he reality is what it is. We entered WW2, we defeated germany and japan, we gave birth to SOviet union, china and north korea. Those entitites killed many more people then hitler all across the globe and subjugated billions of people under opressive regimes. In the case of WW2 our involvement resulted in MORE people being killed and LESS freedom in the world.
Grow a brain. you can't say that the US involvement in WW2 resulted in "more" people being killed and less freedom because you don't know what would have happened otherwise. Anyone with half a brain can see the potential for MORE deaths and LESS freedom as a result of Nazi domination of Europe. And you never answered my question: How does not entering the war and stretching out WW2 for another few decades prevent the social revolution in china?
You might as well blame every bad event that ever happened on all the events that happened before it and say that all events in the past were "bad" because they caused all events after to occur.
You said it. You said we were there to free the people. You said it was immoral to let people suffer under opression. I am glad now that you see things my way.
You nitwit. You can free people without being totally altruistic. The Iraqis get more freedom. We get one less country sponsering terrorism and one more allie.
It's not the same and you know it. Don't resort to such simplistic arguments people might think you don't know any better
How about you answer my questions. Care to explain the the difference? Or are the "poor backwards iraqis" not prepared for the kind of government you have?
More then a thousand civillians were killed. I figure if we did no better then kill 10 solders for every civillian we probably suck ass. The real figure is probably hundreds of thousands killed but we'll never know because we don't have free press in the US.
So you're saying made up those numbers? You are so full of shit.
Every single oil well is now under the control of the US military. If an iraqui tries to enter one they get killed.
ROFL. Where are you getting that propaganda?
nce again you are lying about what I said. It does not help your argument when you do that.
Once again? When was the last time?
Here's some quotes from you:
"War is the resort of those who lack the brains and the imagination to find a peaceful solution. Bush didn't even bother to try to find another solution."
"Freedom is not being in a nicer cage, killing people and taking their shit is wrong"
Followed by this:
"Well gee how about just assassinating the son of a bitch I think that might have worked"
I thought killing was wrong! Didn't you mommy ever teach you that?
PS. You've never answered by queries about post war Germany and Japan.
Obviously they did some very stupid things in the past (and will continue to do so in the future) but you have to remember that the US isn't a dictatorship. Adminstrations come and go....policies change...
It's impossible to know what could have happened. But we do know what did happen. The germans and the japanese lost. The russians won and formed the soviet union which opressed and killed people for decades afterwards. China after the japanese left did the same thing. North korea ditto.
The facts are indisputable. Defeating japan and germany did not result in the stop of the killings and in many cases led to countless more deaths.
Reality sucks huh?
That doesn't prove that war kills more than it saves whatsoever. For all you know, not entering the war could have resulted in 100X more deaths. My original statement stands. War can sometimes save more lives.
Yes I do. Saddams regime was a cult of personality. The assasination of a dozen people would have led to a collapse of the baath party apparatus. We could have done other things too. Invasion should have been the last thing we tried not the first.
Maybe you should run for congress.
Yes that's right. You can't only fix the ones where you can take over the oil wells. Otherwise people might question your motives.
So the US wants to target the ones that benefit them the most first. So what. Noone ever said they were altruists.
Yes they were. Did you watch the news? It was all over the TV. You must have seen bombs falling and the US army driving across the countryside.
The country wasn't being invaded. Saddam's regieme was being invaded. So did you watch TV? Looks like many Iraqis greeted the "invaders".
They were freed from saddam and put under the control of some US "official". Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
If you're an american you're under the control of a US "official". Sucks that you aren't under the control of Saddam instead doesn't it?
I am sure that the tens of thousands of dead humans and their families feel better because it was not "done on purpose". Why the hell did we drop bombs if we were not "intending" to kill people?
Where the hell did you get a figure of tens of thousands?
Oh yes I do believe that oil is valuable and we did take it.
Where is it now?
People are being killed all over the world right now and you are sitting around not doing anything about it. I guess that means you are immoral. How can you stand idly by while people are being killed in africa?
I never said it was immoral either way. I'm questioning *YOU* because you are the one running around attaching your moral benchmarks on everything. You say you should never kill no matter what but yet you support the assassination of Saddam and support complancency when it kills. I am not the one who has such a black/white view on war.
Why yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Go pick up a history book and read about the murders that happened in Soviet Russia and China.
Care to explain how the US not entering WW2 would have prevented the social revolution in China?
Care to explain how you have seem to have concluded that atrocities wouldn't of happened anyway?
They deserve freedom period. Not half a freedom, not some freedom, not a little bit of freedom. They will never be free because we won't let them
But according to you we shouldn't give them freedom. We should let them live under Saddam.
Why yes I do think it was possible to do it without taking over the oil wells. I do think it was possible to do it without bombing and invading and occupying them.
