GW doesn't give people evidence, the CIA does. Kerry had the same info GW had. Go read what Kerry was saying, he made reference to worldwide intelligence agencies.
How about our real GDP and the fact that our economy generates the most technological revenue of any other country, our technologically advanced army, air superiority, space superiority, intelligence superiority, economic superiority. If the rest of the world were trying to destroy the US, could they succeed you think? I think it would be too close to call. If that were to happen in 10 years, we'd probably laser all the missiles launched at us. Which is why terrorism has become the hot topic.
If you like to think that the United States is not as good as yours or any other nation, maybe you can do something about all these illegal immigrants feeding off our public services. This is typical radical skepticism if I ever saw it.
I for one don't think he'd do anything, which is why he needs to lose. He agreed with GW that we needed to take out Saddam, but he wouldn't have followed through because the outcome was uncertain.
Re:Flaws in both Languages
on
Java 1.5 vs C#
·
· Score: -1
Yeah, Perl is damn powerful right now, but lacks a good OO model. Perl 6 is being built on top of the Parrot JIT compiler, which should kick both Java and.NET in the pants. PHP, all I gotta say is... meh.
Now if only Dylan would catch on...
The problem is not the car using up more energy in generating hydrogen, its the car using up more MONEY. Once petrolium is so expensive that we look to other alternatives, everything will change. I think OPEC is doing a good job speeding us along.
The thing with hydrogen is if we could figure out how to split H2O and put it back together efficiently, it operates much like a battery. I personally dont know much about it, but it makes sense to me that water would be the best source of energy storage. Water is so useful for just about anything. A spaceship could even make use of heavy water for propulsion. It's better than the toxic substances we use for battery storage right now.
As for where the energy will come from, I think wind, geothermal, hydro, and all those natural resources aught to be more than adequate. I also think there could be some biological alternatives on the horizon, and not growing corn for fuel oil, but something more like shallow pools of sea water that grow a micro-organism that converts the sea water to hydrogen (and other by-products). It would be cheaper than manufacturing solar cells because the solar cells break down where a biological solution would replenish itself.
Yeah I've been looking at electric sailboats, the motor attached to the propellers generate electricity when the boat is sailing under wind power. This isn't as viable for cars as it is for boats, but this sort of innovation is going in the right direction. High efficiency fuel cells and polymer solar cells are just over the horizon. "Solar blue" could be the next popular car color, when all the panels on the car generate electricity. I know my car could generate some steam power after sitting in the sun for 30 minutes.
LOL, what are they "defending" their village from? They show movies of that all the time. Who's they? Movies? What? I see clips every now and then, but I'm talking a Michael Moore style movie that depicts Saddam's regime, guys with AK's walking along a river bank when a bomb falls on them, tank shooting man behind a corner with an AK. Tradgicomedy.
You get your feelings hurt way too easy, especially for a... what, French citizen?
I've seen guys with portable (dipole antenna and all fits in a daypack) morse code transcievers communicating with people on the other side of the world. It's pretty interesting being able to do satellite communications with a little man powered box and a piece of wire.
Only thing 2M bands are good for is seeing who can outblast the other guy with their megawatt transcievers and upset everyones TV reception in a 5 mile radius.
I can't stand when a bicyclist is in the right 25% of the lane, and you can't tell whether he is trying to avoid traffic or if he's actually using the lane, so you move to pass him and he swerves out into the middle of the lane like a maniac, nearly gives you a heart attack and you slam your brakes and swerve into the opposing traffic, rolling your mini-van and killing your entire family.
It's especially bothersome when there is a decent sized shoulder. I tend to make a game of seeing how close I can get to the shoulder without hitting gravel.
A funny story: there is a huge downhill section of road near my house, and one day I pulled out to make a left turn and a guy on a bike is coming down the road at 50MPH or something, I had my window down and he screamed bloody murder like nothing I've ever heard before. It wouldn't have been so funny if he'd have hit me (well maybe) but jesus, if you value your life don't go down a hill that fast on a 15 lb piece of aluminum.
After drinking protein shakes morning day and night for a few weeks, the mind grows tired of it. My primal instincts start yearning for release, you know? I likes my steak BLOODY!
Maybe someday some noble vegan will invent a lab grown slab of beef.
I went to the doctor one day for some wierd post-sexual annoying sensations in my majigger, and he told me I had an "inflamed prostate", and after a long questionaire, he concluded that I was drinking far too much caffeine.
So I gave it up after I came to the realization that he was right. I was consuming 1x64 oz (double gulp) sometimes 2 a day, of something called "wild stallion", which as someone pointed out above, listed guarana and some other mystical sounding herbs, but didn't tell how much caffeine was in it (a lot).
