Seriously, ANYTHING could be an incentive for big-brother-esque ID cards with <insert scary technology>. I mean, drivers licenses themselves pose a greater risk of inducing 1984ism than automatic cars - after all, if the car is doing the driving, why do you need a license? Do you have to have a license to drive public transport? exactly;)
No, highway construction can't keep up with car manufacturers making larger and larger cars every 2 months. If those cars were replaced with normal size cars and busses, those towns could support many, many more people.
The problem with crowded roads is the amount of wasted space. Some guy in an H2 takes up as much road space as up to 10 guys in a bus. Now, if everyone ditched their H2s and used the bus, you could support 10x the people. or something.
Well, funnily enough the same arguments apply to other countries. America is large, but just because there's more of it than other countries, not because it's built to a larger scale.
Los Angeles has lots of people, many (most?) of who live and work in the city. There is public transport, but the tiny underground and pathetic bus routes weren't planned properly. The fact that you can't see public transport working doesn't mean it always fails. America's car culture certainly doesn't help here. Massive SUVs don't help anyone - they take up more road space and fuel than public transport (compare how many people ride in most cars in LA (1) to the number of people who ride in the same space on public transport (6-10)). If there were less cars in cities, the public transport would be much better. I guess it's a circular problem.
Anyway, what I meant to say was, it might not work for you, but it works all around the world. People need education on this, as until they stop buying cars and demand public transport, they're not going to get it.
OK, but what about the cities? LA has the worst public transport I've ever seen. I mean, it's a joke. There's no excuse there - massive amounts of people in a city. They all want to live/work, and need to get from one to another. Instead of clogging up the 101 with H2s, busses or a decent underground system would cut pollution massively, and save everyone a shitload of cash each year. And we're talking more than Bush's tax cuts, I'd wager.
If each car had thousands of feet around it with no other cars, and dedicated people tracking all cars' movements with radar, they'd be allowed, as are planes.
The "attrocity" as you call it, is a violation of the laws of war the US is currently operating under. As a violation of those laws, is technically a war crime - get it? Break the law, it's a crime. I'm not putting words in your mouth - you're doing just fine on your own. You can check out wikipedia for some decent definitions, I bet.
As I said, the 15,000 number isn't anything to do with the Lancet report, but from other sources who are trying to figure out how many Iraqis have died. It's the conservative estimate of deaths from reports over the country, by monitors and from other sources. The hospitals in a time of war are not in a good position to count the dead. Many dead Iraqis are buried where they fell, or in their homes. Also, you can't take someone to hospital after their house has been blown up by high explosives, or after they've been shot to pieces by an attack helicopter.
So, the insurgents having sarin test kits is a puzzling question? Why? They don't know what the US has, and it's not exctly above the US to gas people. They're desperate people fighting to the bitter end, I'd expect them to use everything at their disposal - it's the only recourse they have.
I'm not behind on current events. I saw the photos the DoD released showing the bunkers with the trucks. Those bunkers don't match up to any of the ones housing the explosives, so that's out. I also saw the video footage of the troops at the base, that showed the seals in tact. Then, I read the comments from the UN where they recognised the seals, and what the seals were protecting. Also, the soldiers who passed through the base were only there for a day or two, and had a cursory glance at some of the nearest bunkers. They weren't weapons inspectors, not by a long shot. As the facility was massive, they didn't check them all. And, the bunkers that did house the explosives that the US did secure, had the seals intact. Until the US soldiers left, that is, then the insurgents moved in and helped themselves.
Again, you use the "but it could have been much worse" defense in this case. That doesn't cut it. It's the US's responsibility as an occupying force to secure those weapons. Something the UN managed to do before they were told to leave. Those 300+ tons of missing explosives were under lock and key until the Americans moved in. It doesn't matter how much explosives you destroy, those 300 tons will still kill a lot of people.
Now you're really reaching. Hitler had the most modernised, well-equipped armies at his disposal. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE has now come to the conclusion that Saddam had nothing like that, or even had the capability of producing something like that. Iraq, unlike Nazi germany, had an effective neutral foriegn presence - the UN. They had everything nailed down tightly, and controlled Saddam's weapons plan. They did such a good job that it was completely in decline - weapons destroyed, sanctions prohibiting redevelopment, etc. Comparing Hitler's Germany, which threatened the entire globe, to Iraq, which didn't even threaten its neighbours (none of Iraq's neighbours, even Kuwait, were worried about him doing anything silly, as they knew he couldn't).
