Religiosity gene. Wow, really? Gee, what's next, the gay gene?
No, it's the gayosity gene.
This study by Robert Rowthorn actually highlights that emeritus professors carry the jerkoffinpublicwhilesittingonacarrotandrotatingosity gene.
I suspect the truth is they hate that the west supports corrupt regimes, if Mubarek falls, chances are fundamentalists will take over - they will no doubt oppose western ideals. Since the west (not just the U.S.) has been propping up the current corrupt authoritarian regime for the last 30 years, we are tainted by the actions of this regime - the same thing happened in Iran, it appears to be happening in Afghanistan and possibly in Iraq.
I sincerely hope we (the west) press for radical reform in Egypt and support the people rather than corrupt heads of state. I for one do not want our governments covering up for despots.
There. Is no such thing as a progressive muslim state. They are all horrendous in one form or another. Human rights, crime, despotism, corruption, justice, the works.
I cannot believe that to be true, the U.S. would never arm and assist despots to remain in power! Never I tell you!!
No. I'm saying that the US has been in conflict with Iran since 1979, that's about 32 years, that counts as decades. A poster disputed the US has been in conflict with Iran for "decades".
The "we" I am using is not intended to mean the US, it is intended to mean the western world, but yes, you are both correct as both assertions are covered by the "decades" comment.
Actually everyone armed Saddam. The USSR, Europe, US, etc. However that's off topic. That's reaching back farther than the 32 year era of failed US diplomacy with Iran which is what is being discussed. The original poster was under the illusion that diplomacy had not been given a change. The ever shifting relationships of the region over the centuries is fun and all but that's a different topic.
I personally don't believe diplomacy has been given a chance (all through the 1980s the west helped Iraq wage a war against Iran, the nineties were just as antagonistic against them . Can you point to when in the 2000s we have tried (they did almost have a rebellion in Iran until GWs "axis of evil speech which I believe helped the current loon get in power over there)? - Bear in mind that the US (which (IMO) is the leader of the western world and in a lot of instances is more balanced - IMO again) refuses to talk directly to Iran.
I suspect you do not believe diplomacy will convince them to stop striving to join the "big boys" club, if so, I don't either.
Decades? Decades ago Iran was on our side. We were selling them weapons and intel. We installed a leader for them. There was no need for a 'diplomacy' decades ago.
2011 - 1979 = 32, that is over 3 decades, Jimmy Carter was president.
So are you saying we didn't depose their elected leader and install the Shah for them?
Perhaps you are confusing Iran and Iraq. We supported Saddam Hussein in Iraq with weapons and intel because we viewed Iran as the enemy.
We did not arm Saddam, the USSR did, we armed Iran (until they chased out our man the Shah that is, and even then we slipped weapons to them via the "back door"), we supported Saddam and gave him a few toys to fight Iran with - I suspect because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" was invoked.
~223 years on, they are still ruled by idiots.
If only! Sycophants (Imagine a prime minister saying I did but see her passing by, and yet I love her till I die". About the Queen...) and (G.W. Bush visit, US agents decide who gets into our parliament, allow CNN in despite Australian security saying no) lackeys (Chinese officials allowed to question Chinese political dissidents.. in private... one by one...) would be far more accurate.
Which country were the people whose twitter accounts the U.S. want?
Have they been to the U.S.?
Are there laws in the country where they used twitter that protects their right to privacy?
Does a company have the legal right to disclose information they obtained from another country where the laws expressly forbid divulging said information?
The U.S. can force the company to hand over the information but doing so will more than likely mean the company has broken the laws of the country the person resides in.
1. Total and utter freedom to install anything on your phone. But miss a very important phone call due to a badly programmed application running down the battery or locking up the phone. Just think, that call could be a job offer, an ex-girlfriend wanting some fun or the news that someone is in trouble.
You are talking pure rubbish.
