A laudable goal but not one that I'm losing too much sleep about. The US military has contingency plans for a failure of the GPS system. It would be a PITA but in of itself is not enough to cripple the US armed forces. Most (all?) of the weapons systems that rely on GPS can still be guided to their targets through other means.
If the device is hooked up to a corporate BES server, then they can already read all of your sms / email.
I pointed this out to a friend that uses her personal blackberry to access her company e-mail. Her response was "So what?" Then I asked her, "Don't you use text messaging to order that dried up plant material that's illegal in all 50 states?"
Focus on keeping Congress from being handed over to the corporations in November.
It's already there. Your only choice in November is between which sets of corporations you want running the place. If you like big media then you should vote for the Democrats. If you like big industry then you should vote for the Republicans.
Have they demonstrated an ability to reach the GPS constellation? As I recall their first test was aimed at a weather satellite orbiting at 550 miles or so. The GPS constellation orbits at twice that altitude (~1,200 miles for medium earth orbit)
Intercepting a missile with another missile in the atmosphere is still something that's not quite there yet
Whether or not it's "there yet" rather depends on the type of missile that you are talking about. The US Navy has had the capability of shooting down anti-ship missiles for decades. An Aegis warship has the ability to handle several dozen cruise missiles. The Russians have SAM systems that would make mincemeat out of most non-stealthy cruise missiles, including the vaunted Tomahawk. NATO has similar systems.
Ballistic missiles are a tougher challenge (owing to speed and altitude) but one that modern SAM systems can meet. The Patriot system that was used in the Gulf War was never really intended to be used against ballistic missiles. It was designed to shoot down aircraft and cruise missiles -- against either of those threats it performs superbly. I certainly wouldn't want to ride in the aircraft that's taking on a patriot battery.....
You can say whatever you'd like, that doesn't make any truer than your other assertions, but it's a free country. At least as long as we keep nimrods like you from obtaining any real political power:)
Rule of law and the free practice of religion have little to do with a religion that has set itself up as the enemy of my nation.
Try telling the 7,000,000 Muslims living here peacefully that their entire religion has "set itself up" as an enemy of our country.
You've failed to take my challenge, and you can't show me any list of Imams who are tolerant to Western ideals
I don't have to disprove something that is clearly false. You claim to know the motivations of 1.5 billion people based on the actions of a few hundred people. This is patently absurd.
Accepted and supported with donations arriving every day, from common people in every city in Islam.
The Irish Republican Army received donations from every major city in the United States at one point in time. Following your logic, that means every single man, woman and child in the United States supports terrorism.
I'm finished here.
Ah, the "screw you guys, I'm going home!" method. Gotta admit, it's a classic.
You've repeatedly resorted to calling names
I call them how I see them and I see you as an intolerant bigot. Truth hurts, doesn't it?
as this most recent "un-American" post.
You have no respect for the 1st amendment -- that's about as un-American as you can get.
The Government of Afghanistan provided support to the group that did attack the United States. Iraq attacked American warplanes on an almost daily basis, in violation of the terms of the Gulf War cease fire.
No, you are at odds with almost everything the West stands for. You advocate the use of violence against places of worship merely because you don't happen to like their physical location. That is at odds with the rule of law and the free practice of religion, both of which are core Western values.
And, yes, someone blowing up a mosque being built at Ground Zero would rank among the patriots with me.
Then you are no better than the terrorists that you are condemning. I would gladly lay down my life to prevent such an attack from taking place.
As I said - when Islam gets their act together, and takes control of all those "extremist groups" that claim to speak for Islam, THEN we might discuss the erection of a mosque near the site of the Twin Towers. As long as Islam funnels money to all those "extremist groups" to keep them in operation, no, we don't need any mosque on hallowed ground.
Again with the use of the word "Islam" like it's one centralized entity. There are 1.5 billion Muslims on this planet. That means that nearly 1 out of every 4 people on this planet are Muslim. It's absurd to pretend that you know what all of them stand for.
What am I overstating? The numbers that you provided seem to back up my logistical argument. Take a look at the number of railway related items (locomotives, rolling stock, rails) provided to the Soviet Union. Then look at their production figures for those items. You'll find that Soviet production of these items was nearly non-existent during the war years. Now ask how you keep the Red Army in supply without lend-lease. All those T-34s don't do you any good if you can't bring fuel, ammo and spare parts to the front.
I'm not sure on Standard Oil delivering gasoline to Germany that late in the war -- but even if it's true I'm not sure what the relevance is. Standard Oil's business dealings with Germany really don't have any bearing on whether or not the Soviet Union could have survived without lend-lease.
Yes, you are a bigot. You take the actions of a small minority and use them to condemn the entire group. You fail to realize (or just don't care) that the same criticisms you are making about Islam could be made of any of the world's major religions.