So what I did was I switched over to gatorade, which has a lot of sugar and gives me a little boost (tastes good too). Surprisingly, the urge to buy big gulps died off. I was no longer drinking 64+ ounces of liquid every morning, just a few sips from the drinking fountain down the hall every few hours. Now I buy one of those 3 gallon things of water from the grocery store every week or two and drink that. Now I'm hooked on ultra-pure water, got a reverse osmosis system under my sink.:)
I'm convinced that caffeine is the #1 cause of prostate cancer in men.
I disagree completely--the above is simply a semantic game. If a "civil union" doesn't come with all of the legal rights, responsibilities, and obligations of a marriage, then it's unacceptable. If it does come with all of those things, then you can call it a ham sandwhich if you want--that doesn't change what it is and you're left with an extremely foolish law that creates two classifications of the same damn thing. To what end, I ask, if not to leave the door open to future redefinition?
Yes its semantics. If the gays want us to accept them as normal citizens, mate with a man/woman of opposite sex. Until that happens, you aren't normal. You're inferior and aught to be removed by natural selection. Would you ignore natures reasoning? Also, civil unions shouldn't be limited to gay couples.
Have you seen some of the kids some heterosexual "parents" are raising today? Children raised by wolves, much less homosexuals, might be something of an improvement.
Damn heterosexuals. Damn stupid children. I'm making the point that the proportion of children that are raised well by heterosexuals would be about equal to the proportion of children that are raised poorly by homosexuals, because of sociological conflicts.
You're just another nutcase who's upset with the Bush Administration.
After weighing the pointless lies each side is telling, it really comes down to a question of morals.
I saw that footage of a woman in a burka getting executed on 60 minutes one night (I was like, whoa, they can't show that!). Seeing stuff like that is reason enough for me. I already knew they chopped hands and fingers off. People think that showing violent images like these are "mind control" or something, but I think that's ridiculous. If you want to know the truth, just watch something like that and listen to what your heart tells you. My hearts telling me "Kill these fuckers who would kill my own innocent mother." Some people seem to think that it's not our duty as human beings to watch out for each other. That's what this election comes down to. Do you walk away when you see someone getting beaten and robbed on the street? Or do you put your own life at risk in order to help them out?
Is it possible to shut down the nuclear reactor and run on battery power? Seems like a hybrid diesel/electric is the same thing as a nuclear/electric, so any advantage is negated.
LOL, yeah if you guys are using gas, does that mean we step up into the realm of nuclear war?
Taking hostages is one thing, but look what we did to Japan. Next thing you know you're presented with two options, release the hostages or your capital will be incinerated.
When you get a frightened dog in a corner he is going to bite.
Reminds me of that movie "home alone" where the kid sets up a bunch of traps in his house for the dumbed down thieves.
I don't think tank warfare can be singled out on the battle field. The US air superiority is our real strength. Combine with that the advanced communication capabilities the troops employ and you have an unbeatable force.
Yeah this is a pretty specific exercise. In order to do an exercise with a diesel sub we'd have to play in their ballpark. I am not an expert, but it seems like the fact that these subs, according to the parents link, have a submerged range of 420 miles (12,000 miles at the surface) a nuclear sub could simply outrun the diesel sub when submerged.
Also I think submarine warfare is all about secrecy. Being able to follow another sub without being detected, so the key would be sound suppression and detection, and it should be possible to make a nuclear reactor silent. Those are the subs that don't participate in these exercises:)
How about deep sea subs? Why don't we build subs that can go down as deep as research subs? (I'm convinced we already have)
Ok, I like what I hear nutshell. It seems you have shifted to a more sensible tone, and I apologize for calling you dumb ass.
What are you smoking? Let's assume 2/3 of the Shiites are for something that makes 2/3 x 2/3 = 4/9
You forgot to add in the support among Sunni Arabs, which probably bumps it up over half. Some people don't side one way or the other. A small minority are against the invasion. Besides, I wouldn't count the lack of support among the Sunni's at all. Do you think they even know about the genocide in the south?