I see you noticed the blatant falsehood in his argument too... as if he ever had a girlfriend - let alone an ex-girlfriend!
Do mammals of the family Ursidae deposit fecal matter in areas of arboreal vegitation? Too much Latin - I think he meant to say "Does the Pope shit in the woods? And if he did, would anyone hear it?"
I didn't know the pope was a bear - I'll have to keep an eye out for him at the next gay pride march.....
presumably as you drove it helped spew baby seals out the tail pipe
You should have got the Canadian model with the baby seal pacifier club as an optional extra.
I suspect you have not put any thought into your reply but I will provide you the courtesy of a response in the event that you have and just did not convey your thoughts properly. I think you need to look at a map of the world, and locate Somalia and that region, and then look at where Venezuela is, and where the US is.
The world is not just Somalia, there are other areas that have piracy happening (google straits of Malacca and piracy for example) hence a reference to Venezuela and U.S. - also note the "in all seriousness" after the comments - that implies something.... When they have the option of accepting ships with small arms on board, or simply not being able to participate in Trade, they will allow the ships with weapons to dock. As for smuggling, you simply require an inventory and a weapons locker, which is checked when entering and leaving the port to make sure no weapons have been removed or added.
You are not serious are you? You seem to be interpreting the intransigence will be from third world countries - most objections will come from major powers that are worried about opening an avenue for arming insurgents
I do not believe small arms will solve the problem - for example. As for inventory, we are not talking about PDW stuff, a cargo ship is large, slow, and generally an easy target so requires a bit more than one machine gun (a browning automatic I believe is about 15K - @25K... bullets not included).
There are only a couple of 'hot spots' where this is even a problem. And I can buy a LOT of weapons and ammo for a million bucks, so we would actually have less out of pocket expense. A couple grand per vessel would buy enough small arms to repel an attack.
Please feel free to let the shipping companies know how you can fix their piracy problems with a "couple grand per vessel". But seriously these guys are attacking people of all flags, not just Western ships, so making any kind of broad statement about the morals of those being attacked is pretty dumb.
I was talking about the human race, not just "Western" hence the term "collectively".
Please feel free to remove your AC mask and provide details of what you mean by "small arms" and any corroborating links indicating "small arms" ("a couple grand per vessel") could fix the piracy issue.
I am not against arming ships, I did mention that - unlike you, I do not believe "a couple grand per vessel" will fix the issue. The U.S. Navy is patrolling off Somalia, the Australian Navy is, Belgium is, the UK is... the piracy has not slowed by much.
That being said, I don't think arming ships would be a terrible idea for any other reason, as long as there are international agreements in place to punish captains/crews that use their weapons offensively.
Hmm, Venezuela allowing armed U.S. aligned ships into it's ports... I'd like to see that.
The U.S. allowing armed Venezuelan aligned ships into it's ports... I'd like to see that.
Being able to use a proper knife and fork on a plane instead of the flimsy plastic crap... priceless.
Countries trusting international agreements to punish errant vessels? Who will enforce it? The UN?
In all seriousness, it would be great if the ships could defend them selves but I can't see any way that countries will accept this. This could be used as a cover to smuggle arms to other countries. If any of the major powers are involved there is no way to police it (veto powers, back room coercion etc).
There are a couple of hot spots that could in theory be properly watched by navies and swiftly dealt with, this requires money and resources that will ultimately come out of our pockets and the amount of money required will be a lot greater than what is currently being paid to the pirates.
Arming ships will end up costing more than what is currently being paid to the pirates.
Collectively we are not a people that puts principles above profit so I suspect the current status quo will continue.
Hmmm? And were did you get the information from that no one was armed?
If they were armed they would have shot the person before he killed anyone so no one in the crowd exercised their right to carry a PDW, including the security people. Arizona laws allowing people to carry weapons did not achieve their objective but the solution is simple - make it mandatory for everyone in Arizona to carry firearms!
