote, "arab-controlled" or the point that, quote "It means 'invasion' in the books of the UN. This was the intent behind the statement." followed by "However when it came time to declare actual war on Iraq... it was obvious that many members of the UN did not want to follow through" (emphasis mine)?
My mistake again for believing you would have the intelligence necessary to understand that a quote attriubuted to Hans Blix was made by Hans Blix.
Actually, no, your mistake was to hastily cut and paste a quote without bothering to check the context. Following which, when faced with rather obvious evidence of your error, you then proceeded to evade, distort and posture in order to avoid admitting even this, rather minor, mistake. I just used it to demonstrate the diseased nature of your "psyche", which prevents you from admitting to be wrong on anything, no matter how minor, lest your whole universe will collapse.
Does not undermine the point that I have proven: the UN felt Iraq was a threat
We've been there already, you are going in loops. Quote me, "It (the quote) says nothing about Annan's "opinion" on the usefulness or need for the inspection regime in the first place. None of these quotes... say anything about that"
In any case, any point you attempted to dismiss as a 'strawman' is one conceded by you.
Oh dear, that ego of yours is getting really out of hand, soon it will eclipse the sun for the entire state. So now, not only do you pretend to be right, even when conclusively demonstrated wrong, but on top of that you are attempting to set the rules of the discussion?! So all the logic experts, on whose advice I began demonstrating all those
In 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait, the UN went to war to push Iraq back. However the resolution that set the stage for this war - UN Security Council Resolution 660 - does not specifically mention war or military action.
And it does so for a good reason as it was NOT authorizing any such thing. Not until resolution
678 an authorization for war was given.
From there:"Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;" (emphasis mine)
This is what an authorization to go to war looks like. Note the resolution numbers: 660 for the initial nebulous warning (such as "serious consequences") versus 678 (via 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674 and 677) where finally an authorization is given to use "all necessary means".
You are such a retard that it is beyond description.
So to again visit your shadowy world of paranoia and delusion - obviously there was no war to push Iraq out of Kuwait because the words 'war' and 'military action' never appear in the statement. What a genius you are.
"authorizes" and "all necessary means" do appear in resolution 678. Note these words "authorizes" and "all" as in: including "war" or "military action".
Also note the lack of any such authorization for this latest little Crusade of yours in Mesopotamia.
See, I didn't attribute that quote to Annan. I attributed the statement to Hans Blix.
Quote you: "let me clip some of Annan's statements for you: " followed by, three italicized and indented quotes. And in between of two Annan quotes: "Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix has said Iraq had failed to provide evidence in its declaration to prove that it no longer has weapons of mass destruction", which implies Annan speaking of Blix.
That peanut of a "brain" of yours must be turning into jelly by now, as it appears you are no longer able to even keep track of your own lies and misrepresentations.
Yet you still try to claim that this is some misinformation campaign by Powell.
Powell is a rank amateur, compared to your mighty powers of distortion.
You, as expected, hunted around until you could find a loose enough definition to attempt to pretend that you meant something else entirely. You made a mistake. Just admit it.
I love this comedy. Even the definition you dug up, is correct, although imprecise. Even by that definition you were wrong. Not only was I not mistaken, but you did get exposed (again) as an illogical imbecile that you are, beyond any doubt whatsoever. So now you come back blustering again as if nothing happened, trying to brush off the entire thing after having run out of hot air to blow.
So we will now assume that you have conceded the following points:
You can "assume" safely that you are a cretin. Thats given. As to the points, let's see:
The United States assisted Europe in WWII for reasons much more complex than 'profit'
Your question was, quote "Perhaps you can explain why the US and Canada both provided materiel for the war before the US was attacked" implying that "self-preservation" (earlier mentioned by me) was not the driving cause. To which I gave you the primary reasons, conceding that "profit" preceded "self-preservation" time wise. You now pretend that you advocated some third, previously not mentioned position, that of "reasons" being "more complex then 'profit'" and pretend that I had disagreed with it, which incidentally I never did, quote "Well, while the fact is that there were indeed many reasons for USA's beahviour, you did not ask me to speci
I don't know what business you're in that you have a pile of cash and you can just pay someone 100k/yr for 3 years to design and build something with no sales.. But I'm not in that business.
Luckily I dont do that but a lot of Silicon Valley and Bio-tech startups do.
I started by myself, I ate because I got sales, if I didn't get sales I didn't pay rent (much less hire someone to design some new and unheard of thing)
What you do is a very valid way of doing business, just that you are not running a risky new science based venture. There are as many different ways to do it as they are people starting the businesses.
The ones who succeed are the MSs, Apples, and Googles of the world (oh yeah more of your hated corporations)
Funny you mentioned these as they all did R&D before having any product.
Oh wait you actually do know that. The thing I proposed would be in exactly same boat.