You keep mentioning public support for the war. Let me say a few more things on that. The executive branch of the government have a purpose; to impose checks and balances on the other two branches and primarily to serve as commander in chief of the army, and as a diplomat. It is not the presidents job to act based on polling data. That is the job that congress plays, not the job of a commander. Everybody knew George Bush when he was elected. Everyone knew his father and as other put it, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. You don't hear John Kerry saying "I will do whatever people want me to do!" even though thats exactly what he's doing. One thing that has really stood out about George Bush is that he doesn't act on polling data, he does what he believes is the right thing to do. If I were the commander in chief I would lay the law down on rogue nations, the law of god, that all men have inalienable rights. So you see I agree with him 100% on going to Iraq. Could it have been executed better? Probably. I am not going to hold him accountable for most of these failures made known in 20/20 hindsight. It's good that we are learning from our mistakes though. He dropped the "shock and awe" strategy because it wasn't working as well as they had hoped. I would think that we will have a permanant military base in Iraq, just like the one in Japan. If there is no permanant military base in Iraq, it will most likely fall into civil war.
There is genocide going on in Sudan right now. More of these barbaric Arabs. I sure wish the world could unite and overthrow the Sudanese government, but it's a political game. One countries loss is another's gain. I am not going to speculate on the complexities of other countries, except to say that they all have it easy, and if they were plagued with civil war they might think a little differently (probably wouldn't act differently with all their resources tied up though). When Saddam comes out and says "I will give 20,000 to the families of suicide bombers", someone needs to stand up and say "this will not be tolerated", or else it would become a lot more common. This is in opposition to your point that we weren't doing anything for the Israel/Palestine conflict. Giving direct aid to Israel is extremely controversial, and Israel doesn't need our support at all in dealing with the Palestinians.
I think the country is moving in the direction of star wars, hypersonic aircraft, lasers... if you think military operations won't be conducted from space you're wrong. Ronald Reagans star wars proposal was economic war on the USSR. It was incredibly expensive and we couldn't even pursue it at the time, but it was part of his well documented plan. Aside from the fact that he documented the purpose of these initiatives, I find it extremely hard to believe that he really just wanted to do all of this for fun and the Soviet Union collapsed coincidentally. Furthermore, Reagan wouldn't have chased this economic victory with an involved military battle for Afghanistan's stability. That would have tattered his reputation.
# Liberating Iraq is an acceptable reason but weak because Iraq is not a prime target for liberation # Stabilising the region is an acceptable reason but it's questionable whether it will work # WMDs always were a flimsy reason as was the Iraq-al Quaeda link # Bush lied about the reasons. That's bad # Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney managed to
uahaha, you're kidding right? The coalition of the willing had 47 members out of 200 something countries and with the exception of Great Britain and Australia all were either only paying lip service (Saudi Arabia, Japan and Germany payed for most of Gulf War I, this time Japan sent 50 soldiers after the fighting was over and called them back home as soon as it started again) or a joke (Albania? Azerbaijan? Those countries need peace keepers themselves). Public opinion in nearly all of those countries (especially your traditional allies i.e. UK, Italy, Spain, Japan, Australia) was always against this war with the exception of the UK which was supporting it the first few weeks their troops were actually in combat (I'm not sure about Australia, they could've been supporting it also but I think they weren't)
You simply shrug off every country except the one's with British origins. Whoever you get your info from is probably a racist. You have absolutely no evidence for claims like "oh they really didn't support war, they just said they did.". That is so ridiculous I am not gonna argue this point any further.
The part where it allows the government to postpone it infinitely.
For non-US citizens. As a US citizen, I am not worried about this. The same people who are standing out against this, the ACLU, are the people saying illegal immigrants should have the right to vote.
No, I come to the conclusion that Shiites and Southern Shiite Arabs want that. I miss numbers for all of Iraq.
Ok, I have you now dumb ass. Of the 95% Muslim population of Iraq, about 2/3 are Shia; they were oppressed by the Sunni-dominated Ba'ath Party that ruled Iraq. SOURCE. That is the end of that stupid argument.
No I think most want a stable Iraq and America out in that order, as fast as possible.
Well that's what we're doing dumb ass!!!
What I'd really like to see are numbers about people who think that the current situation is better than 2 years ago, worse than 2 years ago, worse than 2 years ago but acceptable in hope of a situation better than 2 years ago somewhere down the road.
Sounds good to me. Problem with polling on the street is that these street people are the same people looting abandoned US vehicles, hanging charred bodies from a bridge, throwing rocks at US troops. There is no accurate polling data on poverty in Iraq. It wasn't done. Saddam had no need for figures on the number of homeless people in Iraq, because he didn't care. The polling aught to be done through the mail, and I'm not even sure if they have a stable postal system yet.
It was a wise thinker who once said "Nothing can be sole or whole that has not been rent". If you're expecting world peace to occur all on it's own, you're an idiot.
