I can think of some (unstated) reasons why they might have done that. I'm not sure there wasn't a better way.
The truth is that there were still stockpiles of chemical weapons in Iraq. The truth is that chemical munitions were used to attack coalition forces. The truth is that there was also accidental exposure to those chemical agents in some cases. They caused both death and wounds.
There were also biological weapons removed from Iraq. Oddly enough around that time Iraq suffered an outbreak of a disease that was weaponized. Coincidence?
We aren't fighting on the battlefield, we're having a discussion. I don't "blather mindless propaganda," I reference news items bearing on the discussion. The fact that some of that is contrary to what you either believe or think you know gives you a chance to examine new facts. If you are an intelligent person (I'll take no position) it is possible that you may find your previous beliefs in error and adopt a new position. Some people have difficulties doing this since not mouthing the party position will get them in trouble with friends, family, or the party, so they prefer to be wrong as part of the group instead of being right and alone. Many people on Slashdot get some fairly simple issues or questions wrong because of ideology.
So, I'll meet you half-way given your post. You might want to actually read these stories.
However, according to a report published by The New York Times on Tuesday, the U.S. military not only recovered massive stockpiles of chemical weapons in Iraq, including in the Muthanna complex now controlled by ISIS, it actively attempted to keep the discovery of the munitions a secret. The report, which is based on interviews with several former U.S. army personnel, alleged that between 2004 and 2010, soldiers found thousands of rusty and corroded chemical munitions.
You're confused. The invading army in South Vietnam was the North Vietnamese Army. They used infantry and take divisions to conquer and annex South Vietnam. The US had been in South Vietnam at the invitation of the South Vietnamese government.
Because it worked so well back in 1940 with Japan.
Aggressive military dictatorships aren't always deterred by anything less than war. Can you think of a measure less than war that would have deterred Japan from its path of conquest in Asia and war against America? Surrender doesn't count.
. . . amid all their paranoia and psychopathy they are honestly scared about what happens to non-nuclear countries once USA tells them "you are not my friend" and how different it is when the one at the receiving end is an ICBM-capable country.
Your theory needs some adjustments. North Korea was at war with South Korea, the UN powers, and through that the US before there were ICBMs. You're trying to paint a 60 year old war with a 10 year old brush and it doesn't work. Many countries have had an interest in nuclear arms and many of them were US allies. I don't think your idea holds water. North Korea wants nuclear weapons for the power, not just to use against the US.
By the way, did you take any notice of what happened to the "friends" of the USSR that went off script? East Germany? Hungary? Czechoslovakia? Afghanistan? I don't recall the US invading a friendly nation like that.
There are actually a great many people from South America, the Middle East, and Vietnam in the US now, and they seem to agree. There are also those back in their homelands that would agree as well.... only quietly, when nobody is watching, so they don't end up in prison or dead. The so called "reeducation camps" are murder.
You misunderstand things. The US Congress has approved military operations on many occasions by issuing an Authorization for Use of Military Force. They are legally equivalent to a declaration of war. That is the basis for the current armed action against al Qaida and Daesh, for example.
Many people in the US and on Slashdot have the mistaken belief that the magic words "Declaration of War" are needed for US military operations to take place and be legal and that is not the case.
There is nothing unconstitutional about it, not exploiting of procedural loopholes. Congress has the power to exercise how they see fit.
No, the whole Cold War was not about "showing of nuke-peen." It was about the confrontation between the Communist world and the free world. It was about standing up to Communist aggression. Nuclear weapons were part of that confrontation.
Iran has a dual purpose. It is known to have had a nuclear weapons program. They have also made their interest in genocide clear. Will it still be "good on them" if they land a bomb on you? North Korea continues to improve the missiles for its nuclear bombs.
And now we come to it - lots of love for those that proclaim their desire to destroy America, not so much for America. Your "love" for America seems to display itself by embracing those that wish to destroy it. Fan of Chomsky by any chance?
