That is certainly what happened with the League of Nations. Wilson was a key negotiator and proponent, but when he got home the Senate told him to suck on it.
WTF? If Congress creates domestic laws enacting a treaty, then the treaty becomes US law. Beyond that the Senate has a constitutional role in ratification.
What were you doing during civics class, sticking pencils up your nose?
I don't exactly see where I'm being a jingoist here. I don't imagine the US contemplates any kind of occupation of Iran. I doubt it ever did, and even if at some point during the Neo-con reign it was thought they could march tens of thousands of US troops into Iran to "bring democracy", it most certainly was dumped as any kind of a plan after the US got bogged down battling the insurgency in Iraq.
We've seen what an air-only campaign can do with the NATO bombings of Serbia and Libya. If you're primary interest is not occupation, but simply to render the opponent impotent, that is a whole different ballgame. The US and its allies have such an overwhelming advantage in air and naval capabilities to Iran that it would be like stomping on a bug. Iran's big armed forces numbers don't come from its professional soldiers, it comes from the Basij, who are lightly armed, and a rifle doesn't do you much good when you're being nailed by bombs dropped for 40,000 feet or by missiles being launched from destroyers hundreds of miles away in the Persian Gulf.
There were dark hints dropped about the kind of campaign that would be waged when that big mouthed Iranian general talked about closing the Strait of Hormuz. First of all it was pointed out that closing the Strait would have serious consequences for the Russian navy and for trade between China and Europe, so almost immediately any voice on the UN Security Council that might vote no to beating the living shit of Iran would be removed (in other words, make moves against one of the most important trade routes on the planet will lose you all your friends). Then hints here and there were dropped about how attacks on the Iranian Navy and its airforce would probably render Iran's ability to protect its airspace null and void in a few days, and after that it would simply be a manner of blowing anything up that vaguely looked like a military installation (including barracks, depots, etc.) Sure, maybe the nuclear program would likely survive, as it has been hardened, but considering the country would be a shambles, without the Army to back up the regime, what good would it do them? Further attacks by these fictitious nuclear weapons would likely lead to direct attacks against centers of power like Qom and Tehran, and you would likely see a revolution of some form or another in very short order.
Now what would you suppose the Iranian military leadership would do if some lunatic was to become Supreme Leader? Do you think they would sit by and let this fellow set Iran on a path to devastation? I don't think so. Ultimately, at some point, the guys actually possessing the real power are rational actors, and not religious fanatics. Frankly, I don't even really believe Khamenei is a religious fanatic either (by all accounts he's a theological lightweight), and there have been odd little signs here and there when Ahmadinejad has been particularly absurd on the international stage that the Supreme Leader won't let things go that far.
The long term strategy isn't democracy so much as it is increasing interdependence. The reason, in part, that we had major conflicts like WWI and WWII was because we had these powerful nations who could fund and supply their military machines from their various global possessions and allies. It was no less than Winston Churchill who believed that Europe must unite in a closer political and economic union; in particular France and Germany, because when you become heavily interconnected socially, politically and economically the very idea of open conflict becomes more difficult to conceive.
Considering the Western Hemisphere, there were several "general wars", involving the major powers of the day. The Seven Years War could probably be considered the first actual world war, as it involved the Great Powers and their overseas empires.
That is considerably different than regional or civil wars. Yes, there have been more of those, but when you compare them to the sheer losses of massive conflicts like the Thirty Years War or WWII, it's hard see how your comparison is all that fitting.
Claims that Iran could do Israel serious harm are still dubious, but if it did launch any kind of a nuclear attack on Israel, all tacit support for Iran from China and Russia would evaporate instantly, and Israel's allies would be given pretty much instantaneous approval to bomb Iran back to the Stone Age. Let's remember for all Iran's big numbers of armed forces members, most are poorly equipped Basij "weekend warriors". They're navy, air force and major military installations are highly vulnerable to attack, and you can be damned sure that both Israel and US have detailed co-operative plans in place to basically render the Iranian military utterly impotent within a few days (there were hints of this when an Iranian general mumbled on about closing the Strait of Hormuz).
At the end of the day, no matter how powerful the Ayatollahs may be, they only rule because the Iranian Army remains loyal to them. If the Ayatollahs were to indeed go mad and order actual attacks on Israel, I can only assume the Generals would step in, overthrow the Ayatollahs and end any such plans, if for no other reason than they will not sacrifice their power, latent or active, for any mad ideal.