That's not what I asked. How would you do it?
Liar. It does not help when you resort to lying. Stick to things I said and stop lying about it and stop putting words in my mouth. It makes your arguments look worthless when you resort to lying about what I said.
Care to back that statement up with facts?
Well gee how about just assassinating the son of a bitch I think that might have worked. We could have assasinated a few dozen people and that would have been that. You think Israel might have helped us with that one? How about Turkey? Even the Russians would have helped with that one. It would be relatively bloodless.
So you think Saddam's regieme would have fallen with his assassination?
First of all that is happening all over the world and yet I don't see you advocating invading every two bit country in the world.
So if we can't fix them all we can't fix one right?
Now to answer your questions. I WOULD NOT INVADE THEM AND KILL THEM AND TAKE AWAY THEIR SHIT. I would find a way to make them truly free and not deny them the same rights that you and I have. I would not make them my puppets.
They weren't invaded or killed. They were being freeed from Saddam. I guess if your family was being taken hostage by madmen who wouldn't negotiate and was cutting their fingers off one by one you would advocate more negotiations?
Let me say this again. It is wrong and immoral to kill people and take away their valuables.
They're not being killed on purpose and noone has taken their valuables.
Funny how you think it's immoral to kill people but that it's a-ok to sit idly by and watch them being killed but do nothing even though you have the power to do something about it.
Why repeat your same morally corrupt argument. Why not try to make the iraquis as free as us? Don't they deserve more freedom then we are giving them? Don't they deserve the same degree of freedom that exists in israel, turkey, europe and america?
*You're* calling me morally corrupt? You are the one who wanted Iraqis to remain under Saddam. Are you saying that the Iraqis should have *no freedom* if the cost is explicit war?
Did you read my post? As a consequence of us entering WW2 we gave birth to soviet russia and communist china. Together those two regimes killed more people then hitler. We caused more death then we prevented. Have you read any history at all? Are you denying that the soviet union and china are murderous regimes? How many chinese were killed and tortured?
How interesting. Are you you saying that less people would have died if the US didn't enter WW2?
The only point you're managing to make here is that the US made a mistake in not invading and stopping soviet russia and china. LOL.
Why repeat your same morally corrupt argument. Why not try to make the iraquis as free as us? Don't they deserve more freedom then we are giving them? Don't they deserve the same degree of freedom that exists in israel, turkey, europe and america?
They derserve more freedom than they had. We can't just give them total freedom a month after the fall of a regieme. That would only make way for a possible worse and more corrupt regieme. Think about it Einstein.
Yes they are. Exactly how ignorant are you. Karzai is the president of Kabul, the rest of afghanistan is being run by warlords. Karzai is only alive because he is being guraded by US secret service.
What's your point here? That Afghanistan is exactly the same except for the fact that Karzai is president?
You keep making the same argument, it's better if we steal their shit then saddam, it's better if they are under our own control then saddams, it's better if they live under our rule then saddams. I don't think anybody is arguing that. I am arguing that it's better if we didn't take anything and they were free people.
You idiot. They weren't free people before this started. They're now more free than they were before. Over time they will get more and more freedon. Just like Japan. Just like Germany
Why don't the iraquis deserve the same degree of freedom that you have? Why do they have to be your slaves, why do you have to steal their shit? Doesn't it bother you that your govt is stealing shit and subjugating people to it's will? If so why not?
ROFL. Iraqis are slaves? My government? I'm not an American you doofus.
You're saying Iraqis deserve all this freedom. I agree. Now tell me, how do you suppose we can give it to them without invading and taking down the current regieme? You can't just walk in and arrest Saddam you know -- dictators tend to do something called "fighting back".
The people of Iraq are now more free than they were before and in time they will be even more free.
What you want is for the US to never invade in the first place and permit the Iraqi people (many of whom asked for our help) to continue living under Saddam. Nice one. You seem to think you know all the solutions. Tell me, how do you remove Saddam from power (and believe me, Iraqis wouldn't be free until he is) without resorting to violence? If I recall correctly, the war never would have started if Saddam released his grip on power. He was given the choice and he chose unwisely. Thankfully, the US headed the calls of many Iraqis (both inside and abroad).
Here's a simple question for you:
Lets say you come across this country that's been taken over a dictator. Political dicidents are telling you that the dictator is murdering people. There are reports that he is funding terrorism. He tried to invade a neighbouring country. The people aren't free. They can get killed by secret police for talking about the government. You want to give them freedom. The dictator will *NOT* listen to anything you say. Do you sit around trying to convince the dictator to be "nice" for the next 50 years?
War is the resort of those who lack the brains and the imagination to find a peaceful solution. Bush didn't even bother to try to find another solution.
LOL. You're more ignorant than I thought. I guess you think the US should never have entered WW2? Complacency can kill more people than war can.
