No, you just don't get it. There is a difference between murder and killing and not all killing is bad. And there is a difference between that and hitler unless you think killing hitler before he killed all those jews or ally forced would have been a bad thing.
If you were paying attention, the Nukes were mentioned in the capacity of having a banned nuclear weapons program. The fact was that we didn't know how far along or if they were along or even still active. This is because of a falsified document floating around and connections to Niger.
As for the chemical weapons, they had a means to deploy them but worse yet, there were connections to terrorists who would deploy them at their own peril. Take the Tokyo subway gas attack, nothing specifically sophisticated there but because it was in a subway, lots of people were affected. And Given Iraq's stance towards the west, it was something that couldn't be ruled out. This is especially true when Iraq was giving safe harbor to known terrorist, allowed terrorist training camps to operate in northern Iraq, was giving sanction and medical treatment to Foreign nationals injured in battle against the US in Afghanistan, and was paying a pension to the families of suicide bombers who attacked Israel.
The presents a little different situation then you described.
Maybe all this stuff is true, but all we are talking about is chemical weapons. Anyone that can mix bleach and ammonia can get those. If you can make pesticide, you can make nerve gas. So, maybe he was breaking the rules, but was there another way besides total war.
I can't believe that I have to explain this but I guess I will. There could have been other ways besides war but that is totally irrelevent. The question wasn't about alternatives to war, it was about the misconception that only the US believed WMDs existed. The entire world believed they did with Russia claiming the evidence wasn't creditable either way and Germany claiming Iraq was contained. None of them said the WMDs were not present until after the war started.
Anyways, Iraq had strict obligations they were to observe that ended the previous war. Being able to make rudimentary chemical weapons is not the problem, it's meeting those obligations in open and honest ways to so an indication that the WMDs wouldn't be used again and that the armistice agreements ending the first gulf war was being honored. IT was about compliance, not mixing two chemicals together.
Sorry, but I have to agree with the Russians, and Germans. If they agree on it, then it must be so, because those two countries have a history of not agreeing on anything. Why didn't we just send an air strike or two instead of a whole army?
That's totally irrelevant to the point I made. I'm not arguing for the war, I'm setting the record straight that more then the US believed that Iraq had WMDs and was some sort of threat. And the only thing the two countries agreed on was over the necessity of war or not. Germany didn't originally dispute claims of WMDs and Russia didn't think any of the evidence was creditable.
Either there was another reason that is still secret or Bush just cowboy-ed the situation without thinking it through. As far as it costing the French money, we are the ones paying for not listening.
Why can't you stick to the tired old montra the he was stupid and saw more in the evidence then others did. I mean you Bush bashers seem to jump from one thing to another depending on how well you think it supports your opinions.
As for the french and money, you are so absorbed in yourself and the fallacies you have convinced yourself to believe in that you didn't even see the point of the comment. That or you seriously have a comprehension problem and don't see the connections. The French losing money is a motivation for objection to actions. The US spending more in the end is irrelevant to that point.
Oh yea, and the anti war thing. I'm saying that reports submitted by the agency Hans Blix was head of contradicted his unofficial assessments when talk of war became prevalent. This could be for a number of reasons, most likely a self indulgence in feeling needed and a will for job security that cam back to bite him when other people acted on the information he was responsible for. It could of course have been a total reversal because he was a pacifist but it's likely he lied before he knew his actions could lead to war.
That bogus intel like Iraq wasn't cooperating, munitions declared destroy were being found, dual use materials were being discovered which weren't reported as per the agreement, chemical processing components actually used in WMD manufacturing were being used in "other chemical processes" at other plants despite a declaration of destruction came directly from UNMOVIC reports. That bogus intel was delivered to the United Nations Security Council by the very organization that Hans Blix was head of.
Like I said, read the UNMOVIC and UNSCUM reports. All your answers are in those official reports with details of everything. Until you do so, you will still be confused and trotting crap out that you have no fucking clue about but are willing to repeat because you think it supports your view.
Debate towards the validity of the WMDs isn't really the issue here. It's the concept that is incorrectly repeated that only the US thought they were there or that it was real that I am concerned with.