In May, 1945 as Germany collapsed completely, the Soviets had over six million troops in Eastern Europe. War planners in Britain and the US had already been planning for WWIII. To my mind, one of things that stopped the Red Army in its tracks and ended any possibility of trying to take advantage of the numerical superiority in that theater was the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The unconditional surrender of the Japanese to the Americans after those attacks also meant that the Soviets only managed to grab the Kuril Islands, and never made it as far as the Japanese main islands (there are some who theorize one of the reasons that Truman gave the go ahead was to convince the Japanese to surrender quickly before the Soviets could start moving south from the Kurils).
If it's a choice between either of the Pauls and Obama, then yes, it's Obama. Hell, if it was a choice between George W. Bush and either of the Pauls, it would be Bush.
The Pauls are relatively harmless because of a near total lack of power and influence, but give either of them that power, and in particular Ron, it would be catastrophe.
Do you think this voluminous bluster actually makes you look better. You made a claim, you repeatedly refused to back it up, and now you actually call other people lazy?
Fine, die in the ditch. If I was buying a car for one of my kids, I'd pretty much insist it be there, but for you, I'd gladly see you bleed to death because of your bizarre version of "principles" (which is really more likely undiagnosed paranoid schizophrenia).
That's because the guys at the top of the pole keep giving simpering morons with the intellectual capacity of used toilet paper mod points. That, of course, and sociopathic Libertarians, but I repeat myself.
Iptables doesn't really care whether the network interfaces it's working on are real or virtual. If you have a problem with configuring iptables to deal with virtual networks on a host, then I'd say you've got bigger problems than just securing communications between guests.
I've had no problem setting up firewalls between guests on the same machine. I have two hosts that serve two different networks each, and the rules controlling the guests on both networks are not any worse than any other firewall rules.
Slashdot Mirror
And you still imagine that any of this actually has anything to do with Genesis?
And what qualms with evolution do you have? Be specific here.
What do you think any treaty is? It is the surrender of some sovereignty.
That is certainly what happened with the League of Nations. Wilson was a key negotiator and proponent, but when he got home the Senate told him to suck on it.
WTF? If Congress creates domestic laws enacting a treaty, then the treaty becomes US law. Beyond that the Senate has a constitutional role in ratification.
What were you doing during civics class, sticking pencils up your nose?
I don't exactly see where I'm being a jingoist here. I don't imagine the US contemplates any kind of occupation of Iran. I doubt it ever did, and even if at some point during the Neo-con reign it was thought they could march tens of thousands of US troops into Iran to "bring democracy", it most certainly was dumped as any kind of a plan after the US got bogged down battling the insurgency in Iraq.
We've seen what an air-only campaign can do with the NATO bombings of Serbia and Libya. If you're primary interest is not occupation, but simply to render the opponent impotent, that is a whole different ballgame. The US and its allies have such an overwhelming advantage in air and naval capabilities to Iran that it would be like stomping on a bug. Iran's big armed forces numbers don't come from its professional soldiers, it comes from the Basij, who are lightly armed, and a rifle doesn't do you much good when you're being nailed by bombs dropped for 40,000 feet or by missiles being launched from destroyers hundreds of miles away in the Persian Gulf.
There were dark hints dropped about the kind of campaign that would be waged when that big mouthed Iranian general talked about closing the Strait of Hormuz. First of all it was pointed out that closing the Strait would have serious consequences for the Russian navy and for trade between China and Europe, so almost immediately any voice on the UN Security Council that might vote no to beating the living shit of Iran would be removed (in other words, make moves against one of the most important trade routes on the planet will lose you all your friends). Then hints here and there were dropped about how attacks on the Iranian Navy and its airforce would probably render Iran's ability to protect its airspace null and void in a few days, and after that it would simply be a manner of blowing anything up that vaguely looked like a military installation (including barracks, depots, etc.) Sure, maybe the nuclear program would likely survive, as it has been hardened, but considering the country would be a shambles, without the Army to back up the regime, what good would it do them? Further attacks by these fictitious nuclear weapons would likely lead to direct attacks against centers of power like Qom and Tehran, and you would likely see a revolution of some form or another in very short order.
Now what would you suppose the Iranian military leadership would do if some lunatic was to become Supreme Leader? Do you think they would sit by and let this fellow set Iran on a path to devastation? I don't think so. Ultimately, at some point, the guys actually possessing the real power are rational actors, and not religious fanatics. Frankly, I don't even really believe Khamenei is a religious fanatic either (by all accounts he's a theological lightweight), and there have been odd little signs here and there when Ahmadinejad has been particularly absurd on the international stage that the Supreme Leader won't let things go that far.
