Don't you realize that the League of Nations was similarly made to reign in malevolent powers? If the UN fails to maintain relevancy. If it insists on standing by as its own mandatory resolutions are ignored for over a decade then we might as well pull out of the UN and spend our money on some organization that will actually get the job done.
My question is: So what? Why is this a reason to start a war?
The war never ended. Saddam doesn't have a cruise missile giving him a rectal probe because of a cease fire document negotiated at Safwan while his army was busy either surrendering or running. This was after a little incident where he swallowed a neighboring country (Kuwait) whole and was looking across the border to Saudi Arabia.
After he complied with the terms of the cease fire (which included disarmament) then he got to negotiate peace treaties and settle all outstanding issues putting Iraq back into the category of normal nation.
He's never complied with the terms of the cease fire. We've had 12 years of bending over backwards giving him extra chances and people still call it a rush to war.
The President just announced yesterday that they intercepted Saddam's personal orders authorizing the use of chemical munitions in case of attack. And after this you doubt that he has the weapons he just authorized his officers to use?
He's not supposed to have chemical munitions at all. Giving them up (along with a lot of other things) was a condition for him continuing in power.
General Assembly resolutions and Security Council resolutions are not, and have never been, the same. The Security Council has always had the ability to make its resolutions binding (as in the case of the Iraqi resolutions) the General Assembly never has had that power.
All of the resolutions on Israel that people accuse it of defying have been General Assembly resolutions. Feel free to cite Security Council res numbers if I'm in error.
I can't speak for all of them but at least Romania and Bulgaria both lived a long time under Islamic rule. People there understand the reality of what will happen if they win. It isn't pretty. Think of it as a more violent version of Jim Crow with christians and jews as the oppressed blacks.
Oh, everybody else just gets killed. Nice people, these islamic fundamentalists.
the big kids are whining about creeping fascism and engaging in Bush bashing. The adults are supporting the war and fighting like hell to keep civil liberties as intact as possible during this difficult time while ensuring that the govt. backs off when the war is over.
Remember, the sooner we defeat these people, the sooner we can start working to undo any civil liberties restrictions that have creeped in as war measures.
On a dollar basis, the rich will end up paying a higher percentage of taxes paid with the Bush plan than with the current system. The benefit will be that they'll end up with so much benefit from the extra economic growth that their after tax income will go up.
The fact is that double taxation of dividends leads to bad business decisions that screw over employees in all sorts of ways, not least of which is taking that retained cash and buying up other firms, throwing out 'redundant' workers in the process. If it were equally profitable to give the shareholders back their money instead of management empire building, I'm sure that a lot of shareholders would insist on dividends which many would plow right back into investing in other ventures.
The best job security is 3% unemployment and we're only going to get there by freeing up capital to create more and more jobs.
Yes, they send their money back home, minus the 30-50% that gets taken out in taxes plus whatever small pittance they spend on food, clothing, and shelter. You also have to remember that these people aren't going to be collecting the social security taxes they pay in for, nor medicare, nor benefit from most social assistance programs. They're generally a net contributor to govt. revenues and enlarge the number of people who have good opinions of the US.
As for the idea that this is about oil, well it is but not in the way you make it out to be. We pressure everybody and their grandmother to create a rule of law society with equal rights for all and democracy for the people. We don't do it in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the OPEC nations because we are hostage to our need for oil. This plays into the hands of the terrorists who play up our good relations with opec repressive govts, show us smiling with their local tyrants as we shake hands and never point out our gritted teeth as we do it from necessity.
Taking Iraq will let us, for the first time in half a century, give us the ability to clean out the cesspools of arab repression and tyranny which breed people like Osama bin Laden. Until those cesspools are cleaned, we can have a war on terror as long as we like and it won't matter worth a damn.
I hope you like substandard or nonexistant medical care because H-1b doctors are all that's keeping that puppy going in a lot of areas. But even for H-1b people there are areas (like W. Virginia and S. Chicago) where they simply refuse to go. Thata's why we had J-1 visa waiver positions. The J-1 waiver program is getting phased out so you're going to be able to see the disaster in human misery that a citizen only policy will produce in miniature if you open your eyes and pay attention.