As to them getting big, that is an artifact of current laws, something which is not beneficial to the society in general. Look at it this way: we have Google and.... what exactly is a comparable competing product? Or Apple vs PC. Two choices. This is not healthy and a sign of lack of competition and thus decay in our capitalist society. The core engine of capitalism is based on competition. A small number of gigiantic corporations are countrary to that. Things are getting seriously skewed, the wealth distribution is going batty, and I fear the whole economy is near the conditions of 1929 crash (not to mention the questionable issue of oil supply, a.k.a oil peak). Sadly I think this stuff will only get sorted out after a gargantuan economic collapse revists us within a decade. Voodoo, supply-side economics never pays in the long run and what I was talking about are measures to restate the equations so that we can continue in the future with stability and social order.
No offense to you, but as I said, some have to learn the hard way it seems.
At a peak we had 17 but we scaled down due to us getting out from certain unprofitable activities.
My problem with your idea isn't that its not dictatorial enough, its that as in all things moderation is the key.
My idea was of a "core" group with higher administrative powers, due to theim bein the initial instigators of the scheme, very much on a similiar basis to what different classes of voting shares are like in a corporation. That gives you the streamlining of the process. The crucial element is for the government to establish a set of clear rules governing such conglomerates, very much so as they had for corporations. This is really a minor variation on the internal structure of large business but a major one from social perspective.
Cisco, Nortel, Avaya, those guys can afford rock solid contracts, so can Boeing... Small businesses can't.
I dont want to disparage your dad but his buddies are to blame for that stuff. "Rock solid" these things never are, they are merely shields to increase the amount of expense in suing you. More complex and convoluted the agreement, less likely anyone will try to challenge it. Its sad but true.
That is why it was worded as "serious consequences" instead of "military action" for example, no?
This was the intent behind the statement.
I guess my little exposé of the illogic of claiming to know hidden "intents" behind plain statements which do not convey them went over your head. I suppose then, that you had in depth conversations with the UN ambassadors, at which, behind the closed doors, they did explain to you what they really meant by "serious consequences", so that someone of such cosmic importance to the world as yourself would not be so needlessly kept in the dark, no? Or, alternatively, a position I humbly subscribe to, you just made shit up to fit your supremacist fantasies.
No you didn't. You simply restated the quote I provided, and attributed it to Powell yourself. Doesn't change the facts.
In response to your quote of:
Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix has said Iraq had failed to provide evidence in its declaration to prove that it no longer has weapons of mass destruction
I pointed out this CNN article titled "Powell lays out path in Iraq dispute", which contains your text verbatim. Word "Annan" does not occur there even once.
You on the other hand, did not provide a link to your source.
This is the example of your "arguments... all backed by facts which have been cited, unlike your wild accusations and paranoid delusions".
Perhaps that procedure of yours of breaking bricks with your forehead before typing anything, which you employ to get your "thinking juices" going, has some side effects?
So I thought you might be interested to know the actual definition of the term 'strawman'.
Sure. Here is one. And another. And another. I was even as generous as to provide you with a clarification of the particular definition I was referring to, quoting myself: "Building and attacking mis-representations of your opponents position ", about which Wikipedia states that "Some logic textbooks define the straw-man fallacy only as a misrepresented argument".
You on the other hand, as expected, dug up some poor approximation, quoted it and promptly misunderstood it. Another example of your "informed" position.
You have accused me - six times no less! - of creating weak or sham arguments for you to easily refute.... So you are claiming that I am purposefully making weak arguments for you to defeat?
Your lack of comprehension (or desperation to deceive) is truly of heroic proportions. Let me repeat again: "Building and attacking mis-representations of your opponents position ". As in, you are doing both the building and attacking. Like, oh I don't know, when accused of "building and attacking your opponent's position" you then proceed to pretend that it means you building the representations and then me attacking them... and go down hill from there.
Stawman Fallacy! Remember these words, because that is what you do most of the time. At least now you know that your bullshit has a name. Which must hurt, because, judging by your general attitude, you probably "thought" you invented that crap all by yourself.
I believe what you were actually trying to claim is that I am using 'red herring' arguments, not 'strawman' arguments.
"Strawman" argument is a specific type of "red herring" argument. Close but no cigar.
It's okay, by this time I've grown used to educating you.
You must mean you have grown used to being educated by me, as this example clearly shows
Slashdot Mirror
Personally I think its the same devil as in 1930's. His names are Avarice and Lust to Dominate.
People tend to forget that the fascist movements of the time were made possible by cheerful support and financing from the wealthiest elites of the countries in question, who not only sought to become richer but also wanted to have a "destiny" in which they were "superior" to all others. In fact the rich sought to use fascism as means to create a modern rendition of conquest-driven feudalism (i.e. corporatism). With them of course as the new "nobility". This was the pattern in Germany with Krupp and others as well as in Japan with their "zaibatsu". The original template of fawning over and support for Fascism was of course present in Italy on which the others based theirs. All of these people made great efforts to fuel the feverent nationality and militarism until a point came when they were swept along with everyone else in the nations in question after having lost control over the monster they've created.
Now the same class of people is exerting their influence in another power center of the globe, the US. But they have learned the lesson of the past and are attempting to be far more careful and picky as to who they attack to prevent the re-occurance of that loss of control they experienced in WWII.