I'm not saying that there wasn't skeptics, I'm saying that every major government in the world had intelligence stating that Iraq most likely did have WMDs or has failed in their disarming obligations pressed from the previous war. About the closest to denial at the time before war was eminent would be Russia who said they have seen no creditable evidence one way or the other but then in turn signed onto the UN resolution 1441 stating that Iraq had not complied with thier obligations under the armistice agreements ending the 1990 war. Russia was pushing for increased intense inspections citing that Iraq was contained and not a threat.
The problem was that no government would claim that Iraq had no WMDs nor did they attempt to until after war was eminent or already started. The governments that did were knee deep in scams surrounding the sanctions implemented by the UN in an attempt to force compliance. Stating something contrary 6 months later does not mean you were against it 6 or 8 months before yet people want to pretend that earlier positions were never present. Now, I admit that this doesn't make it a slam dunk for the case of WMDs but it wasn't blindingly obvious that they weren't there at the time the war was being pushed. Had those claims been made 6 months earlier or a year earlier, war would have not been an option.
In fact, I believe that if the oil for food scams wouldn't have been perpetrated by France and the corruption in the UN wasn't prevalent, that Iraq would have satisfied his obligations long before war was an issue too.
Hans Blix was Swedish but I suppose it's unreasonable to expect someone like you to know that when you're so busy making accusations.
Actually, the first 3 anti war and Iraq has no WMDs claims made by Blix came from Stockholm Germany. He was Associate Professor in International Law at Stockholm University, and formed an independent international That he chairs called the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission (WMDC) which again is based in Stockholm Germany.
He may be Swedish but you cannot deny a connection to Germany. but I suppose it's unreasonable to expect someone like you to know that when you're so busy making accusations.
Um, no. The UN didn't believe there was enough threat posed by Iraq to warrant an invasion. That's not the same thing as evidence.
As I said before, if you bothered reading the UNMOVIC and UNSCUM Inspection reports- all of which is availible online if you care to indulge in some intellectual honesty, you would clearly see where the UN believed Saddam had illegally operating weapons programs and banned weapons capabilities. Most of these reports were filed under Hans Blix's supervision only to have him do a 180 when he saw war approaching. They just believed Iraq was contained and could be controlled so the threat didn't warrant a war.
You are totally misrepresenting the situation without regard to the facts. Read the reports and you will see the facts.
Death threats are a crime sumdumass, even those made over the intertubes.
I didn't make any death threats. I have no idea who your real identity is or where you are located and no motivation to act in any way. I'm saying that you will piss someone off and they will harm you if you don't change your ways and act in the same maner with them as you did with me. I am more then patient enough to ignore you for lack of importance. Hiding behind a keyboard somewhere is one thing, when you forget that degree of separate, someone will retaliate and you won't be around any more. That's not a death threat, that is a warning just like the ones you gave me.
It's funny how you put the onus on others to find solutions. That's a great way for you to stop thinking and keep up your murderous policies. Nice non-rational mind set you've got there. I'll bet you're a raging god freak too.
It's not funny at all. War, death and destruction are happening for a number of reasons, if you don't want it to happen, then you need to present an alternative to it that hasn't already failed. It's really quite simple, the onus is on you to provide an alternative because you are the one wanting to change the behavior. Stopping something that is a reaction to other actions is not a workable solution as long as the previous actions and problems remain. Your insistence to ingore that show you haven't even thought about it past some stupid chanting of murder which is a total fallacy. You cannot say I havn't thought about it because I have actually looked at the situation, understand why there is killing, and know of the attempted to avoid it which failed. You on the other hand present nothing constructive or helpful and mindlessly repeat BS lines about killing people.
Oh, and the Hitler reference was to how he ended up burned in gasoline proving his murderous plan didn't quite work out for him and his followers, and if you watch the video you'll see that and other points relevant. I don't see much if any difference between your policies and Hitler's, in both cases massive numbers of dead humans are the result of how you think.
Oh, so the slaughtering millions of jews was fine but hilter committing suicide and being burned by his troops rather then being killed by the troops sent to stop him is a good thing then? Do you agree that hitler needed stopped? Would you agree that in doing so, when his troops attempt to kill you, you have to kill them? I think my point stands and your is a far fetched reach into nothing.