Due process? Well, enemies of the United States take full advantage of it, so why shouldn't a patriot?
Now you think people that blow up Mosques are patriots?
First off, stop saying "Russia", because it was actually the Soviet Union in those days. Much of the fighting took place on non-Russian soil, i.e: the campaigns in the Ukraine and Belarus.
Second, asking "What if?" with regards to Barbarossa is beyond pointless. Hitler's objective was always to seize land in the East. But for that objective there never would have been a war. Add some books on the political underpinnings of the war to your library. Read Mein Kampf if you haven't already.
Third, none of this is remotely relevant to the original question regarding Western aid to the Soviet Union. Lend-lease saved the Soviet Union. It allowed them to devote nearly their entire economy to armaments production. The West provided the bread, butter and boots. The Soviets provided the weapons and the manpower.
Says the one who can't do anything but repeat his History Channel cliff notes? Go look at German war production figures. Look at the Order of Battle for both sides in 1941, 42 and 43. Germany did not "wreck" anything in 1941. They failed to take Moscow and win a quick knock out blow -- but the remained a potent fighting force until at least 1943.
What were the total of German casualties in Russia in 1941?
Considerably less than in 1942 and 1943.
The invasion of Russia marked the beginning of the end for Hitler. He wrecked a superb war machine in Russia, in 1941. It's that simple.
The invasion of the Soviet Union was Hitler's plan from the start. Read Mein Kampf. Everything that he did was geared towards obtaining Lebensraum in the East. The campaigns in the West were just holding actions. It's no wonder that you can't understand the Eastern Front when you don't even know the reasons why Germany went to war.
No, the so-called "Coalition of the Willing" that the US brought to bear agaisnt Iraq had nothing to do with NATO.
Stop moving the goalposts, you were talking about Afghanistan: It did not help that we were bullied into joining the Coalition of the Unwilling in Afghanistan
No, he really didn't. German war production didn't even peak until 1944. Germany was still launching major offenses on the Eastern Front as late as mid-1943 (Kursk). Why don't you just quit while you are ahead?
Then, I might point out that blowing up a mosque might offend you, but unless you are standing in the mosque, it hardly harms you.
Stop being an idiot.
Much of Islam is at war against the United States.
Bullshit. A handful of extremists != 'much of Islam'
Allowing a Mosque at Ground Zero would be the equivalent of allowing the Emperor of Japan to plant his Rising Sun flag on the USS Arizon monument.
The Arizona memorial is public land that's run by the National Park Service. The land near Ground Zero is privately owned and can be used for any purpose that's allowed under the NYC zoning law. You'll note that there's nothing stopping you from planting a Rising Sun flag on any private property in Hawaii.
There will be no mosque at Ground Zero, unless and until Islam takes control of those extremists that claim to act for Islam
And which central Islamic authority exists that has control over these extremists?
Some redneck will be around to destroy any mosque.
Then he will be punished to the full extent of the law.
Germany wrecked their military machine against the Russians, before the Lend/Lease really got going
Try again. The Soviet Union started receiving material aid from the West almost immediately after the commencement of Operation Barbarossa. They were formally added to lend-lease in October of 1941. The German Army wasn't "wrecked" until Stalingrad (late 1942/early 1943) and Kursk (mid 1943).
The Russian winter is an unbeatable opponent, as other invading forces have learned.
The winter isn't an "opponent", it's just part of the terrain. The winter actually had less of an impact on the German campaign than the autumn rainy season (the real reason that the Germans never took Moscow) but such details are usually overlooked by the armchair military historians.
Preventing a Shinto temple at Pearl Harbor wouldn't be an infringement on the first Amendment
Yes it would. Telling a religion that they can't build a house of worship in a specific city is most definitely an infringement on the 1st amendment.
so long as it doesn't offend the families of the men and women who were murdered at Pearl Harbor
Please point out the section of the US Constitution that says you have a right not to be offended.
The freedom of religion does not include freedom to offend other people with your religion.
Actually, yes, it does. I'm free to do whatever I want as long as it doesn't directly harm you. Offending you != harming you.
I wish the court system would teach that lesson to the fruitcakes from that Westboro Baptist "church".
The 1st amendment would protect their activities regardless of whether or not they were religious in nature. It's called free speech. Even jackasses have it.
Slashdot Mirror
A laudable goal but not one that I'm losing too much sleep about. The US military has contingency plans for a failure of the GPS system. It would be a PITA but in of itself is not enough to cripple the US armed forces. Most (all?) of the weapons systems that rely on GPS can still be guided to their targets through other means.
If the device is hooked up to a corporate BES server, then they can already read all of your sms / email.