This should be a lesson in dangers of using open-ended, single-liners like "Unless you have no clue" or "unless your time is worth nothing" etc. I (and most Slashdotters it seems) had no way of knowing what you meant and the statement was formulated in a standard, brush-off, condescending tone most Linux/FOSS-bashing trolls use which lead me to believe you were one of them. Subsequently, what followed was pretty much inevietable.
What you were trying to refer to is the "learning curve" cost which rightfully belongs in the TCO calculations of Linux. Windows has a very similiar upfront cost but most organizations/individuals already paid that. But this cannot be simply referred to as "cost" of Linux as that implies the system itself.
I apologise for making fun of you but I would suggest you should try to avoid throwing these types of conversational grenades into the forum.
I see that the Unwitting Self-Satire business is treating you well.
Now, bear in mind that this is the same person who is attempting to use the fact that the United States was one of the nations providing Saddam with materiel and money (at a time) to discredit any stance against Saddam whatsoever.
Of which you would have ample evidence, coming from my statements such as, oh I don't know, maybe the "I dont argue that Saddam should not have been removed" right in the post you are replying to.
I see logic is still as alien a concept to you as ever.
He knows quite well that, had the US fomented a popular revolution against Saddam and his kind through monetary and materiel support, he would be on these same message boards saying how the US is always trying to influence regime change through funded revolution, citing chapter and verse about how we horrible Americans tried this before and it failed, etc. Same rhetoric, different cause.
Ah yes, the Unsubstantiated Prognostication, one of the more dear to your heart pasttimes. Let me pre-empt the next thing coming in this line of thought: "And you can't prove that you would not have been doing that! Aha!"
he certainly cannot guarantee - or even logically suggest - that a civil war in Iraq funded by the US would have had less tragic results than what we have seen.
Civil war of course being the very last thing anyone sane would wish to provoke, and the very first thing Robocrop would labour to achieve, judging from this statement, no? Peaceful transition, you know, the slow and unglamorous kind, is definitely out of the question. Nowhere near enough explosions, carnage, flashy TV coverage and military hardware to be wasted on that kind of boring thing, therefore not something Robocrop would even consider.
Much like another 'solution' he proposed in which he claims he would have been supportive of US-funded assassination teams killing Saddam Hussein - again ignoring the civil unrest that would have resulted
Actually what I would have supported is a UN backed (by General Assembly) regime removal by means as least bloody as possible, assasination being a possibility but way down the list due to its dangers. Having said that, I can pretty much guarantee that removing Saddam that way, while having a skilfully developed international concensus for offering the new top dog of Ba'ath party all sorts of carrots for reforming Iraq, ala the old Soviet block, would be far less bloody (not to mention far less destructive economically) then the Iraqi Quagmire, US edition.
Take my advice and just disregard him.
That is your advice in regards to everybody who does not nod vigorously in rythm with your rants. Which means the vast majority of people world-wide and a growing majority within the US these days, as the smokescreen of deception and arrogant posturing clears from this affair and everyone can see the ugly truth about the Iraqi invasion.
He doesn't understand what he's speaking about, and is just one of the many who have decided to judge the past with the knowledge of the present.
This would not have such a hollow ring if I were not on record on this very Slashdot before the invasion, with the same message. But the likes of you, having failed miserably, after being forced to reinvent all your fabricated "evidence" over and over are now attempting to pretend, again, that "no one could have foreseen this". Well I have news for you, again, we did foresee it. That Scott Ritter I keep quoting? That is the same quote I was using then, you see, it was published before the war. Not that you noticed then either.
Not to actually affect positive change, or to help clean up a bad situation: but to soapbox against the United States.
If "Positive change" is being defined by "support whatever Bush administration does", then I am guilty of not s
And after discussing that you will proceed to try to pull me down into some meandering tunnels of arguments over British society, culminating at the discussion of the undergarnments of the Queen. As soon as you explain the relevancy of any of this to the question of building a political concensus in the UN, I will be happy to oblige.
Colonial Britain in India was a tyrant.
By the way, you really think this is going to work, dont you? Your question (completely unrelated to the discussion on hand) was, quote: "Because we all know that being "shamed by a skilled politician" has resulted in so many of the freedoms we enjoy today." which implies there aren't any. I gave you examples of just that, one applying even to recent US history. And now you demand that I start producing examples (no doubt of ever increasing difficulty) suiting your next (ever changing) set of requirements. You must be used to some really slow oponents to even try this.
You presented a claim, I provided examples which invalidate it. That is all what was required of me, never you mind that it was off topic. Any further requests you will have to formulate in a manner of a coherent statment instead of "yea but you did not account for the average velocity of a sparrow in your US policy critique".
Otherwise I will safely assume you are a common troll.
I apologise, I thought no one would be so slow in comprehension as not to realise that I was rejecting the original poster's assertion. After all, what could possibly give a reader such a hint? My reply to him, containing a mere correction, without explicitely dissecting the original, surely could be interpreted as some sort of clandestine, insidious, secret, ploy. And it was!
But the netizens of Slashdot should rest easy, ILikeRed is on the lookout for the patently obvious! And when he finds the elusive, sneaky obvious and he sees it not properly, obviously, explained, he will object to it at every turn! As a public service, of course. For the good of the civilization.