You seem to be confusing journalism with current-affairs-based-entertainment. The BBC will run any story they think is important, regardless of whether the general public will lap it up. They simply don't care. They're not in any battle to get viewers - heck, WE fund them directly, no matter what they report. They'd show a water treatment plant re-opening, if they ever did (and if they ever did, if it was safe enough to get a reporter to it). They showed footage of Iraqis crying over western hostages, and they also show the footage of the Iraqis maimed and killed by US troops, something strangely missing from US broadcasts (oh, except that one insurgent executed on air. Or that Al Aribiya presenter who was shot on air, too).
I'm well aware of Dresden and what transpired there. Dresden was a reprisal bombing for the Nazis bombing the shit out of Britain. I don't remember any Iraqi insurgents laying waste to any US cities. Again, comparing the two shows how much you know about these two conflicts, and how much you don't. Maybe my choice of language was a bit extreme, but you can't say the US troops haven't destroyed many buildings unrelated to the insurgent action.
You can encourage citizens to leave, but not all can (and those who do, over 250,000 of them, where do they go? The nearest Holiday Inn?). Old people, people with kids, with jobs, with responsibilities in Fallujah couldn't leave. The curfews didn't help either - injured people couldn't leave their houses to get treatment. Innocent people died because of it. And for what? The US troops admitted most insurgents had left the town already. They just went to another town, which the Americans will have to attack next. Where will it end? US troops chasing insurgents from town-to-town, killing a few, recruiting more, and killing civilians in the process? Also, saying "be grateful because we could have nuked them" is just childish. By that logic, I can punch anyone I like in the face, as I could have stabbed them to death. The US has a responsibility as the invader to ensure civilians aren't targetted or harmed. Fine - several buildings were destroyed without harming surrounding ones, but how many OTHER buildings were destroyed for no good reason? Exactly. People in Fallujah are saying how the US troops are shooting at anything that moves.
So, you're saying the US didn't lose a shitload of explosives? That Fallujah isn't a bloodbath? That US troops aren't getting attacked daily? That thousands of civilians aren't dying? That Iraq's infrastructure isn't shot? That insurgents aren't gaining more recruits? Is that all bullshit? I don't think so. Again, you're assuming the press all around the world is the same as in America - you're wrong. In other nations, journalistic integrity is praised more than circulation or viewing figures. They don't want to be sensationalist, but accurate. Your "stateside" comment shows your US-centric view of the press. Oh, and when was the last hospital opened in Iraq? They need them, as the US blew one up in Fallujah earlier this month (killing patients, nurses and doctors in the process - way to go).
Plenty of people in Iraq had decent lives before the war. If what you say is true, there would have been no museums, no libraries, no parks, no laughter, no fun. As it was, there were many, many people in Iraq leading very normal lives, just like you and I.
Not caring about the rest of the world is what makes people park airliners in your office blocks. If you don't listen to peoples' opinions, don't be surprised when they talk a little louder.
1. International law includes laws enacted by the UN, under the UN charter which the US ratified (as in agreed to abide by). Breaking those laws is breaking your promise. I suppose you're gonna spin that round to a good thing
2. It was unprovoked. Iraq had no weapons to strike other nations, and wasn't engaged in mass murders or any other pressing action against anyone or anything. How they can be provoking attack by not doing anything is beyond me.
3. No American flags? What about the Saddam statue with the Stars'n'Stripes(R) draped over it? That sure looked like a US flag to me... If you think the killing of 15,000 INNOCENT Iraqis is not aggressive, I feel sorry for your family, who by the sounds of things have to put up with furious headbuts and stabbings as gestures of love. Oh, and not to mention the many blue-on-blue encounters committed by US troops. Hardly the fearless, well-trained military machine it's hyped up to be.
The US military kidnapped the family of Al Douadi (sp?). They took his wife and kids, leaving a note that said "if you want your family safe, turn yourself in". That's taking hostages, and is a war crime. Of course I suppose you have some sort of justification for that. The US troops use attack helicopters on residential districts, not caring about the innocents who live there. That's indiscriminate killing. That's MUCH worse than kidnapping people, and is also against the Geneva Convention (which, as the US agreed to follow it, is kinda important).
So, Saddam defied the UN (when Iraq broke the cease fire), and to deal with him you defied the UN? How does that work? Should aspiring international nations emulate what you say, or what you do? How can you expect to be a loved nation internationally when you berate countries for doing exactly what you do? Or is America special somehow? The UN wasn't interested in enforcing its own declarations, as the declarations weren't valid, and the act of war was illegal. Of course, if you don't care about international law or doing the right thing, those are trivial matters.
What right does America have to change a regime? We all agree that Saddam was a dick, but he had as much dislike for the US regime as the US regime had for him. Why is it OK for the US to break international law, kill thousands of innocents and fuck up a country to get rid of a guy who managed to keep the country together? Anyway, I thought we went to war over WMDs... or is it his human rights record now? I keep forgetting as it's changed every 3 minutes.