Actually, a number of ex-Iraqi military officials claimed that Russia flew them out of Iraq and some were moved to Syria.
This claim was made in a book as well as taped interviews with a couple different people. I'm not sure that it's possible to verify the claims, at the time frame it supposedly happened Iraq was supposedly sending aid to Syria due to a damn breaking and a massive flood whcih was an increase in both air and land traffic from Iraq.
Here is another link with a little more detail about the claims but it seems to be just as biased. It has a few more references though.
After all these years, you still live by that fallacy. Try reading the USMOVIC and UNSCUM quarterly report, try paying attention to foreign news media pree 2000 and try paying attention to the leaders in the US.
The entire world thought Iraq maintained its WMD programs and he left the appearance of doing so on purpose. He has said during interviews that he feared attacks from neighboring countries was his reasoning behind it. Not what makes the rest of the world different from the US is that they tackled the problem differently, France used the UN sanctions to scam secret and lucrative oil deals hidden within the UN oil for food program which is one reason why they were objectionable to an invasion (they would lose billions). Russia claimed they were contained and not a problem, Germany was the same with the exception of the UN inspector Hans Blix who contrary to reports submitted to the UN security council under his department, claimed that Iraq had no WMDs but then again, who do you believe, the guy who is anti war and stated something different when war seemed eminent or the guy who spent the better part of ten years claiming Iraq wasn't cooperating, munitions declared destroy were being found, dual use materials were being discovered which weren't reported as per the agreement, chemical processing components actually used in WMD manufacturing were being used in "other chemical processes" at other plants despite a declaration of destruction.
It wasn't until after the war when popular opinion became that there was no WMDs. You can't rewrite history.
If you seriously think Diplomacy was not tried with NK, Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan, then you are not qualified to comment on the subject. It's really that plain and simple because you would be completely wrong on all accounts.
This ordinance is not a shoot first ask questions later deployment. If it were, it would be a secret development. the reason you are reading about it is specifically because the government wants these countries like NK and Iran to realize it will get extremely expensive to hide or futile at best so they need to be serious at the table and with their commitments.
Seriously, they do have guns, they bring them along quite often for miner things like when they think they will encounter a bunch of people "dancing all night long".
But yes, they don't always wear guns. That's probably because most of the UK citizens are refused the right to use a weapon in their own defense and guns are pretty much locked away from the unprivileged classes of people in the UK. So in a conversation about being shot or shooting them first, is bringing up UK police really relevant? I don't really think so. You also have the CC cameras on every street corner and cops in the UK travel in packs with several not more then a few moments away.
One of these days, someone is going to mass murder you if you keep up acting a stupid as fucking possible and ignoring everything relevant not only to the conversation but to the entire argument you are attempting to present.
As I already said and you have yet to answer to, killing is the last resort in a line of actions attempting to resolve the dispute. If you can offer something that hasn't already been tried and failed, then I'm all for it. Not killing is not an answer, it has been tried and failed miserable and something else needs to replace the killing that is both effective as well as guarantees out own safety. And yes, killing them before they kill you does just that.
Until you can bring something constructive to the conversation, you are probably best shutting the hell up.
BTW, the Hitler reference in your other childish post shows that killing can be a good thing when it is done to the right people. Just as my premise said.
A lot of people pay for the convenience and adaptability when they buy bottled water. It's sort of like the difference between shelling out $50 to take the family to the movies 4 times a month verses paying $50 extra a month to have the pay channels that will have the movied in a few months anyways.
If your at the beach, it's convenient to have a sealed bottle of clean water to drink. Sometimes, your tap water doesn't taste as well either. I have a friend who attempted to fill his swimming pool up with well water and ended up dropping the water table so low that his septic discharge polluted the well. He had to bleach the well a few times, put whole house filters in place and a chlorinated treatment thing on line before the health department would sign off on the new well he had drilled. He still buys bottled water despite assurances from every water test he has had done on it since then passing.
I personally use a whole house filter (which surprisingly was only about $30 plus replacement filters from lows) and the same as a line filter for hot and cold under the sink. The filters for the kitchen sink are supposed to be replace ever 6 months but I look at the color of them before replacing and sometimes extend the time. The house filter gets replaced every 3 months at around $15 for a four pack. The only difference is a little loss in line pressure at the spigots and the water actually tastes better. I have toyed with buying a pressure booster but haven't quite found a need for it yet.