I will skip for the moment the fact that I was referring to building a multinational concensus for an intervention and play along pretending that we were discussing civil liberities and other freedoms.
Very well then, let me see, how about this one? Rather then through flowery oratory (which he thought was for wimps) he did not dilly-dally and organized an army and a lot of nasty urban tank warfare followed, no? How about this one? A man of decisive action, instead of using sissy words, he was renown for his masterful deployment of precision dive bombers to advance his cause, no?
There was no logic flaw. The poster claimed that some unspecified appointee was rejected because he had "jewish friends". I responded by pointining out that much stronger criteria were indeed used and were quite justified. You leaped out of woodwork claiming that I somehow failed to respond properly to his argument by refusing to accept his unsubstantiated allegation on its face value. I asked you to provide evidence for the allegation which you appear to be accusing me of ignoring. You return pretending that this would involve performing "intuitive leaps" follwing which you attempt to weasle out by claiming that I am asking you to "support my theory".
All in all a rather mediocre attempt at dodging and diversion on your part.
I am not sure what do you mean? Japan was a parlimentary monarchy, complete with advanced legal system which featured few "medieval" laws.
Japanese Empire was characterised by out-of-control nationalism, very much in vouge until the break-out of WWII, and demagougery of power elites who sought to enrich themselves via conquest.
The changes introduced by the US occupation were comparatively minor and having mostly to do with dismantling massive corporations who were blamed for orchestrating the drive to war (a lesson the US seem to have forgotten all too soon). The changes such as abolishment of Shinto as a national religion and reducing the Emperor's political power were largely symbolic as Japan's intellectuals paid only lip service to both. One major change was to allow women to vote, something which would probably occur sooner or later on its own.
And speaking of imposing things by force, there are even now a large number (and growing) of "conservatives" who want the empire back and ooze with hatred of the US.
So not only did US not force egalitarian ways onto already rather advanced (but in clutches of greedy spin-doctors) Japanese society but even that small increment is still resented.
And your point was?
While this is how he presented it, it is my understanding that the real objection was to appointing a Jew or someone who was actively engaged in activities of AIPAC. The poster provided no evidence for the controversy revolving around "friendship" he claims to have existed and I can find no references to it on Google. Perheaps if you were so kind...
And yet such a concesus was precisely what resulted in WWII with the Axis countries being utterly isolated. That very concensus is in fact UN, as it was merely a formalization of the WWII Alliance. The difference of course is in an ability to build concensus, in political skill and in demonstrating that the action is just and justified.
I venture to say that many of these countries with backward views on liberties would be swayed, were they either convinced that Saddam was indeed a threat to neighbours (or was committing attrocities internally) or were they shamed by a skilled politician into supporting such an action.
Arbitrarily exluding their voices based on their imperfect state is the worst possible course of action as it sets them up as "second class" participants to be lectured and admonished by the "adults" in the room. A guaranteed way to produce support for the other side. This is really Diplomacy 101 and I am quite astonished that people do not realize that in diplomacy one has to be able to deal with those of diametrically opposing views and still manouver the whole caboodle forward into some progress. Just throwing hands up and saying "screw that, me and my buddies will do it ourselves and show all these ragheads who's the boss" is not a wise course of action in such an environment.
Everytime I hear things like "complexities of the region" I understand it to mean being culturely sensitive to norms we should never accept on a moral basis. These are cultures that think burning your wife to death on the street is OK, and hang people for sodomy.
While true, the "complexities" involve medieval barabrisms, the only way to get rid of them is to allow for the place to catch up to civilisation at its own pace (while prodding it skillfully). By imposing views which we know to be wise and egalitarian on them by force, all we do is to delay the transition by many decades by associating these progressive views with wanton destruction, pain, suffering and foreign domination. Cutting off your own nose to spite your face is a good analogy here.
That "fig leaf" makes all the difference in the world. It is a difference of a concensus "policing" activity versus a rogue vigilante action of a few.
So the US didn't bow and scrape enough or appease the French and Russian creditors who were holding most of Saddam's debt.
This argument is so tired that is beyond belief. US was one of the main creditors of Saddam and unlike the others, it actually granted Saddam money, at the US taxpayer's expense. The others were merely trying to peddle their wares to Saddam, not that it was any more moral, but at least they did not outright fund him. So turning around and claiming that their desire to get their money back was somehow contributing to their support for Saddam is utterly stupid. Were it so, they would not have allowed any sanctions to be imposed, since it made the repayment of their investment far less likely. You would do wisely to stop using this tired distortion.
Thus the US went in with the support of other nations, hardly unilateral.
As I already pointed out to some other poster here, all the other nations were either led into it by lies or by outright bribery. Hardly a "multilateral" concensus building activity to grant a superior moral ground, not to mention that no other options other then murderous sanctions followed by a brutal war were explored to get rid of Saddam.
Soon the UN(the general assembly at least), will be judged as effective as the league of nations.
That might be true, as the US is working as hard as it possibly can to ensure that no international organizations exist capable of interfering with its "New American Century" agenda. It remains to be seen if the international community can organize an effective counter-action.