I also notice that nobody is bitching and moaning about J-1 visas which are less controlled, much easier to get, and frankly a better tool for terrorist use. H-1b visa holders are eligible to convert to green cards so there is a temptation not to take the martyr route. J-1 visa holders OTOH are almost always forced to leave the US except by very hard to find waivers mandating years of service in some dangerous hell hole.
I wonder why the anti-immigrants always rail about H-1b and never about J-1?Maybe it isn't about national security at all but nativism, pure and simple. We need to keep those furriners out!
I think you don't understand who George HW Bush had for friends. This is a guy who has a Rolodex filled with power brokers and experts on *everything*. That was his schtick and it served him well enough.
The son seems to have pulled the best from his father's retinue, leaving most of the duds behind and has established an enviably good working administration. From a skills perspective, it's probably better than any other post WW II republican administration and their loyalty absolutely exceeds any presidency in the modern age.
They use low tech because that's all they have. If they had the high tech abilities of the US, those of us who survived the ensuing slaughter would be under a restrictive dhimma right now, condemned to Islam's version of Jim Crow.
A centralized, computerized system that controls food distribution also can control who *doesn't* get fed. It's a dictatorship and every facet of daily life is one more lever to control the populace.
Re:I'm more amazed....
on
Baked Apple
·
· Score: 1
Well that's why I got a keyboard with an extended warranty. I expect to get my money's worth in the next two years.
I'm guessing the marketing droids over at Apple will call the 970 something like a G4-64 (rolls off the tongue, doesn't it) and sometime in 2004-2005 roll out Power5 systems under the G5 moniker. Hopefully, at some point, Motorola will get its act together and get back into AIM with both feet but I'm guessing it'll take an Apple marketshare in the 6-10% range.
If you had followed the thread, FMC put out a requirement for them to create a safe environment. When they complied, they came up with another reason not to ship, and another, and another, and another.
It really depends on the issue. When the big money's interested in something, it's hard to elbow them out of the way but on other issues it's not quite so hard. On a hearing on religious freedom in Romania, my bishop got in front of those cameras in the big room and his flock is 5k on a good day and we're all poor as church mice.
I'm sure that if the X Prize were claimed around now, they'd get the team leader to testify at a bunch of the upcoming "what'll we do about the shuttle" hearings whether he's a big wheel or not.
"We're getting too much influence by other interests' money diluting our own influence. Let's set up rules that we can get around so we regain our advantage."
The interesting question for the politicians should be is this advancing the arts and if not, shouldn't we modify copyright to better maximize advancement of the arts?
Copyright isn't a right but fair use is. The fact is that naturally, we have the right to copy anything. The Constitution abridges that right in order to further the noble purpose of advancing the arts and sciences. It issues a privilege, in the form of a temporary monopoly for a limited time and with holes in it where the underlying right to copy and modify still hold even during the term.
The discussion isn't about opening up file formats, etc. it's about Hollywood using govt. force to impose their will on a different industry and making them modify their products to include DRM. That has no Constitutional basis in my opinion and is utterly illegitimate.
No system under my physical control is secure against me. Copying will always be possible.
I think that the difficulty comes when people value the human time and talent necessary to produce at $0 as well as not counting rent, depreciation, and utilities.
I haven't had occasion to do it since 9/11 but I can personally attest you don't get thrown in the pokey for trying to lobby when you're a little guy. It's called lobbying because that's where a lot of it gets done, in the lobby. You have every right to go to any congressman's office and talk to either the congressman himself or the subject expert he hired to advise him and write up proposals. It's called the right to petition the govt. with your grievances and is part of the 1st amendment.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't you realize that the League of Nations was similarly made to reign in malevolent powers? If the UN fails to maintain relevancy. If it insists on standing by as its own mandatory resolutions are ignored for over a decade then we might as well pull out of the UN and spend our money on some organization that will actually get the job done.