We'll see who's laughing at us then.... [mutters - bloody yanks]
Strewth Ya drongo, if Obama's internet freezes, Jilleroo (the bluey in the big house) 'll kick our doors down, rip our cables out and send them to him. I tell ya it's enough to make a bloke chunder in the old Pacific.
The truth of the matter is 911 was an incredibly successful attack on the freedoms of Americans.
Sadly, it appears very true. In one brutal attack Al-Qaeda has transformed the most powerful nation on earth into a nation of sheep that are being fleeced by the Haliburtons of the world. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison... great men with high ideals. I hope their hard work is not wasted.
It wouldn't effect the world at large. The lake would be forever changed however.
If it changes when we see it, does that means it's really schrodinger's lake?
Didn't Saddam invade Kuwait because he couldn't afford to replay them his loans for the Iran/Iraq war?
Although the debt was a huge burden (mostly from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait - they were and still are fearful of Iran), the reason to invade was Kuwait purportedly slant drilling for oil (stealing oil from Iraq - which Kuwait denied) and keeping the price of oil down by "over producing".
The U.S. (to their credit) did not want to get involved with this sort of dispute hence the somewhat famous quote by April Glaspie:Washington, inspired by the friendship and not by confrontation, does not have an opinion on the disagreement between Kuwait and Iraq.
The response was supposedly about the disputed oil fields - not the entire country as Saddam chose to interpret.
After the war, the border was redrawn and 11 oil wells that were on the Iraqi side were placed on the Kuwaiti side.
Slashdot Mirror
Religiosity gene. Wow, really? Gee, what's next, the gay gene?
No, it's the gayosity gene.
This study by Robert Rowthorn actually highlights that emeritus professors carry the jerkoffinpublicwhilesittingonacarrotandrotatingosity gene.
I suspect the truth is they hate that the west supports corrupt regimes, if Mubarek falls, chances are fundamentalists will take over - they will no doubt oppose western ideals. Since the west (not just the U.S.) has been propping up the current corrupt authoritarian regime for the last 30 years, we are tainted by the actions of this regime - the same thing happened in Iran, it appears to be happening in Afghanistan and possibly in Iraq.
I sincerely hope we (the west) press for radical reform in Egypt and support the people rather than corrupt heads of state. I for one do not want our governments covering up for despots.
There. Is no such thing as a progressive muslim state. They are all horrendous in one form or another. Human rights, crime, despotism, corruption, justice, the works.
I cannot believe that to be true, the U.S. would never arm and assist despots to remain in power! Never I tell you!!
Does he have a beautiful mane of white hair? Cause that's what I want in a leaker....
I'd prefer he wear heavy duty incontinence pads if he were visiting me.
Every new release of KDE is like opening a box of chocolates.
And then finding a worm in the seventh one ...
Mmmm... Chocolate coated worms!
It looks like ACS:Law may well be considered to be behaving unethically. This seems to actually be a serious matter in English law.
Perhaps they should consider a career change and join the ranks of British politicians.
they will be blaming global warming on Wikileaks.
Haven't you noticed all the hot air Wikileaks has been causing?
No. I'm saying that the US has been in conflict with Iran since 1979, that's about 32 years, that counts as decades. A poster disputed the US has been in conflict with Iran for "decades".
The "we" I am using is not intended to mean the US, it is intended to mean the western world, but yes, you are both correct as both assertions are covered by the "decades" comment.
Actually everyone armed Saddam. The USSR, Europe, US, etc. However that's off topic. That's reaching back farther than the 32 year era of failed US diplomacy with Iran which is what is being discussed. The original poster was under the illusion that diplomacy had not been given a change. The ever shifting relationships of the region over the centuries is fun and all but that's a different topic.