I pointed this out to a friend that uses her personal blackberry to access her company e-mail. Her response was "So what?" Then I asked her, "Don't you use text messaging to order that dried up plant material that's illegal in all 50 states?"
She bought a droid the very next day.....
Focus on keeping Congress from being handed over to the corporations in November.
It's already there. Your only choice in November is between which sets of corporations you want running the place. If you like big media then you should vote for the Democrats. If you like big industry then you should vote for the Republicans.
Have they demonstrated an ability to reach the GPS constellation? As I recall their first test was aimed at a weather satellite orbiting at 550 miles or so. The GPS constellation orbits at twice that altitude (~1,200 miles for medium earth orbit)
Intercepting a missile with another missile in the atmosphere is still something that's not quite there yet
Whether or not it's "there yet" rather depends on the type of missile that you are talking about. The US Navy has had the capability of shooting down anti-ship missiles for decades. An Aegis warship has the ability to handle several dozen cruise missiles. The Russians have SAM systems that would make mincemeat out of most non-stealthy cruise missiles, including the vaunted Tomahawk. NATO has similar systems.
Ballistic missiles are a tougher challenge (owing to speed and altitude) but one that modern SAM systems can meet. The Patriot system that was used in the Gulf War was never really intended to be used against ballistic missiles. It was designed to shoot down aircraft and cruise missiles -- against either of those threats it performs superbly. I certainly wouldn't want to ride in the aircraft that's taking on a patriot battery.....
As a German you should be well aware of what happens when one allows the Government to discriminate against unpopular minorities.
You can say whatever you'd like, that doesn't make any truer than your other assertions, but it's a free country. At least as long as we keep nimrods like you from obtaining any real political power :)
Rule of law and the free practice of religion have little to do with a religion that has set itself up as the enemy of my nation.
Try telling the 7,000,000 Muslims living here peacefully that their entire religion has "set itself up" as an enemy of our country.
You've failed to take my challenge, and you can't show me any list of Imams who are tolerant to Western ideals
I don't have to disprove something that is clearly false. You claim to know the motivations of 1.5 billion people based on the actions of a few hundred people. This is patently absurd.
Accepted and supported with donations arriving every day, from common people in every city in Islam.
The Irish Republican Army received donations from every major city in the United States at one point in time. Following your logic, that means every single man, woman and child in the United States supports terrorism.
I'm finished here.
Ah, the "screw you guys, I'm going home!" method. Gotta admit, it's a classic.
You've repeatedly resorted to calling names
I call them how I see them and I see you as an intolerant bigot. Truth hurts, doesn't it?
as this most recent "un-American" post.
You have no respect for the 1st amendment -- that's about as un-American as you can get.
The Government of Afghanistan provided support to the group that did attack the United States. Iraq attacked American warplanes on an almost daily basis, in violation of the terms of the Gulf War cease fire.
No, you are at odds with almost everything the West stands for. You advocate the use of violence against places of worship merely because you don't happen to like their physical location. That is at odds with the rule of law and the free practice of religion, both of which are core Western values.
He should have used the 2nd amendment instead ;)
You are a closed minded bigot. Why don't you do us a favor and crawl into a hole somewhere with the rest of the bigots and die?
And, yes, someone blowing up a mosque being built at Ground Zero would rank among the patriots with me.
Then you are no better than the terrorists that you are condemning. I would gladly lay down my life to prevent such an attack from taking place.
As I said - when Islam gets their act together, and takes control of all those "extremist groups" that claim to speak for Islam, THEN we might discuss the erection of a mosque near the site of the Twin Towers. As long as Islam funnels money to all those "extremist groups" to keep them in operation, no, we don't need any mosque on hallowed ground.
Again with the use of the word "Islam" like it's one centralized entity. There are 1.5 billion Muslims on this planet. That means that nearly 1 out of every 4 people on this planet are Muslim. It's absurd to pretend that you know what all of them stand for.
US embassies are American soil.....
What am I overstating? The numbers that you provided seem to back up my logistical argument. Take a look at the number of railway related items (locomotives, rolling stock, rails) provided to the Soviet Union. Then look at their production figures for those items. You'll find that Soviet production of these items was nearly non-existent during the war years. Now ask how you keep the Red Army in supply without lend-lease. All those T-34s don't do you any good if you can't bring fuel, ammo and spare parts to the front.
I'm not sure on Standard Oil delivering gasoline to Germany that late in the war -- but even if it's true I'm not sure what the relevance is. Standard Oil's business dealings with Germany really don't have any bearing on whether or not the Soviet Union could have survived without lend-lease.
Bigoted? Uhhhh - possibly.
Yes, you are a bigot. You take the actions of a small minority and use them to condemn the entire group. You fail to realize (or just don't care) that the same criticisms you are making about Islam could be made of any of the world's major religions.