Even with that, I have no problem buying water when it is convenient.
I figured MS was no help even though they eventually were, but it redirected the help and support window to a bing search which displayed nothing either. Subsequently, I found and resolved the problem with a trusty old google search. It turned out that somehow a service started loading before it's dependencies were loaded causing a failure in the service. Changing a few registry entries cleared that up.
In Ohio, it similar but they have to be in the house and presenting a danger that makes you fear for you life of someone else' life. And yes, like you I have been on the dishing out side.
A girl I used to run around with claimed she was raped by a guy she knew. I offered to let her stay with me for a while in the spare bedroom. I have several guns and was actually in the process of showing her how to load and unload a couple of them when someone kicked the door in and proceeded to strike her on the head with a baseball bat. He got one hit in that glanced down the left side of head and broke her collar bone before I shot and killed him. It probably would have been worse if it wasn't for the back of the couch interfering with his aim. He didn't even flinch when I yelled at him to stop and was unconcerned about my presence. He was intending to kill her plain and simple and the entire situation took place in less then 30 seconds. I barely had time to stand up before the first strike was made and he was yelling "I'm going to fucking kill you" as soon as his eyes met her.
Most criminals are scared of being shot so they will move on to something else or attempt the break in when you are not home.
About the only way they will shoot you first knowing you have a gun is if you are specifically targeted before hand. In that case, I'm not sure how many people will be in a different situation with or without a gun.
Seriously, think about it. How many cops who wear their guns on their side in plain view are mugged each year? It isn't the hat the protects them more then anyone else. The badge doesn't do much either because the same rules for killing them can apply there too.
Sadly, one not being the other doesn't limit the other from being one.
It may not be a requirement to be a fascist pig to be a police officer but often fascist pigs become police officers and they are the ones getting the media attention forming out opinions.
Bing and millions after millions of dollars in advertising.
However, they may be padding those numbers. I recently had to track down an error in a windows 2003 server box. Sending the error by clicking the support link in the eventvwr and expecting the help and support function to list probable causes and KB articles relating to it ended up automatically redirecting me to a bing search. of course the search string it used was broken and didn't show any results.
I believe it is one of those overblown exaggerations by the developers. It's sort of like when they claimed the program wouldn't run in windows 2000 and the installer refused to run if it detected 2000 yet it worked perfectly fine in XP pre SP1. I was able to trick it into thinking it was running on XP pro by changing some registry settings and temporarily replacing a couple DLL for the install.
Your probably right in that there is no technical need to it to be the default. Some reports won't display if it isn't and some other functions will not work properly. Quick books isn't the only program like that either. I can't name the name of the other one I have personal experience with because the last time I did in a public forum, the consultants setting it up who were never named in my post sent lawyers to my employment threatening a lawsuit if I wasn't fired. Of course neither happened because I never said anything not true or named them at all. Anyways, it used MAPI calls to connect to outlook and even after finding every call and having them implemented into a different mail/messaging program, it didn't work because they specifically checked for outlook to be the default and if it wasn't it automatically threw an error.
There are several programs like this. I have heard the stories from others and witnessed them myself. The problem with contacting the manufacturer is that they know I have no power to return their $30,000 program and the sales guy will just claim I don't know what I'm doing.
Speaking of that, I literally had a credit card processing company (sales person) claim my network was screwed up at a site because I used an internal proxy server connected to a IPTables firewall that scanned all downloaded files and email attachments for viruses on the fly as they cam in as well as blocked most porn and gaming sites like pop cap games and so on.
And when I showed him the PCI data security standard from the security coalition that recommended using a proxy for the computers doing the processing, he told me I was reading it wrong. I think what shut him up was when I was looking over some packet captures attempting to find where the software was failing, I noticed the card information was being transmitted in clear text. That quickly got me in touch with one of their developers and the owner/president of the company. That problem was taken care of but to date, their software still doesn't run properly behind a proxy server. I had to punch a hole through it with another server and restrict all traffic except three ports to two different URLs. Their unwillingness to change the program was due to needing another security audit afterwords even though they clearly failed the first audit with the clear text communications. And again, if it the company I worked for was already invested to the sum of $20,000 in other (rental management) software so changing providers wasn't really an option and they knew it.