I personally don't believe diplomacy has been given a chance (all through the 1980s the west helped Iraq wage a war against Iran, the nineties were just as antagonistic against them . Can you point to when in the 2000s we have tried (they did almost have a rebellion in Iran until GWs "axis of evil speech which I believe helped the current loon get in power over there)? - Bear in mind that the US (which (IMO) is the leader of the western world and in a lot of instances is more balanced - IMO again) refuses to talk directly to Iran.
I suspect you do not believe diplomacy will convince them to stop striving to join the "big boys" club, if so, I don't either.
Decades? Decades ago Iran was on our side. We were selling them weapons and intel. We installed a leader for them. There was no need for a 'diplomacy' decades ago.
2011 - 1979 = 32, that is over 3 decades, Jimmy Carter was president.
So are you saying we didn't depose their elected leader and install the Shah for them?
Perhaps you are confusing Iran and Iraq. We supported Saddam Hussein in Iraq with weapons and intel because we viewed Iran as the enemy.
We did not arm Saddam, the USSR did, we armed Iran (until they chased out our man the Shah that is, and even then we slipped weapons to them via the "back door"), we supported Saddam and gave him a few toys to fight Iran with - I suspect because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" was invoked.
~223 years on, they are still ruled by idiots. .. in private... one by one...) would be far more accurate.
If only! Sycophants (Imagine a prime minister saying I did but see her passing by, and yet I love her till I die". About the Queen...)
and (G.W. Bush visit, US agents decide who gets into our parliament, allow CNN in despite Australian security saying no)
lackeys (Chinese officials allowed to question Chinese political dissidents
Now that you mentioned her name, this guy sounds suspiciously like Sarah Palin's cousin - he could well be the next seketry (sic) of state y'all....
Which country were the people whose twitter accounts the U.S. want?
Have they been to the U.S.?
Are there laws in the country where they used twitter that protects their right to privacy?
Does a company have the legal right to disclose information they obtained from another country where the laws expressly forbid divulging said information?
The U.S. can force the company to hand over the information but doing so will more than likely mean the company has broken the laws of the country the person resides in.
1. Total and utter freedom to install anything on your phone. But miss a very important phone call due to a badly programmed application running down the battery or locking up the phone. Just think, that call could be a job offer, an ex-girlfriend wanting some fun or the news that someone is in trouble.
You are talking pure rubbish.
I see you noticed the blatant falsehood in his argument too... as if he ever had a girlfriend - let alone an ex-girlfriend!
Translation: They were bought off.
Like Homer Simpson was?
Do mammals of the family Ursidae deposit fecal matter in areas of arboreal vegitation?
Too much Latin - I think he meant to say "Does the Pope shit in the woods? And if he did, would anyone hear it?"
I didn't know the pope was a bear - I'll have to keep an eye out for him at the next gay pride march.....
presumably as you drove it helped spew baby seals out the tail pipe
You should have got the Canadian model with the baby seal pacifier club as an optional extra.
I suspect you have not put any thought into your reply but I will provide you the courtesy of a response in the event that you have and just did not convey your thoughts properly.
I think you need to look at a map of the world, and locate Somalia and that region, and then look at where Venezuela is, and where the US is.
The world is not just Somalia, there are other areas that have piracy happening (google straits of Malacca and piracy for example) hence a reference to Venezuela and U.S. - also note the "in all seriousness" after the comments - that implies something....
When they have the option of accepting ships with small arms on board, or simply not being able to participate in Trade, they will allow the ships with weapons to dock. As for smuggling, you simply require an inventory and a weapons locker, which is checked when entering and leaving the port to make sure no weapons have been removed or added.
You are not serious are you? You seem to be interpreting the intransigence will be from third world countries - most objections will come from major powers that are worried about opening an avenue for arming insurgents
I do not believe small arms will solve the problem - for example. As for inventory, we are not talking about PDW stuff, a cargo ship is large, slow, and generally an easy target so requires a bit more than one machine gun (a browning automatic I believe is about 15K - @25K... bullets not included).