The long term strategy isn't democracy so much as it is increasing interdependence. The reason, in part, that we had major conflicts like WWI and WWII was because we had these powerful nations who could fund and supply their military machines from their various global possessions and allies. It was no less than Winston Churchill who believed that Europe must unite in a closer political and economic union; in particular France and Germany, because when you become heavily interconnected socially, politically and economically the very idea of open conflict becomes more difficult to conceive.
Considering the Western Hemisphere, there were several "general wars", involving the major powers of the day. The Seven Years War could probably be considered the first actual world war, as it involved the Great Powers and their overseas empires.
That is considerably different than regional or civil wars. Yes, there have been more of those, but when you compare them to the sheer losses of massive conflicts like the Thirty Years War or WWII, it's hard see how your comparison is all that fitting.
Claims that Iran could do Israel serious harm are still dubious, but if it did launch any kind of a nuclear attack on Israel, all tacit support for Iran from China and Russia would evaporate instantly, and Israel's allies would be given pretty much instantaneous approval to bomb Iran back to the Stone Age. Let's remember for all Iran's big numbers of armed forces members, most are poorly equipped Basij "weekend warriors". They're navy, air force and major military installations are highly vulnerable to attack, and you can be damned sure that both Israel and US have detailed co-operative plans in place to basically render the Iranian military utterly impotent within a few days (there were hints of this when an Iranian general mumbled on about closing the Strait of Hormuz).
At the end of the day, no matter how powerful the Ayatollahs may be, they only rule because the Iranian Army remains loyal to them. If the Ayatollahs were to indeed go mad and order actual attacks on Israel, I can only assume the Generals would step in, overthrow the Ayatollahs and end any such plans, if for no other reason than they will not sacrifice their power, latent or active, for any mad ideal.
In May, 1945 as Germany collapsed completely, the Soviets had over six million troops in Eastern Europe. War planners in Britain and the US had already been planning for WWIII. To my mind, one of things that stopped the Red Army in its tracks and ended any possibility of trying to take advantage of the numerical superiority in that theater was the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The unconditional surrender of the Japanese to the Americans after those attacks also meant that the Soviets only managed to grab the Kuril Islands, and never made it as far as the Japanese main islands (there are some who theorize one of the reasons that Truman gave the go ahead was to convince the Japanese to surrender quickly before the Soviets could start moving south from the Kurils).
Why does it require any kind of god?
If it's a choice between either of the Pauls and Obama, then yes, it's Obama. Hell, if it was a choice between George W. Bush and either of the Pauls, it would be Bush.
The Pauls are relatively harmless because of a near total lack of power and influence, but give either of them that power, and in particular Ron, it would be catastrophe.
Yes, Rand is a fucking moron, and Ron is a very bright lunatic.
I haven't quite figured out which is worse.
Yup, Congress sitting on its hands sure helped avoid the Civil War and WWII... oh wait.
Is that even a useful distinction any more? Do you think anyone would use OS X for serious number crunching?
The only faith in science is that the universe behaves in a predictable fashion.
Do you think this voluminous bluster actually makes you look better. You made a claim, you repeatedly refused to back it up, and now you actually call other people lazy?
Pathetic.
Goddammit, it's not pointless! It made the weekly Raspberry Pi Slashdot article possible.
So, in other words, instead of being the bank robber, they're the getaway driver. Being an accomplice doesn't make one less guilty.
I'm sure they differ, as you are about to become part of the problem.
And now the Apple shills...
It's a bullshit patent. In a proper patent system, the patent would never have been granted.
Fine, die in the ditch. If I was buying a car for one of my kids, I'd pretty much insist it be there, but for you, I'd gladly see you bleed to death because of your bizarre version of "principles" (which is really more likely undiagnosed paranoid schizophrenia).
That's because the guys at the top of the pole keep giving simpering morons with the intellectual capacity of used toilet paper mod points. That, of course, and sociopathic Libertarians, but I repeat myself.
Translation: I don't want everyone to know that I frequent conspiracy theorist sites.
Iptables doesn't really care whether the network interfaces it's working on are real or virtual. If you have a problem with configuring iptables to deal with virtual networks on a host, then I'd say you've got bigger problems than just securing communications between guests.
I've had no problem setting up firewalls between guests on the same machine. I have two hosts that serve two different networks each, and the rules controlling the guests on both networks are not any worse than any other firewall rules.