I was thinking of actual programs like Quick Books or something like that. I don't mean to pick on Intuit but I have had several programs over the years complain about Firefox being the defail browser and not working right for some obscure reason.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you just don't get it. There is a difference between murder and killing and not all killing is bad. And there is a difference between that and hitler unless you think killing hitler before he killed all those jews or ally forced would have been a bad thing.
If you were paying attention, the Nukes were mentioned in the capacity of having a banned nuclear weapons program. The fact was that we didn't know how far along or if they were along or even still active. This is because of a falsified document floating around and connections to Niger.
As for the chemical weapons, they had a means to deploy them but worse yet, there were connections to terrorists who would deploy them at their own peril. Take the Tokyo subway gas attack, nothing specifically sophisticated there but because it was in a subway, lots of people were affected. And Given Iraq's stance towards the west, it was something that couldn't be ruled out. This is especially true when Iraq was giving safe harbor to known terrorist, allowed terrorist training camps to operate in northern Iraq, was giving sanction and medical treatment to Foreign nationals injured in battle against the US in Afghanistan, and was paying a pension to the families of suicide bombers who attacked Israel.
The presents a little different situation then you described.
I can't believe that I have to explain this but I guess I will. There could have been other ways besides war but that is totally irrelevent. The question wasn't about alternatives to war, it was about the misconception that only the US believed WMDs existed. The entire world believed they did with Russia claiming the evidence wasn't creditable either way and Germany claiming Iraq was contained. None of them said the WMDs were not present until after the war started.
Anyways, Iraq had strict obligations they were to observe that ended the previous war. Being able to make rudimentary chemical weapons is not the problem, it's meeting those obligations in open and honest ways to so an indication that the WMDs wouldn't be used again and that the armistice agreements ending the first gulf war was being honored. IT was about compliance, not mixing two chemicals together.
That's totally irrelevant to the point I made. I'm not arguing for the war, I'm setting the record straight that more then the US believed that Iraq had WMDs and was some sort of threat. And the only thing the two countries agreed on was over the necessity of war or not. Germany didn't originally dispute claims of WMDs and Russia didn't think any of the evidence was creditable.
Why can't you stick to the tired old montra the he was stupid and saw more in the evidence then others did. I mean you Bush bashers seem to jump from one thing to another depending on how well you think it supports your opinions.
As for the french and money, you are so absorbed in yourself and the fallacies you have convinced yourself to believe in that you didn't even see the point of the comment. That or you seriously have a comprehension problem and don't see the connections. The French losing money is a motivation for objection to actions. The US spending more in the end is irrelevant to that point.
Oh yea, and the anti war thing. I'm saying that reports submitted by the agency Hans Blix was head of contradicted his unofficial assessments when talk of war became prevalent. This could be for a number of reasons, most likely a self indulgence in feeling needed and a will for job security that cam back to bite him when other people acted on the information he was responsible for. It could of course have been a total reversal because he was a pacifist but it's likely he lied before he knew his actions could lead to war.
That bogus intel like Iraq wasn't cooperating, munitions declared destroy were being found, dual use materials were being discovered which weren't reported as per the agreement, chemical processing components actually used in WMD manufacturing were being used in "other chemical processes" at other plants despite a declaration of destruction came directly from UNMOVIC reports. That bogus intel was delivered to the United Nations Security Council by the very organization that Hans Blix was head of.
Like I said, read the UNMOVIC and UNSCUM reports. All your answers are in those official reports with details of everything. Until you do so, you will still be confused and trotting crap out that you have no fucking clue about but are willing to repeat because you think it supports your view.
I have to give you Kudos.
Not only did you explain things pretty well, but you used analogies and seeing how this was slashdot, even worked a car into the mix. Great job :)
Debate towards the validity of the WMDs isn't really the issue here. It's the concept that is incorrectly repeated that only the US thought they were there or that it was real that I am concerned with.