I think you hated George Bush to begin with, he "stole" your election, imposed stricter drug laws, instated religious initiatives, and a few other convtroversial measures. I don't think these points you bring up are anything but propoganda used to try and sway public opinion, made by the democrats. Oh god, Reagan won the cold war by building nuclear weapons, and now George Bush is going to try and fix violence in the middle east? Oh god. We have to stop them.
I read they battled *Iraqi* insurgents. Not Syrians. Iraqis who probably got money and weapons from Syria but that's something different. I think there are foreign fighters but I also think foreign fighters only are a hardcore minority of insurgents.
Look, I'm glad you can be sensible for once. But I have to point out, the phrase "Iraqi insurgents" denotes NOTHING about where they were from, only that they are trying to destablize the Iraqi government. Would you agree that they are trying to destabilize the Iraqi government? It's good to know that you think the money and weapons are coming from Syria. They weapons may not be coming from Syria, but I'm sure Syria is very
And the "War on Terror" is a huge embarrassment. It is already proving to be just as inneffective as the "War on Drugs."
Inneffective? We haven't had any terrorists in our country for a while now. We've killed thousands of them, disrupted all of their communications, cut off their funding. I think he's done a good job. Lets not get into the "war on drugs" please. You Bush bashers always want to talk about drugs.
As for speaking well, yeah that would be nice, but that's like saying you want a president who has 2 legs. Some people just dont have it and there's nothing they can do about it. Does that make them unworthy?
Yes, given bad information, Congress did vote for the authority to go to way. Every country in the world? Come on. Not the UN Security council.
The bad information came from the other countries, Jordan, one of Iraq's neighbors, was one of them. EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD EXCEPT FRANCE GERMANY AND RUSSIA, and that is because of economic ties to Iraq. The UN Security council is not a country.
So you belive that some people are guilty until proven innocent? Please. All I want is due process and equal protection, the tenants of our freedom.
Where in the patriot act does it say that they aren't given a trial? Are you a terrorist?
Which Iraqis? The prime minister? Please. Let's talk to the Iraqis on the street.
Yes, Lets: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/WorldNewsToni ght/iraq_poll_040405.html. You look at all the numbers and you come to the conclusion that Iraqi's want their own government, and they are tired of the violence. Now take a look at THIS POLL conducted shortly after the invasion and there was far more support then. With insurgents blowing things up and taking over mosques, you see the numbers go down just like they have in the US (which is fucking pathetic) but still, there is widespread support in Iraq for the US cause. The same people saying they want America out are the ones who put Osama Bin Laden at the top of their "greatest world leaders" list.
No. GW is the enemy because he does things that I disagree with. I was a republican until he took office.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA, you funny. Why don't you watch more Fox news? This is a stupid cop out.
I've heard that repeated... and I agree that Saddam was a bad man. How many people did Saddam actually kill in a year? When you quote numbers in the hundreds of thousands, you're obviously including Iranian numbers from the Iran-Iraq war. I question whether the invasion saved Iraqi lives. At any rate, I don't think it's possible to justify killing thousands of people on the grounds that they might have been killed anyway. At any rate, if it's true that Saddam killed so many, why do the Iraqis not welcome the US? If Saddam was that brutal, they would be glad as hell we were there and would be fighting alongside the US. As for all the insurgents being foriegn, I don't belive that for a second. Iraq's borders have been sealed since the show began, and if they haven't, it would be a major millitary blunder. The real issue is this. Do real Iraqis on the streets feel that the US invasion was worth it? If you can prove to me that the majority of Iraqis feel it was, (without going to Fox news), I will withdraw my claims.
If you think the insurgents aren't crossing over the border you're an idiot. READ THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THIS REPORT. Now look at the position you find yourself in. You're trying to tell me "Look, Saddam Hussein didn't kill THAT many people. Estimates are that we have uncovered mass burial sites with around 400,000 Iraqi's buried in them. They were trying to take his power away! That's what they get! What we did was senseless though, killing innocent republican guard. You were a republican? Did you ever think you would be defending Saddam Hussein at the expense of our own republican president? That is just absurd, don't tell me you were once a republican. That is the biggest pile of shit I've ever seen.
Nobody is justifying the thousands of people killed on the ground. I will tell you though, almost all of them were fighters, and we didn't make them suffer needlessly. The Iraqi's did welcome the US. They're well aware of what Saddam was like. And they did welcome the US. See the polls I linked earlier. But aside from that, forget what the polls say, forget what the Iraqi's want, we d
Slashdot Mirror
And I tell my boss that that big project I'm working on is "2 weeks off" perpetually. It's just a fact of human nature.