Yes. We interfered and we won. This gave birth to soviet russia and communist china. In the end just as many people died if not more. There is no way of knowing what would have happened if we didn't get involved.
Oh right. I guess it's more likely that less people would have died under facist europe. Excellent. Thanks for your insight.
Freedom is not defined as having a better cage. Sure they are better off but they would be even better off they could control their own oil supplies. You are making a morally corrupt argument which basically states states that they they are better off being our slaves then somebody elses slaves. If you want to free them then fucking free them.
You idiot. Do you think you are free? Noone is ever totally free but they are *more* free than they were under Saddam.
No they won't. For example they will never be allowed to elect a shiite leader. We have final approval of any elected official.
Like I said though it's kind of moot. Afghanistan still hasn't had a general election even after years of "liberation". I figure it might take five to ten years before the iraqis will be allowed to vote at all.
Things take time. Look at the UN...
No it's not. It's still a place run by tribal leaders and warlords. You just don't hear about on Fox news or Rush Limbaugh. In fact it's probably less stable (depends on how you measure stability) due to long festering tribal issues now being resolved by violence.
Oh sure. I guess woman are still beaten to death by the government for showing their faces. I guess they're still blowing up 2000 year old buddahs too.
Huh? Says who? Even it was true policing does not equate to looting. The function of police states is not to invade, occupy, install puppets and to take over natural resources.
So we're looting Iraq now? Well, I guess better us than Saddam. LOL.
I am disgusted with brainless, flag waving, cultlike acceptance of the bush/wolfowitz immoral foreign policy. I guess that makes us even.
So am I. I guess we're not even now.
BTW I am not Anti American I am anti Bush. The fact that you would try to smear me that way shows how much contempt you have to freedom and democracy in the first place.
Oh, I didn't realise that disagreement was anti-freedom and anti-democracy. I'd better reevaluate my own definition of freedon and democracy.
It'd be nice if everyone agreed and there wasn't a need. In this case even the UN supported the sanctions and weapons inspections wrt Iraq. If Iraq doesn't comply what do you think we should do? Keep talking while people die? It's not very easy to know what decision will lead to the least amount of lives lost. There is always the possilbility that war will save more lives. I can't say that it will, but then I can't say that it won't.
Do you think the US should have stayed out of the Europen conflict in WW2? What about staying out of Kosovo? Sometimes war can save more lives..
First of all the Iraqis have now lost control of their most important natural resource which is oil. They will never be able to join OPEC, they will never be able to control their production to maximize the price of oil (and therefore maximize their profit). Their oil production will be calibrated to provide the cheapest oil possible for the US and to offset production cuts by OPEC. This is a heavy price to pay.
That's all speculation on your part. The Iraqis never had control of their oil anyway -- Saddam had control. I'm betting that Iraqies will be better off (economically) now that Saddam is gone. Sure, Americans will want to come and sell them macdonalds and subways. But when it comes down to it, their standards of living will increase. How can that be a bad thing? I mean, you live under "American" rule don't you? Do you think you'd be better off under Saddam controlled Iraq?
Secondly they have now permanently lost a percentage of their country to america. According to runsfeld the US will set up at least a half dozen permanent military bases in Iraq.
Japan & Germany both base the US military. They seem a whole lot better off now than they did in 1945 don't you think? They don't seem to have 'permnantly lost' everything to the US.
finally even though they now have more freedom then they did before they still don't have the same degree of freedom as the rest of the world. They can only elect leaders we approve of, those leaders can only implement policies we approve of.
Huh? Eventually they will be allowed to elect their own leaders. Just like Germany and Japan and numerous other countries the US has 'interferred' with.
Oh right our invasion didn't kill anybody or destroy infrastructure. Not to worry though friends of bush now have fat contracts to rebuild the country though
I didn't say that. I'm saying that at least the conflict did something positive. It removed Saddam. There was a *point* to the war. There was no point to sending cruise missles into Iraq and killing civilians just to say "fuck you". Both of Bush's wars have achieved something. Afghanistan is now more stable and 'free' than it was before. Time will tell, but I bet Iraq will benefit in the same way.
It's not our job. If they wanted to change it they should have done it themselves. The russians did it, the cheks did it, the east germans did it, the polish did it. Any way what good did it do to them anyway. Now they will get a choice between US puppet A and US puppet B. I am sure they are happy about that.
The US is the most powerful country in the world. The US has the burden and *responsibility* of stabilising the world. Why do you think the US keeps getting pulled into the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? Why is the US asked to host all the peaces talks?
All large states have the responsibility of stabilising the world. If you don't think the US is in this position then imagine this: What would happen if the US withdrawl all its troops from international bases (e.g. South Korea, Germanny, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Indonesia etc etc) and closed its borders. What do you think would happen?