I'm not saying that there wasn't skeptics, I'm saying that every major government in the world had intelligence stating that Iraq most likely did have WMDs or has failed in their disarming obligations pressed from the previous war. About the closest to denial at the time before war was eminent would be Russia who said they have seen no creditable evidence one way or the other but then in turn signed onto the UN resolution 1441 stating that Iraq had not complied with thier obligations under the armistice agreements ending the 1990 war. Russia was pushing for increased intense inspections citing that Iraq was contained and not a threat.
The problem was that no government would claim that Iraq had no WMDs nor did they attempt to until after war was eminent or already started. The governments that did were knee deep in scams surrounding the sanctions implemented by the UN in an attempt to force compliance. Stating something contrary 6 months later does not mean you were against it 6 or 8 months before yet people want to pretend that earlier positions were never present. Now, I admit that this doesn't make it a slam dunk for the case of WMDs but it wasn't blindingly obvious that they weren't there at the time the war was being pushed. Had those claims been made 6 months earlier or a year earlier, war would have not been an option.
In fact, I believe that if the oil for food scams wouldn't have been perpetrated by France and the corruption in the UN wasn't prevalent, that Iraq would have satisfied his obligations long before war was an issue too.
Actually, the first 3 anti war and Iraq has no WMDs claims made by Blix came from Stockholm Germany. He was Associate Professor in International Law at Stockholm University, and formed an independent international That he chairs called the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission (WMDC) which again is based in Stockholm Germany.
He may be Swedish but you cannot deny a connection to Germany. but I suppose it's unreasonable to expect someone like you to know that when you're so busy making accusations.
Um, no. The UN didn't believe there was enough threat posed by Iraq to warrant an invasion. That's not the same thing as evidence.
As I said before, if you bothered reading the UNMOVIC and UNSCUM Inspection reports- all of which is availible online if you care to indulge in some intellectual honesty, you would clearly see where the UN believed Saddam had illegally operating weapons programs and banned weapons capabilities. Most of these reports were filed under Hans Blix's supervision only to have him do a 180 when he saw war approaching. They just believed Iraq was contained and could be controlled so the threat didn't warrant a war.
You are totally misrepresenting the situation without regard to the facts. Read the reports and you will see the facts.
I didn't make any death threats. I have no idea who your real identity is or where you are located and no motivation to act in any way. I'm saying that you will piss someone off and they will harm you if you don't change your ways and act in the same maner with them as you did with me. I am more then patient enough to ignore you for lack of importance. Hiding behind a keyboard somewhere is one thing, when you forget that degree of separate, someone will retaliate and you won't be around any more. That's not a death threat, that is a warning just like the ones you gave me.
It's not funny at all. War, death and destruction are happening for a number of reasons, if you don't want it to happen, then you need to present an alternative to it that hasn't already failed. It's really quite simple, the onus is on you to provide an alternative because you are the one wanting to change the behavior. Stopping something that is a reaction to other actions is not a workable solution as long as the previous actions and problems remain. Your insistence to ingore that show you haven't even thought about it past some stupid chanting of murder which is a total fallacy. You cannot say I havn't thought about it because I have actually looked at the situation, understand why there is killing, and know of the attempted to avoid it which failed. You on the other hand present nothing constructive or helpful and mindlessly repeat BS lines about killing people.
Oh, so the slaughtering millions of jews was fine but hilter committing suicide and being burned by his troops rather then being killed by the troops sent to stop him is a good thing then? Do you agree that hitler needed stopped? Would you agree that in doing so, when his troops attempt to kill you, you have to kill them? I think my point stands and your is a far fetched reach into nothing.
Actually, a number of ex-Iraqi military officials claimed that Russia flew them out of Iraq and some were moved to Syria.
This claim was made in a book as well as taped interviews with a couple different people. I'm not sure that it's possible to verify the claims, at the time frame it supposedly happened Iraq was supposedly sending aid to Syria due to a damn breaking and a massive flood whcih was an increase in both air and land traffic from Iraq.
Here is another link with a little more detail about the claims but it seems to be just as biased. It has a few more references though.
After all these years, you still live by that fallacy. Try reading the USMOVIC and UNSCUM quarterly report, try paying attention to foreign news media pree 2000 and try paying attention to the leaders in the US.