Comparing post-war Germany to Iraq now is just stupid. Not a SINGLE US soldier died in Germany after the end of WW2 in combat. Not a single one. How many in Iraq since Bush's deck-walking escapade on that aircraft carrier off San Diego? Exactly.
OK, so the US sent troops to go destroy drug production, but the US has also funded drug production in the past. Another startling display of US hypocrisy. Again, how can other nations look up to the US as an example of democracy and justice, when it can't make up its mind whether America is a good nation or an evil one? It sure has traits of both...
You say the US is going after people who help Saddam, yet you've not invaded Pakistan yet. The ISI gave more help to Al Qaida and Osama than Afghanistan war lords or Saddam Hussein put together, yet the US hasn't touched them. What gives? Again, more hypocrisy - the US will only invade countries it knows will put up little resistance - if, like Pakistan, you have nuclear weapons, you're safe. You can have Osama round for dinner, and you'll not get touched.
Give it a rest, dude - every single point you make can be factually disproven or demonstrated to be utter hypocrisy. The entire world has demonstrated that the US has brought nothing but misery and suffering to an entire nation, for negative benefit. Only people like you and your illustrious leader who live in dream worlds think differently. In fact, surveys have shown Bush followers know less about current affairs than non-Bush followers. Go figure. please.
"wearing panties on your head and being forced to pose nude is not an attrocity, and I still stand by that"
When it's done to a PoW, it's a war crime. So you approve of US troops committing war crimes, but not when Iraqis do it to you? Double standards ahoy!
The 15,000 dead is the conservative estimate. The Lancet report was 100,000-200,000+. He wasn't sloppy with his sources, but was doing you a favour. Maybe you should do some research yourself.
You say it's only the Sunnis who are pissed off at the Americans, when in fact the Shia are pissed off too. After the first gulf war, Bush Sr. told them to rise up against Saddam, and that the US would help them. Well, they did rise up, and the US was nowhere to be seen. Over 30,000 people died when Saddam quelled the rebellion using helicopters sanctioned by the US. But I suppose they should forget that, right?
Just because Saddam was a dick doesn't make the US any better. The old argument "but Saddam killed X iraqis" is getting more and more tenuous as each Iraqi death is recorded (obviously not by US forces, as you "don't do body counts", to quote Tommy Franks on the subject).
As for that sarin, even the caption said it was suspected sarin, nothing definite. Even if it was sarin, it's only dangerous if it has a method of delivery. As you can see, 40 vials of this "sarin" isn't dangerous. It has to be weaponised first, which turns the raw material into a weapon. What about those 300+ tons of explosives that went missing? I suppose that wasn't the US's fault...
I can see you're not debating this through logic, but by some sort of staunch ideology you have.
If it were only that simple. Remember - just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you. By that I mean just because the media feeds on bad news, doesn't mean Iraq isn't going to the dogs. All the categorical evidence (statistics as opposed to editorialised commentary) points to an increase in insurgent activity and deaths. Couple that with the hundreds of tons of explosives gone missing, the incredible lack of work by the rebuilding contractors, the trigger-happiness of the US military machine, etc.
The public is fed bad news, as 90% of all the news coming from Iraq is bad. Unless tens of thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands) of INNOCENT people dying is cool, somehow?
We all agree Saddam was a bad guy and was bad for the world. That doesn't mean it's OK to invade a country to get rid of him, killing countless thousands of innocents in the process, and taking for ever to restore normality.
It's called a proportional response. You attack a country when the country is attacking someone else. You depose a leader when that leader is deposing some other leader. You don't just wade in to a country and screw it over. That's why the UN declined to help - the war is illegal. By your logic, everyone should invade the US as people get executed in prisons all around the nation, and millions of people are living in poverty. Of course we don't, as the problems caused by that far FAR outweigh the benefits. That's the same case with Iraq, only the US didn't listen. They just went in.
I live in Britain, and the BBC isn't bothered about viewing figures. They have no sponsors, so they aren't worried about how many people see their adverts (as they have none). I've seen footage of Iraqis most likely not seen in the US, and I still can't see that most Iraqis like the Americans. The whole Fallujah thing certainly didn't help. A town has a few insurgents in it (after most left), and it gets levelled by the Americans. Hardly a proportional response. The civilians in the town who can't leave are trapped in their houses as the inaccurate US ordnance falls all around them. As that mosque incident proved, US military isn't exactly well behaved. It seems restraint isn't something they learn.
Remember - just because you're there, doesn't mean you see the big picture. Just like an ant can't see most of the field he's walking in, you can't see most of the entire country, which includes the people and their opinions.
That's what the second amendment is for, isn't it? How can all these people who believe so vehemently in the 2nd amendment complain about the Iraqis doing what they are afforded to do by law? Oh yeah - hypocrisy. Silly me. move along.
