"this is not a popular uprising and submitting to the will of a few dedicated and morally corrupted individuals is not the way to run a policy or fix a problem."
The people that the US is currently fighting could feel exactly the same way... The US Government certainly being dedicated (although I'd question morally corrupted, but hey, eye of the beholder and all that...)
I could go into very strong opinions on this, but unfortunately for both of us I think we've both crossed into this territory: http://carcino.gen.nz/images/index.php /00b9a680/46 3c5922 I'd argue to the hilt with my friends, but a public forum with strangers? No debate's really worth it, opinions are opinions after all, and I don't believe either of us is in a position to suddenly make a change to international foreign policy to make our opinion become action.
But as far as things go, I'm not convinced a continuing foreign presence will make things better. There's a risk of dependence on it in the future. I'll stick to my 'reboot and see what happens' position.
I'm not sure that stability could be enforced. But the mob with the pitchforks certainly don't like US-branded (or UK or Japanese, or NZ or any of the others) military in their country, and that's why people are still dying out there.
Crushing a resistance only creates more resistance.
Imho, I don't think external forces propping up Iraq is the best option. Let it fall over if it's going to, without anyone else to blame, and let it's own people create something new from the wreckage. Don't just trust that ousting a dictator and putting soldiers on the streets has made a bad situation good.
debatable. there's plenty of other international peacekeeping forces there too, such as the UK forces and the Japanese SDF. Now most of the actual fighting is done the hearts and minds approach is working fairly well, and it would also silence some of the critics who believe that the democracy installed is just US puppetry.
It would cost the US international face, but at the same time, going in did too. It may also be a good thing for detractors of the US to see some true construction going on, rather than reconstruction after destruction.
but if they're that worried about this, why not simply remove the volume of water surrounding the area by either creating an artificial island, or creating a group of enough aquatic piles and removing the seawater to such an extent that it wouldn't matter, or would severely reduce the height of the waves?
I know half a trillion tons of rock is a lot, but then so are a hundred million lives.
[goes into politics]
It would also divert money away from the US's more aggressive home defence foreign policies, which can't be a bad thing...
And if you want to keep a scary 'terror' paranoid perspective - I wonder what kind of airliner or ship would be required to give that mass of earth the correct nudge to cause a catastrophic mega-tsunami?
I'll just stick to having white shiny Apple computers and nice white-ish HP Projectors (like the MP3222).
I can appreciate design, but they really do look like concept drawings given form, and certainly nothing that should be spoilt by real world elements like rain, mud, exhaust fumes, or mother of all stains, red wine...;)
...or do those prototype units look fake?
I'm all for robots, but two of them look like modified Sinclair C5s, and the bipedal robot looks too shiny. Give me something drenched in oil and looking bashed to hell any day of the week.
Slashdot Mirror
"this is not a popular uprising and submitting to the will of a few dedicated and morally corrupted individuals is not the way to run a policy or fix a problem."
p /00b9a680/46 3c5922
The people that the US is currently fighting could feel exactly the same way... The US Government certainly being dedicated (although I'd question morally corrupted, but hey, eye of the beholder and all that...)
I could go into very strong opinions on this, but unfortunately for both of us I think we've both crossed into this territory:
http://carcino.gen.nz/images/index.ph
I'd argue to the hilt with my friends, but a public forum with strangers? No debate's really worth it, opinions are opinions after all, and I don't believe either of us is in a position to suddenly make a change to international foreign policy to make our opinion become action.
But as far as things go, I'm not convinced a continuing foreign presence will make things better. There's a risk of dependence on it in the future. I'll stick to my 'reboot and see what happens' position.
I'm not sure that stability could be enforced. But the mob with the pitchforks certainly don't like US-branded (or UK or Japanese, or NZ or any of the others) military in their country, and that's why people are still dying out there.
Crushing a resistance only creates more resistance.
Imho, I don't think external forces propping up Iraq is the best option. Let it fall over if it's going to, without anyone else to blame, and let it's own people create something new from the wreckage. Don't just trust that ousting a dictator and putting soldiers on the streets has made a bad situation good.
debatable. there's plenty of other international peacekeeping forces there too, such as the UK forces and the Japanese SDF. Now most of the actual fighting is done the hearts and minds approach is working fairly well, and it would also silence some of the critics who believe that the democracy installed is just US puppetry. It would cost the US international face, but at the same time, going in did too. It may also be a good thing for detractors of the US to see some true construction going on, rather than reconstruction after destruction.
but if they're that worried about this, why not simply remove the volume of water surrounding the area by either creating an artificial island, or creating a group of enough aquatic piles and removing the seawater to such an extent that it wouldn't matter, or would severely reduce the height of the waves?
I know half a trillion tons of rock is a lot, but then so are a hundred million lives.
[goes into politics]
It would also divert money away from the US's more aggressive home defence foreign policies, which can't be a bad thing...
And if you want to keep a scary 'terror' paranoid perspective - I wonder what kind of airliner or ship would be required to give that mass of earth the correct nudge to cause a catastrophic mega-tsunami?
...but must EA really drive yet another game into the dirt?
Next we'll be seeing Command and Conquer: Fall 2005, with the all new spring 2006 lineup of soldiers!
*fondly and sadly remembers when he used to enjoy Command and Conquer*
I'll just stick to having white shiny Apple computers and nice white-ish HP Projectors (like the MP3222).
;)
I can appreciate design, but they really do look like concept drawings given form, and certainly nothing that should be spoilt by real world elements like rain, mud, exhaust fumes, or mother of all stains, red wine...
...or do those prototype units look fake? I'm all for robots, but two of them look like modified Sinclair C5s, and the bipedal robot looks too shiny. Give me something drenched in oil and looking bashed to hell any day of the week.