GW doesn't give people evidence, the CIA does. Kerry had the same info GW had. Go read what Kerry was saying, he made reference to worldwide intelligence agencies.
This is all pointless now that the dems lost big.
How about our real GDP and the fact that our economy generates the most technological revenue of any other country, our technologically advanced army, air superiority, space superiority, intelligence superiority, economic superiority. If the rest of the world were trying to destroy the US, could they succeed you think? I think it would be too close to call. If that were to happen in 10 years, we'd probably laser all the missiles launched at us. Which is why terrorism has become the hot topic. If you like to think that the United States is not as good as yours or any other nation, maybe you can do something about all these illegal immigrants feeding off our public services. This is typical radical skepticism if I ever saw it.
I for one don't think he'd do anything, which is why he needs to lose. He agreed with GW that we needed to take out Saddam, but he wouldn't have followed through because the outcome was uncertain.
Yeah, Perl is damn powerful right now, but lacks a good OO model. Perl 6 is being built on top of the Parrot JIT compiler, which should kick both Java and .NET in the pants. PHP, all I gotta say is... meh.
Now if only Dylan would catch on...
The problem is not the car using up more energy in generating hydrogen, its the car using up more MONEY. Once petrolium is so expensive that we look to other alternatives, everything will change. I think OPEC is doing a good job speeding us along.
The thing with hydrogen is if we could figure out how to split H2O and put it back together efficiently, it operates much like a battery. I personally dont know much about it, but it makes sense to me that water would be the best source of energy storage. Water is so useful for just about anything. A spaceship could even make use of heavy water for propulsion. It's better than the toxic substances we use for battery storage right now.
As for where the energy will come from, I think wind, geothermal, hydro, and all those natural resources aught to be more than adequate. I also think there could be some biological alternatives on the horizon, and not growing corn for fuel oil, but something more like shallow pools of sea water that grow a micro-organism that converts the sea water to hydrogen (and other by-products). It would be cheaper than manufacturing solar cells because the solar cells break down where a biological solution would replenish itself.
Yeah I've been looking at electric sailboats, the motor attached to the propellers generate electricity when the boat is sailing under wind power. This isn't as viable for cars as it is for boats, but this sort of innovation is going in the right direction. High efficiency fuel cells and polymer solar cells are just over the horizon. "Solar blue" could be the next popular car color, when all the panels on the car generate electricity. I know my car could generate some steam power after sitting in the sun for 30 minutes.
Hah, I'm watching a sneak preview of that this saturday.
LOL, what are they "defending" their village from? They show movies of that all the time. Who's they? Movies? What? I see clips every now and then, but I'm talking a Michael Moore style movie that depicts Saddam's regime, guys with AK's walking along a river bank when a bomb falls on them, tank shooting man behind a corner with an AK. Tradgicomedy.
You get your feelings hurt way too easy, especially for a... what, French citizen?
You're an idiot.
Shots of American soldiers gunning down and blowing up Iraqi insurgents and terrorists. Why don't we ever see that? I'd watch...
I've seen guys with portable (dipole antenna and all fits in a daypack) morse code transcievers communicating with people on the other side of the world. It's pretty interesting being able to do satellite communications with a little man powered box and a piece of wire.
Only thing 2M bands are good for is seeing who can outblast the other guy with their megawatt transcievers and upset everyones TV reception in a 5 mile radius.
I can't stand when a bicyclist is in the right 25% of the lane, and you can't tell whether he is trying to avoid traffic or if he's actually using the lane, so you move to pass him and he swerves out into the middle of the lane like a maniac, nearly gives you a heart attack and you slam your brakes and swerve into the opposing traffic, rolling your mini-van and killing your entire family.
It's especially bothersome when there is a decent sized shoulder. I tend to make a game of seeing how close I can get to the shoulder without hitting gravel.
A funny story: there is a huge downhill section of road near my house, and one day I pulled out to make a left turn and a guy on a bike is coming down the road at 50MPH or something, I had my window down and he screamed bloody murder like nothing I've ever heard before. It wouldn't have been so funny if he'd have hit me (well maybe) but jesus, if you value your life don't go down a hill that fast on a 15 lb piece of aluminum.
After drinking protein shakes morning day and night for a few weeks, the mind grows tired of it. My primal instincts start yearning for release, you know? I likes my steak BLOODY!
Maybe someday some noble vegan will invent a lab grown slab of beef.
I went to the doctor one day for some wierd post-sexual annoying sensations in my majigger, and he told me I had an "inflamed prostate", and after a long questionaire, he concluded that I was drinking far too much caffeine.