I am sure you would see things differently where you under 50 years of occupation and treated like an inmate of an internment camp for all that time. Like it or not, for reasons both valid and bigotted, Jews are not a good choice to be appointed to a position of oversight of an occupied Arab nation, just like, were in some imaginary scenario, Isreal require a "regime change", Palestinians would not have been wise to appoint to oversight there. It is called common sense.
Now you can argue that many Arabs have a bigotted hatred of Jews and it would indeed be true. But on the other hand, were you ingenious, you would have to acknlowedge that the same is true for Jews, with a significant number claiming to be granted the lands on which Arabs live "by God".
Is that a "valid cultural trait to be cherished in the tapestry of cultural diversity"? Certainly not. But one is not going to change that by flaunting one's unquestioning solidarity with one set of people, no matter how bigotted and supermacist while demanding that the other side "abandons prejudice". Such a position is simply laughable and, to anyone who can think, it indicates that the person so siding is in fact subscribing to his chosen side's bigotries.
He used the term "unilateral" to describe a situation involving several nations. That is a good example of throwing a word around without having any idea what it means.
While normally "unilateral" stands for actions of one side of an argument, it is a commonly (just google for it) used term to describe US activities because the UK and other's involvement was predicated on lies and bribery. The action had only one true proponent and executor. Adding a band of mercenaries does not make a uniliateral action of an instigator into a democratic process. All of the nations in question, including UK, were promised things in return for their support (Poland a no-visa entry for example, on which Bush administration reneged).
"Unilateral" is also used to describe a difference between a negotiated concensus (such as UN-approved action) in contrast to a small band of for-profit vigilantes setting up their own rogue "justice" system.
One can argue that UN is ineffective or in need of reforms. I am myself of a similar opinion. But the UN's ineffectiveness in many areas stems from the activities of its "security council" members, the US prominently on many occasions.
Before one nation or a group of nations can claim "high moral ground" high enough to justify a barbarous and last resort thing such as a war, they have to fulfill a lot of requirements, establishing clear concensus amongst nations being one of them. And then there is a long list of ulterior motives and idiotic six-shooter "diplomacy" to get into.
Lacking both clarity of purpose and concesus, in addition to the complexities of the region, is what should have prevented the US from employing that particular set of measures.
Look, I dont argue that Saddam should not have been removed, but there were many, many ways for it to be acomplished, most involving supporting an internal Iraqi action, which should all have been explored, as being far less bloody then a full scale war. Then there is the cost-benefit calculation, which a lot of knowledgeable people made before the attack, which now looks utterly miserable.
Simply put, the attack was unjustified from many angles, international law and common sense being just but a few.
I see this attitude of yours a lot, whereby one claims that the US should go around removing tyrants because they "harm their own people". I will skip for the moment the question of the previous support for the same tyrants, when it was expedient, and go to this: the US, on its own, lacking a concensus, has no authority to arbitrarily decide which nations are in need of "liberating" and "re-organizing". The fact that the US "intelligence" and its media are so easilly duped should have been a dire warning of a fallacy which such a policy is. Godwin notwithstanding, most Germans in 1939 thought that Poland was the aggressor and that Adolph was fulfilling a long standing German "destiny" to right "wrongs" against Germany and while doing so, he was bestowing the "blessing" of German culture on the hethen Slavs.
A position which is frighteningly remniscent of what some people here on Slashdot espouse.
The parent didn't mention one word about Windows. Just because he thinks Linux isn't free does not mean he's claiming that Windows is free or even cheaper.
Actually no, the parent was trying to create an impression that Linux itself is not free because it requires time to configure. Which implies a contrast with all other OS's (I picked Windows for fun) whose configuration time he assumes should not be counted in their cost.
The obvious fact is of course that Linux (and BSD + others) is free but just as any other system it requires time to configure/maintain, time which is not a part of its cost (just like for Windows). The term which is used to describe the cost inlcuding this time is "Total Cost Of Ownership" or TCO for short. Should he mention that TCO for Linux is not $0 I would have not argued.
Besides the wee little fact that all of these WMDs from the time of Iraq-Iran war had shelf life of max 5 years.
Quoth Scott Ritter:
Inspection/patrols to ensure and monitor compliance were part of the cease-fire agreement after the first Gulf War.
Except that the "no fly zones" were not part of the agreement, only IAEA and UNMOVIC inspections were, under a strict set of rules, in accordance with international law.
Well, duh! Realize that there is no difference between inspection and spying. Under the cease fire agreements at the end of the first Gulf War, Saddam had no right to complain. There would have been no second "war". if he had bothered to comply.
There is a massive difference. One is a legal activity under auspicies of UN and the other an attempt to overthrow a government of one country for the personal gain of the spymaster's and installation of "friendly" regime, i.e. "regime change". You can be all pissed about Saddam but unless he was engaged in a direct action against another nation, his removal was a matter for Iraqis to accomplish. What US did was an insult to all Iraqis, all Arabs and all Muslims, a result of "daddy knows best" arrogance combined with ulterior motives. History will judge US very harshly on this one.
While you attempt to sugar-coat it, you do mention Saddam's terrorist actions to try to exterminate the Jews.