The Iraqi flag today is not the Iraqi flag that rolled into Kuwait along with their tanks. The flag has changed to add an islamic saying.
Baath socialism has historically been secular but Saddam's taken it into a new direction.
My question is: So what? Why is this a reason to start a war?
The war never ended. Saddam doesn't have a cruise missile giving him a rectal probe because of a cease fire document negotiated at Safwan while his army was busy either surrendering or running. This was after a little incident where he swallowed a neighboring country (Kuwait) whole and was looking across the border to Saudi Arabia.
After he complied with the terms of the cease fire (which included disarmament) then he got to negotiate peace treaties and settle all outstanding issues putting Iraq back into the category of normal nation.
He's never complied with the terms of the cease fire. We've had 12 years of bending over backwards giving him extra chances and people still call it a rush to war.
The President just announced yesterday that they intercepted Saddam's personal orders authorizing the use of chemical munitions in case of attack. And after this you doubt that he has the weapons he just authorized his officers to use?
He's not supposed to have chemical munitions at all. Giving them up (along with a lot of other things) was a condition for him continuing in power.
General Assembly resolutions and Security Council resolutions are not, and have never been, the same. The Security Council has always had the ability to make its resolutions binding (as in the case of the Iraqi resolutions) the General Assembly never has had that power.
All of the resolutions on Israel that people accuse it of defying have been General Assembly resolutions. Feel free to cite Security Council res numbers if I'm in error.
I can't speak for all of them but at least Romania and Bulgaria both lived a long time under Islamic rule. People there understand the reality of what will happen if they win. It isn't pretty. Think of it as a more violent version of Jim Crow with christians and jews as the oppressed blacks.
Oh, everybody else just gets killed. Nice people, these islamic fundamentalists.
the big kids are whining about creeping fascism and engaging in Bush bashing. The adults are supporting the war and fighting like hell to keep civil liberties as intact as possible during this difficult time while ensuring that the govt. backs off when the war is over.
Remember, the sooner we defeat these people, the sooner we can start working to undo any civil liberties restrictions that have creeped in as war measures.
It's a distinctive piece of clothing or a badge issued according to a system enumerated by a government and usually issued by same.
On a dollar basis, the rich will end up paying a higher percentage of taxes paid with the Bush plan than with the current system. The benefit will be that they'll end up with so much benefit from the extra economic growth that their after tax income will go up.
The fact is that double taxation of dividends leads to bad business decisions that screw over employees in all sorts of ways, not least of which is taking that retained cash and buying up other firms, throwing out 'redundant' workers in the process. If it were equally profitable to give the shareholders back their money instead of management empire building, I'm sure that a lot of shareholders would insist on dividends which many would plow right back into investing in other ventures.
The best job security is 3% unemployment and we're only going to get there by freeing up capital to create more and more jobs.
Yes, they send their money back home, minus the 30-50% that gets taken out in taxes plus whatever small pittance they spend on food, clothing, and shelter. You also have to remember that these people aren't going to be collecting the social security taxes they pay in for, nor medicare, nor benefit from most social assistance programs. They're generally a net contributor to govt. revenues and enlarge the number of people who have good opinions of the US.
As for the idea that this is about oil, well it is but not in the way you make it out to be. We pressure everybody and their grandmother to create a rule of law society with equal rights for all and democracy for the people. We don't do it in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the OPEC nations because we are hostage to our need for oil. This plays into the hands of the terrorists who play up our good relations with opec repressive govts, show us smiling with their local tyrants as we shake hands and never point out our gritted teeth as we do it from necessity.
Taking Iraq will let us, for the first time in half a century, give us the ability to clean out the cesspools of arab repression and tyranny which breed people like Osama bin Laden. Until those cesspools are cleaned, we can have a war on terror as long as we like and it won't matter worth a damn.