Because they got home and realised we'd taken their jobs.
If we'd kept them on, paid them more (still a pittance compared to our own troops), we would have had substantial manpower on the ground. They wouldn't need to be armed, I'm sure they'd want to rebuild iraq.
ClearChannel raised a lot of anger in the public domain, which was vocalised. People are PISSED about it, yet it continues. These people are doing all they can, including speaking to representatives, to get some sort of sanity instigated, to no avail. Seriously - the day your vote is cast on a million-dollar-bill, is the day corporations will start listening to us. Until then, they can just ignore the people and go for the big bucks, and retire before anyone gets into trouble.
Yes, the FCC fined media corporations, but that was because of Bush's religious fanatic doctine, which in the current climate ranks above corporate pole smoking. just.;)
OK, the act of receiving the signal in your machine. I promise you, somewhere, there is a clause stating that the copyrighted material sent to you is not yours. You have agreed to that by using said tuner. You really think everyone gives away copyright ownership to everything that's ever been broadcast? That's incredible thinking.
You're getting slightly confused here (and, I have read lots about copyright law, if you must know). You don't own the product. You own a COPY of the product. The product is owned by the copyright holder. Just like you might own a copy of every U2 album ever made, you don't own the actual albums themselves - U2 and their record company own those. That's why they're the only ones allowed to copy them. That's what copyright is - the right given by default to the creator/owner of a product.
So, to sum up, you don't own a product. You own a copy of the product that comes to you still protected by law, and which will be protected by law until it's passed to someone else (without copying), or destroyed.
Bull? What about all the right-wingers with ties to the KKK? Affirmative action policies (which I don't agree with, btw) never killed anyone, which can't be said for the clan.
Or, maybe, the NRA? They're not exactly all-encompassing.
You're trying to make the dems look racist by implying intent to policy. You can just look at the republicans to see their racism. They wear it on their sleeves.
I was at a protest in LA, and some right-wingers gave my wife a bunch of racist abuse. Funny, I never heard any from the left-wingers, even though there were 15,000 more of them...
Sorry - just read some more of your post. It's pretty funny.
You ask why poor people shouldn't pay taxes? Because, to them, paying taxes means not having enough money to eat. As food isn't sold at relative prices (ie poor people pay $0.10 for a loaf of bread, and rich people pay $10.00 for the same loaf), it's very possible for one person to spend all their money on just getting enough food to eat. As we all live in a society where we look after each other, expecting someone to spend money they need for food on taxes is silly. The amount of money you'd get from them is pennies, yet those pennies would be more useful to that person than to the state.
I guess you or anyone you love has never needed anything from anyone. I hope you never will. From what you say, it seems you think that poor people somehow choose to be poor. That they enjoy it. Well, you're flat-out wrong on that one. No-one loves being hungry all day, not being able to get enough work to survive. The image of the out-of-work person loving every second is of a very tiny minority, and to refuse to help the vast majority because of those people is not only selfish, but stupid. If we were to apply that logic to everything, there would be no police (as some cops are corrupt), no government (same thing), no teachers, no doctors, no office workers, heck - no anything.
Rich people are lucky. You can say "but it's all hard work" and you'd be half right. Sure, hard work plays a big part of it, but your upbringing plays an even bigger role. People who are born into poor families have less resources available. They can't choose which school to send their kids to, as they don't have the money for transport. So, the kids go to the nearest school. That school is near the poorer districts, and gets less funding owing because of it. Those kids *should* have the same education as kids in a richer school, but they don't. Lack of budget means too many kids are in each class, and the learning aids are inadequate. That difference in education means those kids leave school far behind their rich counterparts. That means from then on, they'll be at a disadvantage. The poorer you are, the harder it is to increase your wealth. That's fact. Poor families stay poor, rich families grow wealthier. Poor kids don't choose to be born to poor parents, just like rich kids don't choose to be born to rich parents. If you think that's somehow fair, then fine.
Basically, it's rich people paying for a service THEY received. Society was good to them, so society asks for a little more back. It's not so much more back that rich people become poor, but it's enough so poor people don't starve.
But was it taken on a digital camera, or on regular film and then digitally scanned in? This is a 100% digital creation, with no analog processing involved at all. Of course larger pictures exist out there - we're not talking about ridiculously massive amounts of data here:)
No, when you write congress, some intern just has one more letter to open, swiftly read, and type into a database. The representative then just fills out "Stock response letter #24", signs it, then goes to lunch with the next lobbying group in his schedule. Of course, it LOOKS like they are listening, but until you line their pockets with something, you're on your own. We're not dealing with "country first" politicians, but professional politicians. They care about money, not the country. They care more about their bank manager than you. They care more about their yachts than the constitution.