The entire world thought Iraq maintained its WMD programs and he left the appearance of doing so on purpose. He has said during interviews that he feared attacks from neighboring countries was his reasoning behind it. Not what makes the rest of the world different from the US is that they tackled the problem differently, France used the UN sanctions to scam secret and lucrative oil deals hidden within the UN oil for food program which is one reason why they were objectionable to an invasion (they would lose billions). Russia claimed they were contained and not a problem, Germany was the same with the exception of the UN inspector Hans Blix who contrary to reports submitted to the UN security council under his department, claimed that Iraq had no WMDs but then again, who do you believe, the guy who is anti war and stated something different when war seemed eminent or the guy who spent the better part of ten years claiming Iraq wasn't cooperating, munitions declared destroy were being found, dual use materials were being discovered which weren't reported as per the agreement, chemical processing components actually used in WMD manufacturing were being used in "other chemical processes" at other plants despite a declaration of destruction.
It wasn't until after the war when popular opinion became that there was no WMDs. You can't rewrite history.
If you seriously think Diplomacy was not tried with NK, Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan, then you are not qualified to comment on the subject. It's really that plain and simple because you would be completely wrong on all accounts.
This ordinance is not a shoot first ask questions later deployment. If it were, it would be a secret development. the reason you are reading about it is specifically because the government wants these countries like NK and Iran to realize it will get extremely expensive to hide or futile at best so they need to be serious at the table and with their commitments.
That would be because they Keep losing them.
Seriously, they do have guns, they bring them along quite often for miner things like when they think they will encounter a bunch of people "dancing all night long".
But yes, they don't always wear guns. That's probably because most of the UK citizens are refused the right to use a weapon in their own defense and guns are pretty much locked away from the unprivileged classes of people in the UK. So in a conversation about being shot or shooting them first, is bringing up UK police really relevant? I don't really think so. You also have the CC cameras on every street corner and cops in the UK travel in packs with several not more then a few moments away.
One of these days, someone is going to mass murder you if you keep up acting a stupid as fucking possible and ignoring everything relevant not only to the conversation but to the entire argument you are attempting to present.
As I already said and you have yet to answer to, killing is the last resort in a line of actions attempting to resolve the dispute. If you can offer something that hasn't already been tried and failed, then I'm all for it. Not killing is not an answer, it has been tried and failed miserable and something else needs to replace the killing that is both effective as well as guarantees out own safety. And yes, killing them before they kill you does just that.
Until you can bring something constructive to the conversation, you are probably best shutting the hell up.
BTW, the Hitler reference in your other childish post shows that killing can be a good thing when it is done to the right people. Just as my premise said.
A lot of people pay for the convenience and adaptability when they buy bottled water. It's sort of like the difference between shelling out $50 to take the family to the movies 4 times a month verses paying $50 extra a month to have the pay channels that will have the movied in a few months anyways.
If your at the beach, it's convenient to have a sealed bottle of clean water to drink. Sometimes, your tap water doesn't taste as well either. I have a friend who attempted to fill his swimming pool up with well water and ended up dropping the water table so low that his septic discharge polluted the well. He had to bleach the well a few times, put whole house filters in place and a chlorinated treatment thing on line before the health department would sign off on the new well he had drilled. He still buys bottled water despite assurances from every water test he has had done on it since then passing.
I personally use a whole house filter (which surprisingly was only about $30 plus replacement filters from lows) and the same as a line filter for hot and cold under the sink. The filters for the kitchen sink are supposed to be replace ever 6 months but I look at the color of them before replacing and sometimes extend the time. The house filter gets replaced every 3 months at around $15 for a four pack. The only difference is a little loss in line pressure at the spigots and the water actually tastes better. I have toyed with buying a pressure booster but haven't quite found a need for it yet.
Even with that, I have no problem buying water when it is convenient.
I figured MS was no help even though they eventually were, but it redirected the help and support window to a bing search which displayed nothing either. Subsequently, I found and resolved the problem with a trusty old google search. It turned out that somehow a service started loading before it's dependencies were loaded causing a failure in the service. Changing a few registry entries cleared that up.
In Ohio, it similar but they have to be in the house and presenting a danger that makes you fear for you life of someone else' life. And yes, like you I have been on the dishing out side.