So I gave it up after I came to the realization that he was right. I was consuming 1x64 oz (double gulp) sometimes 2 a day, of something called "wild stallion", which as someone pointed out above, listed guarana and some other mystical sounding herbs, but didn't tell how much caffeine was in it (a lot).
So what I did was I switched over to gatorade, which has a lot of sugar and gives me a little boost (tastes good too). Surprisingly, the urge to buy big gulps died off. I was no longer drinking 64+ ounces of liquid every morning, just a few sips from the drinking fountain down the hall every few hours. Now I buy one of those 3 gallon things of water from the grocery store every week or two and drink that. Now I'm hooked on ultra-pure water, got a reverse osmosis system under my sink. :)
I'm convinced that caffeine is the #1 cause of prostate cancer in men.
I disagree completely--the above is simply a semantic game. If a "civil union" doesn't come with all of the legal rights, responsibilities, and obligations of a marriage, then it's unacceptable. If it does come with all of those things, then you can call it a ham sandwhich if you want--that doesn't change what it is and you're left with an extremely foolish law that creates two classifications of the same damn thing. To what end, I ask, if not to leave the door open to future redefinition?
Yes its semantics. If the gays want us to accept them as normal citizens, mate with a man/woman of opposite sex. Until that happens, you aren't normal. You're inferior and aught to be removed by natural selection. Would you ignore natures reasoning? Also, civil unions shouldn't be limited to gay couples.
Have you seen some of the kids some heterosexual "parents" are raising today? Children raised by wolves, much less homosexuals, might be something of an improvement.
Damn heterosexuals. Damn stupid children. I'm making the point that the proportion of children that are raised well by heterosexuals would be about equal to the proportion of children that are raised poorly by homosexuals, because of sociological conflicts.
You're just another nutcase who's upset with the Bush Administration.
After weighing the pointless lies each side is telling, it really comes down to a question of morals.
I saw that footage of a woman in a burka getting executed on 60 minutes one night (I was like, whoa, they can't show that!). Seeing stuff like that is reason enough for me. I already knew they chopped hands and fingers off. People think that showing violent images like these are "mind control" or something, but I think that's ridiculous. If you want to know the truth, just watch something like that and listen to what your heart tells you. My hearts telling me "Kill these fuckers who would kill my own innocent mother." Some people seem to think that it's not our duty as human beings to watch out for each other. That's what this election comes down to. Do you walk away when you see someone getting beaten and robbed on the street? Or do you put your own life at risk in order to help them out?
Is it possible to shut down the nuclear reactor and run on battery power? Seems like a hybrid diesel/electric is the same thing as a nuclear/electric, so any advantage is negated.
LOL, yeah if you guys are using gas, does that mean we step up into the realm of nuclear war?
Taking hostages is one thing, but look what we did to Japan. Next thing you know you're presented with two options, release the hostages or your capital will be incinerated.
When you get a frightened dog in a corner he is going to bite.
Reminds me of that movie "home alone" where the kid sets up a bunch of traps in his house for the dumbed down thieves.
I don't think tank warfare can be singled out on the battle field. The US air superiority is our real strength. Combine with that the advanced communication capabilities the troops employ and you have an unbeatable force.
Yeah this is a pretty specific exercise. In order to do an exercise with a diesel sub we'd have to play in their ballpark. I am not an expert, but it seems like the fact that these subs, according to the parents link, have a submerged range of 420 miles (12,000 miles at the surface) a nuclear sub could simply outrun the diesel sub when submerged.
Also I think submarine warfare is all about secrecy. Being able to follow another sub without being detected, so the key would be sound suppression and detection, and it should be possible to make a nuclear reactor silent. Those are the subs that don't participate in these exercises :)
How about deep sea subs? Why don't we build subs that can go down as deep as research subs? (I'm convinced we already have)
Ok, I like what I hear nutshell. It seems you have shifted to a more sensible tone, and I apologize for calling you dumb ass.
What are you smoking? Let's assume 2/3 of the Shiites are for something that makes 2/3 x 2/3 = 4/9
You forgot to add in the support among Sunni Arabs, which probably bumps it up over half. Some people don't side one way or the other. A small minority are against the invasion. Besides, I wouldn't count the lack of support among the Sunni's at all. Do you think they even know about the genocide in the south?