I'm not trying to be rude here, but it's thinking like that which has allowed the US to become what it has. You really think the politicians turn away from their lobbying groups and say "You know, thanks, but no thanks. You keep the $1,000,000, and I'll do what Mr. X asked me in his letter". No, he'll write you a letter saying he takes it very seriously, that he values the voices of his constituants, that democracy is the best, and America is great. The letter will be sent to you, and he'll forget it. It won't affect anything he does.
The FCC's ideology comes from the government. The government is in bed with corporations. You see? The corporations give the government money to ensure their interests are looked after, then the government instructs its various instruments how to behave to bring that agenda to fruition, and they comply. You end up with the government acting as a favor broker, taking payments from entities and ensuring their wishes are manifested accordingly. It's all part of the same mess - I didn't contradict myself. The citizens were offended by a boob (so funny), yes, but it was the FCC who decided to fine the hell out of everyone.
Ok, so if they don't smoke the corporate pole, how can you explain ClearChannel? They've ruined more peoples' jobs than the IRS, yet they're still going strong. If the FCC was run by the people, for the people, ClearChannel would be flipping burgers in the nearest Carl's Jr.
You agreed to have HDTV in your house, right - it didn't just happen. Whatever you did to formally agree to it binds you to the terms and conditions of the service. Whether you know it or not, you have signed exactly such a contract. They can't bill you otherwise.
Copyright law says EXACTLY what you can do with a protected work. It says you can't copy it. COPYright - get it? It doesn't matter if you're doing it for free, for yourself, for profit, for your overlords - copying a protected work is against the law. As the medium is digital, copyright laws apply even when using the software. When you watch the broadcast, you're copying it from disk to memory. There have been court cases that show that copyright is indeed pertinent in this situation. Of course, the permission is automatically granted during normal usage, but when you start to do something they don't want, you are no longer operating under permission. You're in contempt of their wishes, and as they own the work and you don't, they win. Whether you copy it for money or not is beside the point - you're misusing their content. They own it, you don't. Therefor, you stop, or you face the music. It's that simple;)
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, ANYTHING could be an incentive for big-brother-esque ID cards with <insert scary technology>. I mean, drivers licenses themselves pose a greater risk of inducing 1984ism than automatic cars - after all, if the car is doing the driving, why do you need a license? Do you have to have a license to drive public transport? exactly ;)
The problem with crowded roads is the amount of wasted space. Some guy in an H2 takes up as much road space as up to 10 guys in a bus. Now, if everyone ditched their H2s and used the bus, you could support 10x the people. or something.
Los Angeles has lots of people, many (most?) of who live and work in the city. There is public transport, but the tiny underground and pathetic bus routes weren't planned properly. The fact that you can't see public transport working doesn't mean it always fails. America's car culture certainly doesn't help here. Massive SUVs don't help anyone - they take up more road space and fuel than public transport (compare how many people ride in most cars in LA (1) to the number of people who ride in the same space on public transport (6-10)). If there were less cars in cities, the public transport would be much better. I guess it's a circular problem.
Anyway, what I meant to say was, it might not work for you, but it works all around the world. People need education on this, as until they stop buying cars and demand public transport, they're not going to get it.
OK, but what about the cities? LA has the worst public transport I've ever seen. I mean, it's a joke. There's no excuse there - massive amounts of people in a city. They all want to live/work, and need to get from one to another. Instead of clogging up the 101 with H2s, busses or a decent underground system would cut pollution massively, and save everyone a shitload of cash each year. And we're talking more than Bush's tax cuts, I'd wager.
If each car had thousands of feet around it with no other cars, and dedicated people tracking all cars' movements with radar, they'd be allowed, as are planes.
As I said, the 15,000 number isn't anything to do with the Lancet report, but from other sources who are trying to figure out how many Iraqis have died. It's the conservative estimate of deaths from reports over the country, by monitors and from other sources. The hospitals in a time of war are not in a good position to count the dead. Many dead Iraqis are buried where they fell, or in their homes. Also, you can't take someone to hospital after their house has been blown up by high explosives, or after they've been shot to pieces by an attack helicopter.
So, the insurgents having sarin test kits is a puzzling question? Why? They don't know what the US has, and it's not exctly above the US to gas people. They're desperate people fighting to the bitter end, I'd expect them to use everything at their disposal - it's the only recourse they have.