Due process? Well, enemies of the United States take full advantage of it, so why shouldn't a patriot?
Now you think people that blow up Mosques are patriots?
First off, stop saying "Russia", because it was actually the Soviet Union in those days. Much of the fighting took place on non-Russian soil, i.e: the campaigns in the Ukraine and Belarus.
Second, asking "What if?" with regards to Barbarossa is beyond pointless. Hitler's objective was always to seize land in the East. But for that objective there never would have been a war. Add some books on the political underpinnings of the war to your library. Read Mein Kampf if you haven't already.
Third, none of this is remotely relevant to the original question regarding Western aid to the Soviet Union. Lend-lease saved the Soviet Union. It allowed them to devote nearly their entire economy to armaments production. The West provided the bread, butter and boots. The Soviets provided the weapons and the manpower.
You are a bigoted asshole. Grow the hell up.
BTW, I love that your concern for "due process" manifested itself a paragraph after you advocated for extrajudicial killings.
You're not making a lot of sense.
Says the one who can't do anything but repeat his History Channel cliff notes? Go look at German war production figures. Look at the Order of Battle for both sides in 1941, 42 and 43. Germany did not "wreck" anything in 1941. They failed to take Moscow and win a quick knock out blow -- but the remained a potent fighting force until at least 1943.
What were the total of German casualties in Russia in 1941?
Considerably less than in 1942 and 1943.
The invasion of Russia marked the beginning of the end for Hitler. He wrecked a superb war machine in Russia, in 1941. It's that simple.
The invasion of the Soviet Union was Hitler's plan from the start. Read Mein Kampf. Everything that he did was geared towards obtaining Lebensraum in the East. The campaigns in the West were just holding actions. It's no wonder that you can't understand the Eastern Front when you don't even know the reasons why Germany went to war.
No, the so-called "Coalition of the Willing" that the US brought to bear agaisnt Iraq had nothing to do with NATO.
Stop moving the goalposts, you were talking about Afghanistan: It did not help that we were bullied into joining the Coalition of the Unwilling in Afghanistan
Hitler wrecked his war machine in 1941.
No, he really didn't. German war production didn't even peak until 1944. Germany was still launching major offenses on the Eastern Front as late as mid-1943 (Kursk). Why don't you just quit while you are ahead?
Then, I might point out that blowing up a mosque might offend you, but unless you are standing in the mosque, it hardly harms you.
Stop being an idiot.
Much of Islam is at war against the United States.
Bullshit. A handful of extremists != 'much of Islam'
Allowing a Mosque at Ground Zero would be the equivalent of allowing the Emperor of Japan to plant his Rising Sun flag on the USS Arizon monument.
The Arizona memorial is public land that's run by the National Park Service. The land near Ground Zero is privately owned and can be used for any purpose that's allowed under the NYC zoning law. You'll note that there's nothing stopping you from planting a Rising Sun flag on any private property in Hawaii.
There will be no mosque at Ground Zero, unless and until Islam takes control of those extremists that claim to act for Islam
And which central Islamic authority exists that has control over these extremists?
Some redneck will be around to destroy any mosque.
Then he will be punished to the full extent of the law.
Germany wrecked their military machine against the Russians, before the Lend/Lease really got going
Try again. The Soviet Union started receiving material aid from the West almost immediately after the commencement of Operation Barbarossa. They were formally added to lend-lease in October of 1941. The German Army wasn't "wrecked" until Stalingrad (late 1942/early 1943) and Kursk (mid 1943).
The Russian winter is an unbeatable opponent, as other invading forces have learned.
The winter isn't an "opponent", it's just part of the terrain. The winter actually had less of an impact on the German campaign than the autumn rainy season (the real reason that the Germans never took Moscow) but such details are usually overlooked by the armchair military historians.
The attack where European countries had to choose between joining a war which wasn't their problem
It became their problem when they signed a treaty promising to treat an attack against American soil as an attack against their own soil.
Preventing a Shinto temple at Pearl Harbor wouldn't be an infringement on the first Amendment
Yes it would. Telling a religion that they can't build a house of worship in a specific city is most definitely an infringement on the 1st amendment.
so long as it doesn't offend the families of the men and women who were murdered at Pearl Harbor
Please point out the section of the US Constitution that says you have a right not to be offended.
The freedom of religion does not include freedom to offend other people with your religion.
Actually, yes, it does. I'm free to do whatever I want as long as it doesn't directly harm you. Offending you != harming you.
I wish the court system would teach that lesson to the fruitcakes from that Westboro Baptist "church".
The 1st amendment would protect their activities regardless of whether or not they were religious in nature. It's called free speech. Even jackasses have it.