And here goes the inane crap of "poor innocent Israelis who did nothing ever wrong" and "the evil Palestinians who are born with the desire to push all Jews into the sea" etc. This does not even deserve a reply. Familiarize yourself with words such as "supermacist" and "bigot" and then return to the discussion.
one of the arguments used in support of Saddam Hussein and his aggression have any validity.
You should get it into your head that noone is "supporting" Saddam. People are supporting the rule of international law and sovereignty of nations. People are opposing "unilateral", "pre-emptive", "might is right" and "who's gonna stop us!" crap which reaks of 1930s Germany. People are opposing hubris motivated stupididty like "exporting democracy" at a point of a gun to the Middle East while ignoring every last bit of cultural and historical data about the region. That is what is going on. Saddam and his impotent antics are secondary.
As opposed to Windows which plans its own deployment, installs itself, configures itself (all of that while serving you tea and biscuits), updates itself automatically and flawlessly (on production servers) and manages its own licencing schemes so that the corporation does not need 5 dedicated staff just to stay legal, no?
Sir, your bridge is beckoning you back, its so cool in its shadow, do not leave it lonely.
Spot on! All the other posters missed this, which is very likely the true cause of the hissy fit. For some reason Google can do no wrong, you see, because ... because .... they are Cool, man! And cool doodez do no wrong, even if they exhibit all the attributes of multi-national corporate statehood. No siree! Google good. Microsoft greedy and bad. Google benevolent and benign. Verizon a bloodsucking scum. Google angelic. Halliburton a bunch of murderous thieves. Google only living off some fool's retirement money and utter vapour of "web ads", google cool! Etc and so on.
It apparently never occured to these knuckleheads that Google is just another corporation, whose main "product" is hype and bullshit and whose major claim to fame is to have a functional search engine. One would think making a search engine would require supernatural powers or something, instead of fairly simple software combined with assloads of bandwith and racks of hardware. The fact that google is "the" search engine has very little to do with their tech and everything to do with herd mentality, the very same reason eBay is "the" flea market of the net, despite being total pain in the ass in most respects. Herd mentality will always screw the herd in the end. Every time. But the herd never learns it seems. And so, minutes after getting burned, off they go to the next hero-worship, personality cult or brand beatifcation.
That is how some lame ass CEO can accumulate 1.5 billion dollars for something which is not worth 1% of that sum. Never you mind the company as a whole.
That is also how any competing products get shut out entirely, because in the herd mentality world, there can only be one idol, and perheaps sometimes a perpetual underdog rebel challenger whose purpose is to provide contrast against which the herd can glorify their idol.
The other stockholders also depend on Google to "earn" them more by manipulating the press. Thus it would be a breach of Google's fiduciary responsibility to fail to do so.
Bravo! I think you just described the frightening state of affairs for most stocks on the "market". Long gone are the days when quaint things like dividends had any effect on the stock. Hype. Bullshit. Coolness. Fawning. These are the new reasons for "earning" money on the stock market.
Given that a lot of indicators are today very close to the ratios present in 1929, and given that the "consumer" market is now driven chiefly by forces such as herd psychology and other mental disorders, I expect to see some major enterntainment very soon.
Just don't have any money in that crooked casino when the shit hits the fan, if you can. That's my advice.
Well if that is how you see it, here is one specially for you.
You are nothing more than a flamer.
Coming from you, it must me a compliments of sorts. Why, thank you.
Pointing out that you have yet to address any real points of this argument is, undoubtedly, a worthless endeavor. Yet still I persist.
I think you are getting lost in that hulking volume of confused misinformation you so fondly labour to spread across the net as I am rather sure it was you who failed to address any of the points in question (probably due to that propensity for straw and matches I mentioned) and ended up skulking away in the end.
But hey, I don't complain, you provide almost the same amount of amusement running in cricles and chewing on footware on other threads as you do on mine. Its a cheap enterntainment. I only regret taking you semi-seriously at the beginning, a mistake I wont repeat, rest assured.
Robocrop speaking of the Strawman Fallacy, when confronted, after he attempted to employ it repeatedly:
Let's look at this, shall we? You have accused me - six times no less! - of creating weak or sham arguments for you to easily refute. Interesting. So you are claiming that I am purposefully making weak arguments for you to defeat? (emphasis mine)
And now:
Your response to the facts I quoted regarding this issue is a typical strawman. Realizing that you have lost the point on facts, you attempt to change the argument to one of definition - then set the definition to something so ridiculous that even you cannot possibly believe it. (emphasis mine)
Great Scott! So he can learn! My, my! That's quite a shocker, no doubt about it. Too bad that it takes about 1.5 seconds for him to absorb an entire Rush Limbaugh's 'sermon' and about 2 weeks of 10 page long posts to do the same with some basic logical fallacies.
Not to mention that in the series of posts in question he not only did refuse to admit the definiton, but insisted to the bitter end that by pointing out his flaming strawmen ... I conceded the points where he erected them!
What a difference a few weeks makes.
But hey, I am glad, it is still progress, of sorts ....