I'm not behind on current events. I saw the photos the DoD released showing the bunkers with the trucks. Those bunkers don't match up to any of the ones housing the explosives, so that's out. I also saw the video footage of the troops at the base, that showed the seals in tact. Then, I read the comments from the UN where they recognised the seals, and what the seals were protecting. Also, the soldiers who passed through the base were only there for a day or two, and had a cursory glance at some of the nearest bunkers. They weren't weapons inspectors, not by a long shot. As the facility was massive, they didn't check them all. And, the bunkers that did house the explosives that the US did secure, had the seals intact. Until the US soldiers left, that is, then the insurgents moved in and helped themselves.
Again, you use the "but it could have been much worse" defense in this case. That doesn't cut it. It's the US's responsibility as an occupying force to secure those weapons. Something the UN managed to do before they were told to leave. Those 300+ tons of missing explosives were under lock and key until the Americans moved in. It doesn't matter how much explosives you destroy, those 300 tons will still kill a lot of people.
You seem to be confusing journalism with current-affairs-based-entertainment. The BBC will run any story they think is important, regardless of whether the general public will lap it up. They simply don't care. They're not in any battle to get viewers - heck, WE fund them directly, no matter what they report. They'd show a water treatment plant re-opening, if they ever did (and if they ever did, if it was safe enough to get a reporter to it). They showed footage of Iraqis crying over western hostages, and they also show the footage of the Iraqis maimed and killed by US troops, something strangely missing from US broadcasts (oh, except that one insurgent executed on air. Or that Al Aribiya presenter who was shot on air, too).
I'm well aware of Dresden and what transpired there. Dresden was a reprisal bombing for the Nazis bombing the shit out of Britain. I don't remember any Iraqi insurgents laying waste to any US cities. Again, comparing the two shows how much you know about these two conflicts, and how much you don't. Maybe my choice of language was a bit extreme, but you can't say the US troops haven't destroyed many buildings unrelated to the insurgent action.
You can encourage citizens to leave, but not all can (and those who do, over 250,000 of them, where do they go? The nearest Holiday Inn?). Old people, people with kids, with jobs, with responsibilities in Fallujah couldn't leave. The curfews didn't help either - injured people couldn't leave their houses to get treatment. Innocent people died because of it. And for what? The US troops admitted most insurgents had left the town already. They just went to another town, which the Americans will have to attack next. Where will it end? US troops chasing insurgents from town-to-town, killing a few, recruiting more, and killing civilians in the process? Also, saying "be grateful because we could have nuked them" is just childish. By that logic, I can punch anyone I like in the face, as I could have stabbed them to death. The US has a responsibility as the invader to ensure civilians aren't targetted or harmed. Fine - several buildings were destroyed without harming surrounding ones, but how many OTHER buildings were destroyed for no good reason? Exactly. People in Fallujah are saying how the US troops are shooting at anything that moves.
So, you're saying the US didn't lose a shitload of explosives? That Fallujah isn't a bloodbath? That US troops aren't getting attacked daily? That thousands of civilians aren't dying? That Iraq's infrastructure isn't shot? That insurgents aren't gaining more recruits? Is that all bullshit? I don't think so. Again, you're assuming the press all around the world is the same as in America - you're wrong. In other nations, journalistic integrity is praised more than circulation or viewing figures. They don't want to be sensationalist, but accurate. Your "stateside" comment shows your US-centric view of the press. Oh, and when was the last hospital opened in Iraq? They need them, as the US blew one up in Fallujah earlier this month (killing patients, nurses and doctors in the process - way to go).
Not caring about the rest of the world is what makes people park airliners in your office blocks. If you don't listen to peoples' opinions, don't be surprised when they talk a little louder.
1. International law includes laws enacted by the UN, under the UN charter which the US ratified (as in agreed to abide by). Breaking those laws is breaking your promise. I suppose you're gonna spin that round to a good thing
2. It was unprovoked. Iraq had no weapons to strike other nations, and wasn't engaged in mass murders or any other pressing action against anyone or anything. How they can be provoking attack by not doing anything is beyond me.
3. No American flags? What about the Saddam statue with the Stars'n'Stripes(R) draped over it? That sure looked like a US flag to me... If you think the killing of 15,000 INNOCENT Iraqis is not aggressive, I feel sorry for your family, who by the sounds of things have to put up with furious headbuts and stabbings as gestures of love. Oh, and not to mention the many blue-on-blue encounters committed by US troops. Hardly the fearless, well-trained military machine it's hyped up to be.
The US military kidnapped the family of Al Douadi (sp?). They took his wife and kids, leaving a note that said "if you want your family safe, turn yourself in". That's taking hostages, and is a war crime. Of course I suppose you have some sort of justification for that. The US troops use attack helicopters on residential districts, not caring about the innocents who live there. That's indiscriminate killing. That's MUCH worse than kidnapping people, and is also against the Geneva Convention (which, as the US agreed to follow it, is kinda important).