There are only a couple of 'hot spots' where this is even a problem. And I can buy a LOT of weapons and ammo for a million bucks, so we would actually have less out of pocket expense. A couple grand per vessel would buy enough small arms to repel an attack.
Please feel free to let the shipping companies know how you can fix their piracy problems with a "couple grand per vessel".
But seriously these guys are attacking people of all flags, not just Western ships, so making any kind of broad statement about the morals of those being attacked is pretty dumb.
I was talking about the human race, not just "Western" hence the term "collectively".
Please feel free to remove your AC mask and provide details of what you mean by "small arms" and any corroborating links indicating "small arms" ("a couple grand per vessel") could fix the piracy issue.
I am not against arming ships, I did mention that - unlike you, I do not believe "a couple grand per vessel" will fix the issue. The U.S. Navy is patrolling off Somalia, the Australian Navy is, Belgium is, the UK is... the piracy has not slowed by much.
Hundreds of twitter users are charged with some creative sex crime.
Not wearing a condom while tweeting? Judging by some tweets.....
That being said, I don't think arming ships would be a terrible idea for any other reason, as long as there are international agreements in place to punish captains/crews that use their weapons offensively.
Hmm, Venezuela allowing armed U.S. aligned ships into it's ports... I'd like to see that.
The U.S. allowing armed Venezuelan aligned ships into it's ports... I'd like to see that.
Being able to use a proper knife and fork on a plane instead of the flimsy plastic crap... priceless.
Countries trusting international agreements to punish errant vessels? Who will enforce it? The UN?
In all seriousness, it would be great if the ships could defend them selves but I can't see any way that countries will accept this. This could be used as a cover to smuggle arms to other countries. If any of the major powers are involved there is no way to police it (veto powers, back room coercion etc).
There are a couple of hot spots that could in theory be properly watched by navies and swiftly dealt with, this requires money and resources that will ultimately come out of our pockets and the amount of money required will be a lot greater than what is currently being paid to the pirates.
Arming ships will end up costing more than what is currently being paid to the pirates.
Collectively we are not a people that puts principles above profit so I suspect the current status quo will continue.
Glad you picked up on the intention mean pun.
Hmmm? And were did you get the information from that no one was armed?
If they were armed they would have shot the person before he killed anyone so no one in the crowd exercised their right to carry a PDW, including the security people. Arizona laws allowing people to carry weapons did not achieve their objective but the solution is simple - make it mandatory for everyone in Arizona to carry firearms!
We'll see who's laughing at us then.... [mutters - bloody yanks]
Strewth Ya drongo, if Obama's internet freezes, Jilleroo (the bluey in the big house) 'll kick our doors down, rip our cables out and send them to him. I tell ya it's enough to make a bloke chunder in the old Pacific.
The truth of the matter is 911 was an incredibly successful attack on the freedoms of Americans.
Sadly, it appears very true. In one brutal attack Al-Qaeda has transformed the most powerful nation on earth into a nation of sheep that are being fleeced by the Haliburtons of the world.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison... great men with high ideals. I hope their hard work is not wasted.
It wouldn't effect the world at large. The lake would be forever changed however.
If it changes when we see it, does that means it's really schrodinger's lake?
Didn't Saddam invade Kuwait because he couldn't afford to replay them his loans for the Iran/Iraq war?
Although the debt was a huge burden (mostly from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait - they were and still are fearful of Iran), the reason to invade was Kuwait purportedly slant drilling for oil (stealing oil from Iraq - which Kuwait denied) and keeping the price of oil down by "over producing".
The U.S. (to their credit) did not want to get involved with this sort of dispute hence the somewhat famous quote by April Glaspie:Washington, inspired by the friendship and not by confrontation, does not have an opinion on the disagreement between Kuwait and Iraq.
The response was supposedly about the disputed oil fields - not the entire country as Saddam chose to interpret.
After the war, the border was redrawn and 11 oil wells that were on the Iraqi side were placed on the Kuwaiti side.