The actual explanation accepted by just about everyone but the warmongers is that the UN members, after realizing that they had been had by the US/UK and that UNSCOM ended up being a CIA front, had no desire to assist any further neocon idiocies. But since an amalgamate of Neocon crap with supremacist White Man's Burden ideology is your entire philosophy, I find it as no surprise that you would foam at the snout about how "UN did not want to follow through on the consequences promised by the UN".
"Since the point was that the UN felt Iraq was a threat (which they clearly did)"
No, UN was strong armed into going along with what US wanted, and yes indeed, US thought "Iraq was a threat", a great, gigantic, world-destroying, cosmic, shiver-in-your-fallout-shelter with duck tape and pissing your pants from dread, Armageddon, get minutemen ready because Iraqis are at the shore of New Jersey type threat, which always was a total baloney. And other UN members knew that, following which they refused (perhaps with the exception of UK) to cooperate past the point of demanding that Iraq be "inspected" to placate the US based madmen like you. Which I already described. End of story.
"and had threatened Iraq with the same 'consequences' language used during the first Gulf War (which they clearly did)"
They had also "threatened" Israel with the same language, which, based on your own "logic", must result in invasion of Israel any day now.
"then it follows that the UN failed in not following through on its resolution."
No, UN merely did not follow on it the way you would like. Which of course, given your absolute egoism and self-assuredness, "must" lead to the "conclusion" of total "failure" by anyone who does not immediately implement your suggestions. You should try that approach with some cops. That would be a comedy I would pay to see.
"Again I have clearly proven my point"
Was that the point that the UN security council is quote, "arab-controlled" or the point that, quote "It means 'invasion' in the books of the UN. This was the intent behind the statement." followed by "However when it came time to declare actual war on Iraq ... it was obvious that many members of the UN did not want to follow through" (emphasis mine)?
My mistake again for believing you would have the intelligence necessary to understand that a quote attriubuted to Hans Blix was made by Hans Blix.
Actually, no, your mistake was to hastily cut and paste a quote without bothering to check the context. Following which, when faced with rather obvious evidence of your error, you then proceeded to evade, distort and posture in order to avoid admitting even this, rather minor, mistake. I just used it to demonstrate the diseased nature of your "psyche", which prevents you from admitting to be wrong on anything, no matter how minor, lest your whole universe will collapse.
Does not undermine the point that I have proven: the UN felt Iraq was a threat
We've been there already, you are going in loops. Quote me, "It (the quote) says nothing about Annan's "opinion" on the usefulness or need for the inspection regime in the first place. None of these quotes ... say anything about that"
In any case, any point you attempted to dismiss as a 'strawman' is one conceded by you.
Oh dear, that ego of yours is getting really out of hand, soon it will eclipse the sun for the entire state. So now, not only do you pretend to be right, even when conclusively demonstrated wrong, but on top of that you are attempting to set the rules of the discussion?! So all the logic experts, on whose advice I began demonstrating all those
And it does so for a good reason as it was NOT authorizing any such thing. Not until resolution 678 an authorization for war was given.
From there:" Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;" (emphasis mine)
This is what an authorization to go to war looks like. Note the resolution numbers: 660 for the initial nebulous warning (such as "serious consequences") versus 678 (via 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674 and 677) where finally an authorization is given to use "all necessary means".
You are such a retard that it is beyond description.
So to again visit your shadowy world of paranoia and delusion - obviously there was no war to push Iraq out of Kuwait because the words 'war' and 'military action' never appear in the statement. What a genius you are.
"authorizes" and "all necessary means" do appear in resolution 678. Note these words "authorizes" and "all" as in: including "war" or "military action".
Also note the lack of any such authorization for this latest little Crusade of yours in Mesopotamia.
See, I didn't attribute that quote to Annan. I attributed the statement to Hans Blix.
Quote you: "let me clip some of Annan's statements for you: " followed by, three italicized and indented quotes. And in between of two Annan quotes: "Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix has said Iraq had failed to provide evidence in its declaration to prove that it no longer has weapons of mass destruction", which implies Annan speaking of Blix.
That peanut of a "brain" of yours must be turning into jelly by now, as it appears you are no longer able to even keep track of your own lies and misrepresentations.
Yet you still try to claim that this is some misinformation campaign by Powell.
Powell is a rank amateur, compared to your mighty powers of distortion.
You, as expected, hunted around until you could find a loose enough definition to attempt to pretend that you meant something else entirely. You made a mistake. Just admit it.
I love this comedy. Even the definition you dug up, is correct, although imprecise. Even by that definition you were wrong. Not only was I not mistaken, but you did get exposed (again) as an illogical imbecile that you are, beyond any doubt whatsoever. So now you come back blustering again as if nothing happened, trying to brush off the entire thing after having run out of hot air to blow.
So we will now assume that you have conceded the following points:
You can "assume" safely that you are a cretin. Thats given. As to the points, let's see:
The United States assisted Europe in WWII for reasons much more complex than 'profit'
Your question was, quote "Perhaps you can explain why the US and Canada both provided materiel for the war before the US was attacked" implying that "self-preservation" (earlier mentioned by me) was not the driving cause. To which I gave you the primary reasons, conceding that "profit" preceded "self-preservation" time wise. You now pretend that you advocated some third, previously not mentioned position, that of "reasons" being "more complex then 'profit'" and pretend that I had disagreed with it, which incidentally I never did, quote "Well, while the fact is that there were indeed many reasons for USA's beahviour, you did not ask me to speci
Luckily I dont do that but a lot of Silicon Valley and Bio-tech startups do.