As for Google, let me help you. The Iranian government hates the United States because it is an Islamist revolutionary government that wants to spread the "Islamic revolution", become the world leader to Muslims, and destroy Israel (another ally before the revolution and blameless for Iran's hate) and the US. You probably think it has something to do with the 1950s counter-coup restoring the Shaw to power, but you are wrong. The US didn't overthrown a democratic government in Iran, the Prime Minister did that by dissolving parliament, ruling by decree, faking an election, and driving out the head of state (the Shah). The US did nothing to make itself the enmy of Iran, that is the choice of the government of the Iranian Islamic Revolution.
The US and North Korea are IN A STATE OF WAR. There is no peace treaty from the Korean War, only a cease fire. So you are cheering on a self-declared enemy of the United States that regularly expresses a desire, a goal of destroying the US.
Still not seeing the love for the US in this. Maybe if you started sharing of your "list of atrocities" committed by the US, as you previously offered, I would see the love. (Or is that along the lines of: I'd love to see the US destroyed"?) Are any of those "atrocities" newer than 125 years old?
Here is something for you to google: oikophobia
Well, who are we kidding? You apparently couldn't be troubled to read the two links I previously provided. (Or do you have another "good om them" waiting for North Korea for their actions in those links?)
BTW - You may "decide what I'm about", but we only get to see what you display. When you display appreciation for progress in the development of the most destructive class of weapons known to humanity by two sworn enemies of America, both of which have explicitly expressed their desire to destroy America, and then you offer to come up with a list of "atrocities" committed by America, it is hard to see the "love." Really.
I have little problem with America having nukes. I simply extend the same favour to the North Koreans, as should you.
Why on earth should anyone think that North Korea and Iran having nuclear weapons is a good idea? Those are two of the more extreme regimes on earth. Iran especially given its backing of terrorism and unrest across the region and now globe. North Korea literally allowed millions to starve to death when it could have devoted a tiny fraction of its military budget to feed them and regularly threatens the peace of its neighbors, including both South Korea and Japan.
Your "radical chic" phase has lasted an unnaturally long time.
Maybe you can use this as sort of a halfway house, so to speak, on your way home. Note - both hats and hair! (No Cowsills though.) Or maybe just listen to this guy.
It is highly unlikely that the US would use a strategic nuclear weapon such as an ICMB or a SLBM to attack North Korea unless North Korea attacked the US first with nuclear weapons. The most likely weapon to use would be either a nuclear bomb or maybe a cruise missile. In either case the US would have to move the missile or bomb from its current location to attack North Korea.
And none of this changes the fact that the only nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula are North Korean. If North Korea wants the nuclear weapons of other nations to gather there it is taking the correct actions.
Don't you approve of their technical progress in continuing to refine the objects of the articles? That's what you're all about, isn't it? Technical progress? That is the way that North Korea acts now. Don't you want regimes like that to expand in power, influence, and technical ability? Shouldn't the territory they govern continue to grow? Shouldn't they govern you?
You don't like America, I get it. But if you don't get the vicious mad dog quality of North Korea most people might consider you a fool.
There were warehouses found with thousands of chemical weapons that still had lethal potential. The anthrax bombs that were removed would be hazardous indefinitely.
120+ Scout launches, not really no. Some scout models reused existing components from other rockets when each stage might come from a different system, but was its own system, and it didn't serve as a missile. Various models sourced their components differently.
Some launch vehicles such as Titan and Atlas were derived from missiles from the 1950s and 1960s, but have only been used for space missions for decades. Neither belonged to the Army.
When North America gets rid of its 5000 nuclear warheads it will have the moral right to squeal at North Korea. As it stands NK should be applauded for its technological advances. Same goes to Iran.
Well, as long as it is just about "technological advances" you may be interested is some other areas in which North Korea may in fact be a "word leader." You can read about that here and here.
I expect you will approve, but I am curious as to your evaluation. Wouldn't it be better for more of the earth to be controlled by governments like North Korea?
I don't understand why the term financial advisor is used when they are just salesmen. What advice do they provide other than, "you should definitely buy our products", or maybe, "I would advise you against closing your account with us"?
Look for a financial adviser who is a certified financial planner (CFP). They're licensed and regulated, plus take mandatory classes on different aspects of financial planning. . . . Financial planners advise clients on how best to save, invest, and grow their money. They can help you tackle a specific financial goal—such as readying yourself to buy a house—or give you a macro view of your money and the interplay of your various assets. Some specialize in retirement or estate planning, while some others consult on a range of financial matters.