You keep mentioning public support for the war. Let me say a few more things on that. The executive branch of the government have a purpose; to impose checks and balances on the other two branches and primarily to serve as commander in chief of the army, and as a diplomat. It is not the presidents job to act based on polling data. That is the job that congress plays, not the job of a commander. Everybody knew George Bush when he was elected. Everyone knew his father and as other put it, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. You don't hear John Kerry saying "I will do whatever people want me to do!" even though thats exactly what he's doing. One thing that has really stood out about George Bush is that he doesn't act on polling data, he does what he believes is the right thing to do. If I were the commander in chief I would lay the law down on rogue nations, the law of god, that all men have inalienable rights. So you see I agree with him 100% on going to Iraq. Could it have been executed better? Probably. I am not going to hold him accountable for most of these failures made known in 20/20 hindsight. It's good that we are learning from our mistakes though. He dropped the "shock and awe" strategy because it wasn't working as well as they had hoped. I would think that we will have a permanant military base in Iraq, just like the one in Japan. If there is no permanant military base in Iraq, it will most likely fall into civil war.
There is genocide going on in Sudan right now. More of these barbaric Arabs. I sure wish the world could unite and overthrow the Sudanese government, but it's a political game. One countries loss is another's gain. I am not going to speculate on the complexities of other countries, except to say that they all have it easy, and if they were plagued with civil war they might think a little differently (probably wouldn't act differently with all their resources tied up though). When Saddam comes out and says "I will give 20,000 to the families of suicide bombers", someone needs to stand up and say "this will not be tolerated", or else it would become a lot more common. This is in opposition to your point that we weren't doing anything for the Israel/Palestine conflict. Giving direct aid to Israel is extremely controversial, and Israel doesn't need our support at all in dealing with the Palestinians.
I think the country is moving in the direction of star wars, hypersonic aircraft, lasers... if you think military operations won't be conducted from space you're wrong. Ronald Reagans star wars proposal was economic war on the USSR. It was incredibly expensive and we couldn't even pursue it at the time, but it was part of his well documented plan. Aside from the fact that he documented the purpose of these initiatives, I find it extremely hard to believe that he really just wanted to do all of this for fun and the Soviet Union collapsed coincidentally. Furthermore, Reagan wouldn't have chased this economic victory with an involved military battle for Afghanistan's stability. That would have tattered his reputation.
# Liberating Iraq is an acceptable reason but weak because Iraq is not a prime target for liberation
# Stabilising the region is an acceptable reason but it's questionable whether it will work
# WMDs always were a flimsy reason as was the Iraq-al Quaeda link
# Bush lied about the reasons. That's bad
# Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney managed to
Is this just a trick to get people to register for the New York Times? Are they going to email me election propoganda?
uahaha, you're kidding right? The coalition of the willing had 47 members out of 200 something countries and with the exception of Great Britain and Australia all were either only paying lip service (Saudi Arabia, Japan and Germany payed for most of Gulf War I, this time Japan sent 50 soldiers after the fighting was over and called them back home as soon as it started again) or a joke (Albania? Azerbaijan? Those countries need peace keepers themselves). Public opinion in nearly all of those countries (especially your traditional allies i.e. UK, Italy, Spain, Japan, Australia) was always against this war with the exception of the UK which was supporting it the first few weeks their troops were actually in combat (I'm not sure about Australia, they could've been supporting it also but I think they weren't)
You simply shrug off every country except the one's with British origins. Whoever you get your info from is probably a racist. You have absolutely no evidence for claims like "oh they really didn't support war, they just said they did.". That is so ridiculous I am not gonna argue this point any further.
The part where it allows the government to postpone it infinitely.
For non-US citizens. As a US citizen, I am not worried about this. The same people who are standing out against this, the ACLU, are the people saying illegal immigrants should have the right to vote.
No, I come to the conclusion that Shiites and Southern Shiite Arabs want that. I miss numbers for all of Iraq.
Ok, I have you now dumb ass. Of the 95% Muslim population of Iraq, about 2/3 are Shia; they were oppressed by the Sunni-dominated Ba'ath Party that ruled Iraq. SOURCE. That is the end of that stupid argument.
No I think most want a stable Iraq and America out in that order, as fast as possible.
Well that's what we're doing dumb ass!!!
What I'd really like to see are numbers about people who think that the current situation is better than 2 years ago, worse than 2 years ago, worse than 2 years ago but acceptable in hope of a situation better than 2 years ago somewhere down the road.
Sounds good to me. Problem with polling on the street is that these street people are the same people looting abandoned US vehicles, hanging charred bodies from a bridge, throwing rocks at US troops. There is no accurate polling data on poverty in Iraq. It wasn't done. Saddam had no need for figures on the number of homeless people in Iraq, because he didn't care. The polling aught to be done through the mail, and I'm not even sure if they have a stable postal system yet.