What right does America have to change a regime? We all agree that Saddam was a dick, but he had as much dislike for the US regime as the US regime had for him. Why is it OK for the US to break international law, kill thousands of innocents and fuck up a country to get rid of a guy who managed to keep the country together? Anyway, I thought we went to war over WMDs... or is it his human rights record now? I keep forgetting as it's changed every 3 minutes.
Comparing post-war Germany to Iraq now is just stupid. Not a SINGLE US soldier died in Germany after the end of WW2 in combat. Not a single one. How many in Iraq since Bush's deck-walking escapade on that aircraft carrier off San Diego? Exactly.
OK, so the US sent troops to go destroy drug production, but the US has also funded drug production in the past. Another startling display of US hypocrisy. Again, how can other nations look up to the US as an example of democracy and justice, when it can't make up its mind whether America is a good nation or an evil one? It sure has traits of both...
You say the US is going after people who help Saddam, yet you've not invaded Pakistan yet. The ISI gave more help to Al Qaida and Osama than Afghanistan war lords or Saddam Hussein put together, yet the US hasn't touched them. What gives? Again, more hypocrisy - the US will only invade countries it knows will put up little resistance - if, like Pakistan, you have nuclear weapons, you're safe. You can have Osama round for dinner, and you'll not get touched.
Give it a rest, dude - every single point you make can be factually disproven or demonstrated to be utter hypocrisy. The entire world has demonstrated that the US has brought nothing but misery and suffering to an entire nation, for negative benefit. Only people like you and your illustrious leader who live in dream worlds think differently. In fact, surveys have shown Bush followers know less about current affairs than non-Bush followers. Go figure. please.
When it's done to a PoW, it's a war crime. So you approve of US troops committing war crimes, but not when Iraqis do it to you? Double standards ahoy!
The 15,000 dead is the conservative estimate. The Lancet report was 100,000-200,000+. He wasn't sloppy with his sources, but was doing you a favour. Maybe you should do some research yourself.
You say it's only the Sunnis who are pissed off at the Americans, when in fact the Shia are pissed off too. After the first gulf war, Bush Sr. told them to rise up against Saddam, and that the US would help them. Well, they did rise up, and the US was nowhere to be seen. Over 30,000 people died when Saddam quelled the rebellion using helicopters sanctioned by the US. But I suppose they should forget that, right?
Just because Saddam was a dick doesn't make the US any better. The old argument "but Saddam killed X iraqis" is getting more and more tenuous as each Iraqi death is recorded (obviously not by US forces, as you "don't do body counts", to quote Tommy Franks on the subject).
As for that sarin, even the caption said it was suspected sarin, nothing definite. Even if it was sarin, it's only dangerous if it has a method of delivery. As you can see, 40 vials of this "sarin" isn't dangerous. It has to be weaponised first, which turns the raw material into a weapon. What about those 300+ tons of explosives that went missing? I suppose that wasn't the US's fault...
I can see you're not debating this through logic, but by some sort of staunch ideology you have.
peace.
The public is fed bad news, as 90% of all the news coming from Iraq is bad. Unless tens of thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands) of INNOCENT people dying is cool, somehow?
It's called a proportional response. You attack a country when the country is attacking someone else. You depose a leader when that leader is deposing some other leader. You don't just wade in to a country and screw it over. That's why the UN declined to help - the war is illegal. By your logic, everyone should invade the US as people get executed in prisons all around the nation, and millions of people are living in poverty. Of course we don't, as the problems caused by that far FAR outweigh the benefits. That's the same case with Iraq, only the US didn't listen. They just went in.
I live in Britain, and the BBC isn't bothered about viewing figures. They have no sponsors, so they aren't worried about how many people see their adverts (as they have none). I've seen footage of Iraqis most likely not seen in the US, and I still can't see that most Iraqis like the Americans. The whole Fallujah thing certainly didn't help. A town has a few insurgents in it (after most left), and it gets levelled by the Americans. Hardly a proportional response. The civilians in the town who can't leave are trapped in their houses as the inaccurate US ordnance falls all around them. As that mosque incident proved, US military isn't exactly well behaved. It seems restraint isn't something they learn.
Remember - just because you're there, doesn't mean you see the big picture. Just like an ant can't see most of the field he's walking in, you can't see most of the entire country, which includes the people and their opinions.
That's what the second amendment is for, isn't it? How can all these people who believe so vehemently in the 2nd amendment complain about the Iraqis doing what they are afforded to do by law? Oh yeah - hypocrisy. Silly me. move along.
If we'd kept them on, paid them more (still a pittance compared to our own troops), we would have had substantial manpower on the ground. They wouldn't need to be armed, I'm sure they'd want to rebuild iraq.