Don’t confuse planners with stockbrokers — the market mavens people call to trade stocks. Financial planners also differ from accountants who can help you lower your tax bill, insurance agents who might lure you in with complicated life insurance policies, or the person at your local Fidelity office urging you to buy mutual funds.
Anyone can hang out a shingle as a financial planner, but that doesn’t make that person an expert. They may tack on an alphabet soup of letters after their names, but CFP (short for certified financial planner) is the most significant credential. A CFP has passed a rigorous test administered by the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards about the specifics of personal finance. CFPs must also commit to continuing education on financial matters and ethics classes to maintain their designation. The CFP credential is a good sign that a prospective planner will give sound financial advice. Still, even those who pass the exam may come up short on skills and credibility. As with all things pertaining to your money, be meticulous in choosing the right planner. . . .
A growing number of financial planners make money only when you pay them a fee for their counsel. These independent financial planners don’t get a cut from life insurers or fund companies. You might pay them a flat fee, such as $1,500, for a financial plan. Or you could pay an annual fee, often 1% of all the assets—investment, retirement, college-savings and other accounts—they’re minding for you. Others charge by the hour, like lawyers. . . . more
There is a difference between "considered communist by many" and actual Communists (orders from Moscow, the whole thing). Make no mistake, there were Communists working to infiltrate and organize the labor unions as well as actual communist run unions.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently it was a deliberate decision, even if you want to argue that it was a bad decision.
Insiders Blame Rove for Covering Up Iraq’s Real WMD
I can think of some (unstated) reasons why they might have done that. I'm not sure there wasn't a better way.
The truth is that there were still stockpiles of chemical weapons in Iraq. The truth is that chemical munitions were used to attack coalition forces. The truth is that there was also accidental exposure to those chemical agents in some cases. They caused both death and wounds.
There were also biological weapons removed from Iraq. Oddly enough around that time Iraq suffered an outbreak of a disease that was weaponized. Coincidence?
We aren't fighting on the battlefield, we're having a discussion. I don't "blather mindless propaganda," I reference news items bearing on the discussion. The fact that some of that is contrary to what you either believe or think you know gives you a chance to examine new facts. If you are an intelligent person (I'll take no position) it is possible that you may find your previous beliefs in error and adopt a new position. Some people have difficulties doing this since not mouthing the party position will get them in trouble with friends, family, or the party, so they prefer to be wrong as part of the group instead of being right and alone. Many people on Slashdot get some fairly simple issues or questions wrong because of ideology.
So, I'll meet you half-way given your post. You might want to actually read these stories.
Saddam-Era Chemical Weapons Now Under ISIS Control: Reports
However, according to a report published by The New York Times on Tuesday, the U.S. military not only recovered massive stockpiles of chemical weapons in Iraq, including in the Muthanna complex now controlled by ISIS, it actively attempted to keep the discovery of the munitions a secret. The report, which is based on interviews with several former U.S. army personnel, alleged that between 2004 and 2010, soldiers found thousands of rusty and corroded chemical munitions.
Insiders Blame Rove for Covering Up Iraq’s Real WMD
Just because you think it sounds wrong or stupid doesn't mean that it is.
I'm pretty sure that Pinochet's government didn't need any assistance with killing people.
You're confused. The invading army in South Vietnam was the North Vietnamese Army. They used infantry and take divisions to conquer and annex South Vietnam. The US had been in South Vietnam at the invitation of the South Vietnamese government.
Because it worked so well back in 1940 with Japan.
Aggressive military dictatorships aren't always deterred by anything less than war. Can you think of a measure less than war that would have deterred Japan from its path of conquest in Asia and war against America? Surrender doesn't count.
. . . amid all their paranoia and psychopathy they are honestly scared about what happens to non-nuclear countries once USA tells them "you are not my friend" and how different it is when the one at the receiving end is an ICBM-capable country.
Your theory needs some adjustments. North Korea was at war with South Korea, the UN powers, and through that the US before there were ICBMs. You're trying to paint a 60 year old war with a 10 year old brush and it doesn't work. Many countries have had an interest in nuclear arms and many of them were US allies. I don't think your idea holds water. North Korea wants nuclear weapons for the power, not just to use against the US.