I hope you like substandard or nonexistant medical care because H-1b doctors are all that's keeping that puppy going in a lot of areas. But even for H-1b people there are areas (like W. Virginia and S. Chicago) where they simply refuse to go. Thata's why we had J-1 visa waiver positions. The J-1 waiver program is getting phased out so you're going to be able to see the disaster in human misery that a citizen only policy will produce in miniature if you open your eyes and pay attention.
I also notice that nobody is bitching and moaning about J-1 visas which are less controlled, much easier to get, and frankly a better tool for terrorist use. H-1b visa holders are eligible to convert to green cards so there is a temptation not to take the martyr route. J-1 visa holders OTOH are almost always forced to leave the US except by very hard to find waivers mandating years of service in some dangerous hell hole.
I wonder why the anti-immigrants always rail about H-1b and never about J-1?Maybe it isn't about national security at all but nativism, pure and simple. We need to keep those furriners out!
Not!
I think you don't understand who George HW Bush had for friends. This is a guy who has a Rolodex filled with power brokers and experts on *everything*. That was his schtick and it served him well enough.
The son seems to have pulled the best from his father's retinue, leaving most of the duds behind and has established an enviably good working administration. From a skills perspective, it's probably better than any other post WW II republican administration and their loyalty absolutely exceeds any presidency in the modern age.
They use low tech because that's all they have. If they had the high tech abilities of the US, those of us who survived the ensuing slaughter would be under a restrictive dhimma right now, condemned to Islam's version of Jim Crow.
A centralized, computerized system that controls food distribution also can control who *doesn't* get fed. It's a dictatorship and every facet of daily life is one more lever to control the populace.
Well that's why I got a keyboard with an extended warranty. I expect to get my money's worth in the next two years.
I'm guessing the marketing droids over at Apple will call the 970 something like a G4-64 (rolls off the tongue, doesn't it) and sometime in 2004-2005 roll out Power5 systems under the G5 moniker. Hopefully, at some point, Motorola will get its act together and get back into AIM with both feet but I'm guessing it'll take an Apple marketshare in the 6-10% range.
If you had followed the thread, FMC put out a requirement for them to create a safe environment. When they complied, they came up with another reason not to ship, and another, and another, and another.
Something is rotten.
It really depends on the issue. When the big money's interested in something, it's hard to elbow them out of the way but on other issues it's not quite so hard. On a hearing on religious freedom in Romania, my bishop got in front of those cameras in the big room and his flock is 5k on a good day and we're all poor as church mice.
I'm sure that if the X Prize were claimed around now, they'd get the team leader to testify at a bunch of the upcoming "what'll we do about the shuttle" hearings whether he's a big wheel or not.
Better translation:
"We're getting too much influence by other interests' money diluting our own influence. Let's set up rules that we can get around so we regain our advantage."
The interesting question for the politicians should be is this advancing the arts and if not, shouldn't we modify copyright to better maximize advancement of the arts?
The venue the DJ is playing pays fees for the music.
Copyright isn't a right but fair use is. The fact is that naturally, we have the right to copy anything. The Constitution abridges that right in order to further the noble purpose of advancing the arts and sciences. It issues a privilege, in the form of a temporary monopoly for a limited time and with holes in it where the underlying right to copy and modify still hold even during the term.
The discussion isn't about opening up file formats, etc. it's about Hollywood using govt. force to impose their will on a different industry and making them modify their products to include DRM. That has no Constitutional basis in my opinion and is utterly illegitimate.
No system under my physical control is secure against me. Copying will always be possible.
I think that the difficulty comes when people value the human time and talent necessary to produce at $0 as well as not counting rent, depreciation, and utilities.
Or you could see if your local library system has it and just copy from disk or do the same thing over at Blockbuster for the price of a rental.
I haven't had occasion to do it since 9/11 but I can personally attest you don't get thrown in the pokey for trying to lobby when you're a little guy. It's called lobbying because that's where a lot of it gets done, in the lobby. You have every right to go to any congressman's office and talk to either the congressman himself or the subject expert he hired to advise him and write up proposals. It's called the right to petition the govt. with your grievances and is part of the 1st amendment.