I started by myself, I ate because I got sales, if I didn't get sales I didn't pay rent (much less hire someone to design some new and unheard of thing)
What you do is a very valid way of doing business, just that you are not running a risky new science based venture. There are as many different ways to do it as they are people starting the businesses.
The ones who succeed are the MSs, Apples, and Googles of the world (oh yeah more of your hated corporations)
Funny you mentioned these as they all did R&D before having any product.
Oh wait you actually do know that. The thing I proposed would be in exactly same boat.
As to them getting big, that is an artifact of current laws, something which is not beneficial to the society in general. Look at it this way: we have Google and.... what exactly is a comparable competing product? Or Apple vs PC. Two choices. This is not healthy and a sign of lack of competition and thus decay in our capitalist society. The core engine of capitalism is based on competition. A small number of gigiantic corporations are countrary to that. Things are getting seriously skewed, the wealth distribution is going batty, and I fear the whole economy is near the conditions of 1929 crash (not to mention the questionable issue of oil supply, a.k.a oil peak). Sadly I think this stuff will only get sorted out after a gargantuan economic collapse revists us within a decade. Voodoo, supply-side economics never pays in the long run and what I was talking about are measures to restate the equations so that we can continue in the future with stability and social order.
No offense to you, but as I said, some have to learn the hard way it seems.
At a peak we had 17 but we scaled down due to us getting out from certain unprofitable activities.
My problem with your idea isn't that its not dictatorial enough, its that as in all things moderation is the key.
My idea was of a "core" group with higher administrative powers, due to theim bein the initial instigators of the scheme, very much on a similiar basis to what different classes of voting shares are like in a corporation. That gives you the streamlining of the process. The crucial element is for the government to establish a set of clear rules governing such conglomerates, very much so as they had for corporations. This is really a minor variation on the internal structure of large business but a major one from social perspective.
Cisco, Nortel, Avaya, those guys can afford rock solid contracts, so can Boeing... Small businesses can't.
I dont want to disparage your dad but his buddies are to blame for that stuff. "Rock solid" these things never are, they are merely shields to increase the amount of expense in suing you. More complex and convoluted the agreement, less likely anyone will try to challenge it. Its sad but true.
I do not like lawyers.
That is why it was worded as "serious consequences" instead of "military action" for example, no?
This was the intent behind the statement.
I guess my little exposé of the illogic of claiming to know hidden "intents" behind plain statements which do not convey them went over your head. I suppose then, that you had in depth conversations with the UN ambassadors, at which, behind the closed doors, they did explain to you what they really meant by "serious consequences", so that someone of such cosmic importance to the world as yourself would not be so needlessly kept in the dark, no? Or, alternatively, a position I humbly subscribe to, you just made shit up to fit your supremacist fantasies.
No you didn't. You simply restated the quote I provided, and attributed it to Powell yourself. Doesn't change the facts.
In response to your quote of:
I pointed out this CNN article titled "Powell lays out path in Iraq dispute", which contains your text verbatim. Word "Annan" does not occur there even once. You on the other hand, did not provide a link to your source. This is the example of your "arguments ... all backed by facts which have been cited, unlike your wild accusations and paranoid delusions".
Perhaps that procedure of yours of breaking bricks with your forehead before typing anything, which you employ to get your "thinking juices" going, has some side effects?
So I thought you might be interested to know the actual definition of the term 'strawman'.
Sure. Here is one. And another. And another. I was even as generous as to provide you with a clarification of the particular definition I was referring to, quoting myself: "Building and attacking mis-representations of your opponents position ", about which Wikipedia states that "Some logic textbooks define the straw-man fallacy only as a misrepresented argument".
You on the other hand, as expected, dug up some poor approximation, quoted it and promptly misunderstood it. Another example of your "informed" position.
You have accused me - six times no less! - of creating weak or sham arguments for you to easily refute. ... So you are claiming that I am purposefully making weak arguments for you to defeat?
Your lack of comprehension (or desperation to deceive) is truly of heroic proportions. Let me repeat again: "Building and attacking mis-representations of your opponents position ". As in, you are doing both the building and attacking. Like, oh I don't know, when accused of "building and attacking your opponent's position" you then proceed to pretend that it means you building the representations and then me attacking them ... and go down hill from there.
Stawman Fallacy! Remember these words, because that is what you do most of the time. At least now you know that your bullshit has a name. Which must hurt, because, judging by your general attitude, you probably "thought" you invented that crap all by yourself.
I believe what you were actually trying to claim is that I am using 'red herring' arguments, not 'strawman' arguments.
"Strawman" argument is a specific type of "red herring" argument. Close but no cigar.
It's okay, by this time I've grown used to educating you.
You must mean you have grown used to being educated by me, as this example clearly shows