By the way, did you take any notice of what happened to the "friends" of the USSR that went off script? East Germany? Hungary? Czechoslovakia? Afghanistan? I don't recall the US invading a friendly nation like that.
There are actually a great many people from South America, the Middle East, and Vietnam in the US now, and they seem to agree. There are also those back in their homelands that would agree as well .... only quietly, when nobody is watching, so they don't end up in prison or dead. The so called "reeducation camps" are murder.
You misunderstand things. The US Congress has approved military operations on many occasions by issuing an Authorization for Use of Military Force. They are legally equivalent to a declaration of war. That is the basis for the current armed action against al Qaida and Daesh, for example.
Many people in the US and on Slashdot have the mistaken belief that the magic words "Declaration of War" are needed for US military operations to take place and be legal and that is not the case.
There is nothing unconstitutional about it, not exploiting of procedural loopholes. Congress has the power to exercise how they see fit.
He seems to have had a really bad aim then as he kept hitting London.
Nuclear testing isn't quite the same thing as using nuclear weapons.
Here is a video trailer for you. You should try finding the full length version with English subtitles. It might fill in a few gaps for you.
No, the whole Cold War was not about "showing of nuke-peen." It was about the confrontation between the Communist world and the free world. It was about standing up to Communist aggression. Nuclear weapons were part of that confrontation.
Iran has a dual purpose. It is known to have had a nuclear weapons program. They have also made their interest in genocide clear. Will it still be "good on them" if they land a bomb on you? North Korea continues to improve the missiles for its nuclear bombs.
And now we come to it - lots of love for those that proclaim their desire to destroy America, not so much for America. Your "love" for America seems to display itself by embracing those that wish to destroy it. Fan of Chomsky by any chance?
As for Google, let me help you. The Iranian government hates the United States because it is an Islamist revolutionary government that wants to spread the "Islamic revolution", become the world leader to Muslims, and destroy Israel (another ally before the revolution and blameless for Iran's hate) and the US. You probably think it has something to do with the 1950s counter-coup restoring the Shaw to power, but you are wrong. The US didn't overthrown a democratic government in Iran, the Prime Minister did that by dissolving parliament, ruling by decree, faking an election, and driving out the head of state (the Shah). The US did nothing to make itself the enmy of Iran, that is the choice of the government of the Iranian Islamic Revolution.
The US and North Korea are IN A STATE OF WAR. There is no peace treaty from the Korean War, only a cease fire. So you are cheering on a self-declared enemy of the United States that regularly expresses a desire, a goal of destroying the US.
Still not seeing the love for the US in this. Maybe if you started sharing of your "list of atrocities" committed by the US, as you previously offered, I would see the love. (Or is that along the lines of: I'd love to see the US destroyed"?) Are any of those "atrocities" newer than 125 years old?
Here is something for you to google: oikophobia
Well, who are we kidding? You apparently couldn't be troubled to read the two links I previously provided. (Or do you have another "good om them" waiting for North Korea for their actions in those links?)
Any chance that you're British or Australian?
BTW - You may "decide what I'm about", but we only get to see what you display. When you display appreciation for progress in the development of the most destructive class of weapons known to humanity by two sworn enemies of America, both of which have explicitly expressed their desire to destroy America, and then you offer to come up with a list of "atrocities" committed by America, it is hard to see the "love." Really.
I have little problem with America having nukes. I simply extend the same favour to the North Koreans, as should you.
Why on earth should anyone think that North Korea and Iran having nuclear weapons is a good idea? Those are two of the more extreme regimes on earth. Iran especially given its backing of terrorism and unrest across the region and now globe. North Korea literally allowed millions to starve to death when it could have devoted a tiny fraction of its military budget to feed them and regularly threatens the peace of its neighbors, including both South Korea and Japan.
The third guy from the left isn't you?
Your "radical chic" phase has lasted an unnaturally long time.
Maybe you can use this as sort of a halfway house, so to speak, on your way home. Note - both hats and hair! (No Cowsills though.) Or maybe just listen to this guy.