A girl I used to run around with claimed she was raped by a guy she knew. I offered to let her stay with me for a while in the spare bedroom. I have several guns and was actually in the process of showing her how to load and unload a couple of them when someone kicked the door in and proceeded to strike her on the head with a baseball bat. He got one hit in that glanced down the left side of head and broke her collar bone before I shot and killed him. It probably would have been worse if it wasn't for the back of the couch interfering with his aim. He didn't even flinch when I yelled at him to stop and was unconcerned about my presence. He was intending to kill her plain and simple and the entire situation took place in less then 30 seconds. I barely had time to stand up before the first strike was made and he was yelling "I'm going to fucking kill you" as soon as his eyes met her.
Most criminals are scared of being shot so they will move on to something else or attempt the break in when you are not home.
About the only way they will shoot you first knowing you have a gun is if you are specifically targeted before hand. In that case, I'm not sure how many people will be in a different situation with or without a gun.
Seriously, think about it. How many cops who wear their guns on their side in plain view are mugged each year? It isn't the hat the protects them more then anyone else. The badge doesn't do much either because the same rules for killing them can apply there too.
Sadly, one not being the other doesn't limit the other from being one.
It may not be a requirement to be a fascist pig to be a police officer but often fascist pigs become police officers and they are the ones getting the media attention forming out opinions.
Nah, this is little more then identity theft and espionage.
Some grunt officer will have to take a report and do some preliminary investigation before it goes to a DA's office.
Not only that, Exxon or whoever could manufacture them to fail after a certain point in time causing the repurchase of the machines.
Bing and millions after millions of dollars in advertising.
However, they may be padding those numbers. I recently had to track down an error in a windows 2003 server box. Sending the error by clicking the support link in the eventvwr and expecting the help and support function to list probable causes and KB articles relating to it ended up automatically redirecting me to a bing search. of course the search string it used was broken and didn't show any results.
I believe it is one of those overblown exaggerations by the developers. It's sort of like when they claimed the program wouldn't run in windows 2000 and the installer refused to run if it detected 2000 yet it worked perfectly fine in XP pre SP1. I was able to trick it into thinking it was running on XP pro by changing some registry settings and temporarily replacing a couple DLL for the install.
Your probably right in that there is no technical need to it to be the default. Some reports won't display if it isn't and some other functions will not work properly. Quick books isn't the only program like that either. I can't name the name of the other one I have personal experience with because the last time I did in a public forum, the consultants setting it up who were never named in my post sent lawyers to my employment threatening a lawsuit if I wasn't fired. Of course neither happened because I never said anything not true or named them at all. Anyways, it used MAPI calls to connect to outlook and even after finding every call and having them implemented into a different mail/messaging program, it didn't work because they specifically checked for outlook to be the default and if it wasn't it automatically threw an error.
There are several programs like this. I have heard the stories from others and witnessed them myself. The problem with contacting the manufacturer is that they know I have no power to return their $30,000 program and the sales guy will just claim I don't know what I'm doing.
Speaking of that, I literally had a credit card processing company (sales person) claim my network was screwed up at a site because I used an internal proxy server connected to a IPTables firewall that scanned all downloaded files and email attachments for viruses on the fly as they cam in as well as blocked most porn and gaming sites like pop cap games and so on.
And when I showed him the PCI data security standard from the security coalition that recommended using a proxy for the computers doing the processing, he told me I was reading it wrong. I think what shut him up was when I was looking over some packet captures attempting to find where the software was failing, I noticed the card information was being transmitted in clear text. That quickly got me in touch with one of their developers and the owner/president of the company. That problem was taken care of but to date, their software still doesn't run properly behind a proxy server. I had to punch a hole through it with another server and restrict all traffic except three ports to two different URLs. Their unwillingness to change the program was due to needing another security audit afterwords even though they clearly failed the first audit with the clear text communications. And again, if it the company I worked for was already invested to the sum of $20,000 in other (rental management) software so changing providers wasn't really an option and they knew it.
Some things just amaze me.
I was thinking of actual programs like Quick Books or something like that. I don't mean to pick on Intuit but I have had several programs over the years complain about Firefox being the defail browser and not working right for some obscure reason.