And the PATRIOT act is to indict the French?? :-P
Yes, the FCC fined media corporations, but that was because of Bush's religious fanatic doctine, which in the current climate ranks above corporate pole smoking. just. ;)
So you're going to perform copyright abuse to protect yourself from copyright abuse? Damn that's some scary logic.
You're getting slightly confused here (and, I have read lots about copyright law, if you must know). You don't own the product. You own a COPY of the product. The product is owned by the copyright holder. Just like you might own a copy of every U2 album ever made, you don't own the actual albums themselves - U2 and their record company own those. That's why they're the only ones allowed to copy them. That's what copyright is - the right given by default to the creator/owner of a product.
So, to sum up, you don't own a product. You own a copy of the product that comes to you still protected by law, and which will be protected by law until it's passed to someone else (without copying), or destroyed.
Or, maybe, the NRA? They're not exactly all-encompassing.
You're trying to make the dems look racist by implying intent to policy. You can just look at the republicans to see their racism. They wear it on their sleeves.
I was at a protest in LA, and some right-wingers gave my wife a bunch of racist abuse. Funny, I never heard any from the left-wingers, even though there were 15,000 more of them...
You ask why poor people shouldn't pay taxes? Because, to them, paying taxes means not having enough money to eat. As food isn't sold at relative prices (ie poor people pay $0.10 for a loaf of bread, and rich people pay $10.00 for the same loaf), it's very possible for one person to spend all their money on just getting enough food to eat. As we all live in a society where we look after each other, expecting someone to spend money they need for food on taxes is silly. The amount of money you'd get from them is pennies, yet those pennies would be more useful to that person than to the state.
I guess you or anyone you love has never needed anything from anyone. I hope you never will. From what you say, it seems you think that poor people somehow choose to be poor. That they enjoy it. Well, you're flat-out wrong on that one. No-one loves being hungry all day, not being able to get enough work to survive. The image of the out-of-work person loving every second is of a very tiny minority, and to refuse to help the vast majority because of those people is not only selfish, but stupid. If we were to apply that logic to everything, there would be no police (as some cops are corrupt), no government (same thing), no teachers, no doctors, no office workers, heck - no anything.
Rich people are lucky. You can say "but it's all hard work" and you'd be half right. Sure, hard work plays a big part of it, but your upbringing plays an even bigger role. People who are born into poor families have less resources available. They can't choose which school to send their kids to, as they don't have the money for transport. So, the kids go to the nearest school. That school is near the poorer districts, and gets less funding owing because of it. Those kids *should* have the same education as kids in a richer school, but they don't. Lack of budget means too many kids are in each class, and the learning aids are inadequate. That difference in education means those kids leave school far behind their rich counterparts. That means from then on, they'll be at a disadvantage. The poorer you are, the harder it is to increase your wealth. That's fact. Poor families stay poor, rich families grow wealthier. Poor kids don't choose to be born to poor parents, just like rich kids don't choose to be born to rich parents. If you think that's somehow fair, then fine.
Basically, it's rich people paying for a service THEY received. Society was good to them, so society asks for a little more back. It's not so much more back that rich people become poor, but it's enough so poor people don't starve.
That's not exactly saying a lot ;) They did cancel futurama after all...
But was it taken on a digital camera, or on regular film and then digitally scanned in? This is a 100% digital creation, with no analog processing involved at all. Of course larger pictures exist out there - we're not talking about ridiculously massive amounts of data here :)
I'm not trying to be rude here, but it's thinking like that which has allowed the US to become what it has. You really think the politicians turn away from their lobbying groups and say "You know, thanks, but no thanks. You keep the $1,000,000, and I'll do what Mr. X asked me in his letter". No, he'll write you a letter saying he takes it very seriously, that he values the voices of his constituants, that democracy is the best, and America is great. The letter will be sent to you, and he'll forget it. It won't affect anything he does.
Ok, so if they don't smoke the corporate pole, how can you explain ClearChannel? They've ruined more peoples' jobs than the IRS, yet they're still going strong. If the FCC was run by the people, for the people, ClearChannel would be flipping burgers in the nearest Carl's Jr.
Copyright law says EXACTLY what you can do with a protected work. It says you can't copy it. COPYright - get it? It doesn't matter if you're doing it for free, for yourself, for profit, for your overlords - copying a protected work is against the law. As the medium is digital, copyright laws apply even when using the software. When you watch the broadcast, you're copying it from disk to memory. There have been court cases that show that copyright is indeed pertinent in this situation. Of course, the permission is automatically granted during normal usage, but when you start to do something they don't want, you are no longer operating under permission. You're in contempt of their wishes, and as they own the work and you don't, they win. Whether you copy it for money or not is beside the point - you're misusing their content. They own it, you don't. Therefor, you stop, or you face the music. It's that simple ;)