Neither North Korea nor the people concerned by its actions constitute the "yapping of an angry little scared dog."
So basically up till 50 years ago.
It is highly unlikely that the US would use a strategic nuclear weapon such as an ICMB or a SLBM to attack North Korea unless North Korea attacked the US first with nuclear weapons. The most likely weapon to use would be either a nuclear bomb or maybe a cruise missile. In either case the US would have to move the missile or bomb from its current location to attack North Korea.
And none of this changes the fact that the only nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula are North Korean. If North Korea wants the nuclear weapons of other nations to gather there it is taking the correct actions.
Try asking nicely.
Don't you approve of their technical progress in continuing to refine the objects of the articles? That's what you're all about, isn't it? Technical progress? That is the way that North Korea acts now. Don't you want regimes like that to expand in power, influence, and technical ability? Shouldn't the territory they govern continue to grow? Shouldn't they govern you?
You don't like America, I get it. But if you don't get the vicious mad dog quality of North Korea most people might consider you a fool.
There haven't been US nuclear weapons present in South Korea for a very long time and North Korea knows that.
There were warehouses found with thousands of chemical weapons that still had lethal potential. The anthrax bombs that were removed would be hazardous indefinitely.
32 Saturn missions? Nope. Saturn was purpose built for heavy lift - moon missions and sky lab.
135+ Space Shuttle missions? Nope. Space shuttle was built for purpose.
29 and counting Falcon launches? Nope. Privately designed launch vehicle - See Elon Musk
120+ Scout launches, not really no. Some scout models reused existing components from other rockets when each stage might come from a different system, but was its own system, and it didn't serve as a missile. Various models sourced their components differently.
Some launch vehicles such as Titan and Atlas were derived from missiles from the 1950s and 1960s, but have only been used for space missions for decades. Neither belonged to the Army.
When North America gets rid of its 5000 nuclear warheads it will have the moral right to squeal at North Korea. As it stands NK should be applauded for its technological advances. Same goes to Iran.
Well, as long as it is just about "technological advances" you may be interested is some other areas in which North Korea may in fact be a "word leader." You can read about that here and here.
I expect you will approve, but I am curious as to your evaluation. Wouldn't it be better for more of the earth to be controlled by governments like North Korea?
I don't understand why the term financial advisor is used when they are just salesmen. What advice do they provide other than, "you should definitely buy our products", or maybe, "I would advise you against closing your account with us"?
There is more to it than that.
How to Choose a Financial Planner
Look for a financial adviser who is a certified financial planner (CFP). They're licensed and regulated, plus take mandatory classes on different aspects of financial planning. . . . Financial planners advise clients on how best to save, invest, and grow their money. They can help you tackle a specific financial goal—such as readying yourself to buy a house—or give you a macro view of your money and the interplay of your various assets. Some specialize in retirement or estate planning, while some others consult on a range of financial matters.
Don’t confuse planners with stockbrokers — the market mavens people call to trade stocks. Financial planners also differ from accountants who can help you lower your tax bill, insurance agents who might lure you in with complicated life insurance policies, or the person at your local Fidelity office urging you to buy mutual funds.
Anyone can hang out a shingle as a financial planner, but that doesn’t make that person an expert. They may tack on an alphabet soup of letters after their names, but CFP (short for certified financial planner) is the most significant credential. A CFP has passed a rigorous test administered by the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards about the specifics of personal finance. CFPs must also commit to continuing education on financial matters and ethics classes to maintain their designation. The CFP credential is a good sign that a prospective planner will give sound financial advice. Still, even those who pass the exam may come up short on skills and credibility. As with all things pertaining to your money, be meticulous in choosing the right planner. . . .
A growing number of financial planners make money only when you pay them a fee for their counsel. These independent financial planners don’t get a cut from life insurers or fund companies. You might pay them a flat fee, such as $1,500, for a financial plan. Or you could pay an annual fee, often 1% of all the assets—investment, retirement, college-savings and other accounts—they’re minding for you. Others charge by the hour, like lawyers. . . . more
There is a difference between "considered communist by many" and actual Communists (orders from Moscow, the whole thing). Make no mistake, there were Communists working to infiltrate and organize the labor unions as well as actual communist run unions.