It was a wise thinker who once said "Nothing can be sole or whole that has not been rent". If you're expecting world peace to occur all on it's own, you're an idiot.
I think you hated George Bush to begin with, he "stole" your election, imposed stricter drug laws, instated religious initiatives, and a few other convtroversial measures. I don't think these points you bring up are anything but propoganda used to try and sway public opinion, made by the democrats. Oh god, Reagan won the cold war by building nuclear weapons, and now George Bush is going to try and fix violence in the middle east? Oh god. We have to stop them.
I read they battled *Iraqi* insurgents. Not Syrians. Iraqis who probably got money and weapons from Syria but that's something different. I think there are foreign fighters but I also think foreign fighters only are a hardcore minority of insurgents.
Look, I'm glad you can be sensible for once. But I have to point out, the phrase "Iraqi insurgents" denotes NOTHING about where they were from, only that they are trying to destablize the Iraqi government. Would you agree that they are trying to destabilize the Iraqi government? It's good to know that you think the money and weapons are coming from Syria. They weapons may not be coming from Syria, but I'm sure Syria is very
And the "War on Terror" is a huge embarrassment. It is already proving to be just as inneffective as the "War on Drugs."
Inneffective? We haven't had any terrorists in our country for a while now. We've killed thousands of them, disrupted all of their communications, cut off their funding. I think he's done a good job. Lets not get into the "war on drugs" please. You Bush bashers always want to talk about drugs.
As for speaking well, yeah that would be nice, but that's like saying you want a president who has 2 legs. Some people just dont have it and there's nothing they can do about it. Does that make them unworthy?
Yes, given bad information, Congress did vote for the authority to go to way. Every country in the world? Come on. Not the UN Security council.
The bad information came from the other countries, Jordan, one of Iraq's neighbors, was one of them. EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD EXCEPT FRANCE GERMANY AND RUSSIA, and that is because of economic ties to Iraq. The UN Security council is not a country.
So you belive that some people are guilty until proven innocent? Please. All I want is due process and equal protection, the tenants of our freedom.
Where in the patriot act does it say that they aren't given a trial? Are you a terrorist?
Which Iraqis? The prime minister? Please. Let's talk to the Iraqis on the street.
Yes, Lets: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/WorldNewsToni ght/iraq_poll_040405.html. You look at all the numbers and you come to the conclusion that Iraqi's want their own government, and they are tired of the violence. Now take a look at THIS POLL conducted shortly after the invasion and there was far more support then. With insurgents blowing things up and taking over mosques, you see the numbers go down just like they have in the US (which is fucking pathetic) but still, there is widespread support in Iraq for the US cause. The same people saying they want America out are the ones who put Osama Bin Laden at the top of their "greatest world leaders" list.
No. GW is the enemy because he does things that I disagree with. I was a republican until he took office.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA, you funny. Why don't you watch more Fox news? This is a stupid cop out.
I've heard that repeated... and I agree that Saddam was a bad man. How many people did Saddam actually kill in a year? When you quote numbers in the hundreds of thousands, you're obviously including Iranian numbers from the Iran-Iraq war. I question whether the invasion saved Iraqi lives. At any rate, I don't think it's possible to justify killing thousands of people on the grounds that they might have been killed anyway. At any rate, if it's true that Saddam killed so many, why do the Iraqis not welcome the US? If Saddam was that brutal, they would be glad as hell we were there and would be fighting alongside the US. As for all the insurgents being foriegn, I don't belive that for a second. Iraq's borders have been sealed since the show began, and if they haven't, it would be a major millitary blunder. The real issue is this. Do real Iraqis on the streets feel that the US invasion was worth it? If you can prove to me that the majority of Iraqis feel it was, (without going to Fox news), I will withdraw my claims.
If you think the insurgents aren't crossing over the border you're an idiot. READ THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THIS REPORT. Now look at the position you find yourself in. You're trying to tell me "Look, Saddam Hussein didn't kill THAT many people. Estimates are that we have uncovered mass burial sites with around 400,000 Iraqi's buried in them. They were trying to take his power away! That's what they get! What we did was senseless though, killing innocent republican guard. You were a republican? Did you ever think you would be defending Saddam Hussein at the expense of our own republican president? That is just absurd, don't tell me you were once a republican. That is the biggest pile of shit I've ever seen.
Nobody is justifying the thousands of people killed on the ground. I will tell you though, almost all of them were fighters, and we didn't make them suffer needlessly. The Iraqi's did welcome the US. They're well aware of what Saddam was like. And they did welcome the US. See the polls I linked earlier. But aside from that, forget what the polls say, forget what the Iraqi's want, we d