We have a lot of reasons to be be pissed off with past and present US governments but I'm sick to death of all this blind and ignorant anti-Americanism.
So you think that having skirmishes with Iraq for the next 50 years won't kill anyone?
Bash Bush all you want but at least some good came out of the war (Saddam is gone). Remember the cruiser missles Clinton sent into Iraq after the weapons inspectors left? How about the ones he sent into Iraq to punsih them for attempting to assassinate Bush Sr? How about the missles he sent into Afghanistan because Osama bombed the USS Cole? What good did those attacks (read: acts of war just like the last war) do? They did nothing but destroy infrastructure and kill people. They didn't change the goverments of either country. And you're a fool if you think those goverments didn't need changing. The people wanted it. We wanted it.
You're right. World peace can only be attained by sitting idly by and watching dictators take over the world. It worked in WW2, why shouldn't it work now...oh wait..
Re:Isn't this a security issue?
on
Hijacking .NET
·
· Score: 1
But.NET is supposed to be able to run in a sandbox if you want it to.
Yes it can and it works fine.
Now, in Java, acecss to private class members is strictly forbidden by the JVM, so as long as there are no bugs in the API of the class, the code is secure.
In the second volume of Dan Appleman's popular "Hijacking.NET" series, Appleman demonstrates how you can "trick" classes into calling hidden (aka "abstracted") members by using so called "virtual methods", "object decorators" and "proxies".
Can't wait!
Re:Stop the anti-MS BS all the damned time
on
Hijacking .NET
·
· Score: 1
And the same reflection security policies apply to.net assemblies running of the internet.
Java, on the other hand, DOES prevent this kind of acces. It qualifies scope (at RUNTIME) to ensure that no private methods or members can be actively called from outside of the class that contains them. That's the key difference here.
The key difference is that you don't know what you're talking about..NET uses a similar security model to Java. You can choose to allow or deny private member acccess using security policies.
<file name="A.java"> public class A {
private int x = 10; } </file>
Not to mention that.NET security policies can be configured to restrict access to private members.
PS. You summed up my observations about Appleman perfectly.
Re:Dan 'Obvious' Appleman
on
Hijacking .NET
·
· Score: 1
Oh, and it's nice to see that he's ensuring the next generation of VBers will continue to write broken code by encouraging them to access and utlilise private members.
Re:Dan 'Obvious' Appleman
on
Hijacking .NET
·
· Score: 1
Dan's target audience has always been VB programmers.
I'm often amused at how easily he can "wow" them with his "magic".
Windows based computers have been shipping with three mouse buttons for ages. In fact, they've been shipping with 5 mouse buttons because the mouse wheel has three directions (forward, back, down).
_ To have a locked computer on sunday morning because you just installed a RAM upgrade is really a pain. (*)
Hmm. The activation centres here in NZ are automated (unless you've changed too much hardware). I had managed to activate at 3am in the morning.
_ To have a very unpleasant MS guy on the phone Monday morning really improves your general bad feeling about MS and Windows. (**)
Yes. I was unfortunate enough to have to need to talk to a human operator once. They're suspicious and treat you as *guilty* until you prove otherwise. I had a most unpleasent conversation with one of their operators. I tried explaining to them that I was reinstalling XP cause I had just upgraded my motherboard and cpu. They treated me like an idiot and asked me if I was sure that I wasn't installing it on a second machine. When I said "yes", there was a pause (obviously they were looking at the hardware ID changes) and they said "are you sure?".
It wasn't until I got very pissed off with them that they let me activate.
Slashdot Mirror
he reality is what it is. We entered WW2, we defeated germany and japan, we gave birth to SOviet union, china and north korea. Those entitites killed many more people then hitler all across the globe and subjugated billions of people under opressive regimes. In the case of WW2 our involvement resulted in MORE people being killed and LESS freedom in the world.
Grow a brain. you can't say that the US involvement in WW2 resulted in "more" people being killed and less freedom because you don't know what would have happened otherwise. Anyone with half a brain can see the potential for MORE deaths and LESS freedom as a result of Nazi domination of Europe. And you never answered my question: How does not entering the war and stretching out WW2 for another few decades prevent the social revolution in china?
You might as well blame every bad event that ever happened on all the events that happened before it and say that all events in the past were "bad" because they caused all events after to occur.
You said it. You said we were there to free the people. You said it was immoral to let people suffer under opression. I am glad now that you see things my way.
You nitwit. You can free people without being totally altruistic. The Iraqis get more freedom. We get one less country sponsering terrorism and one more allie.
It's not the same and you know it. Don't resort to such simplistic arguments people might think you don't know any better
How about you answer my questions. Care to explain the the difference? Or are the "poor backwards iraqis" not prepared for the kind of government you have?
More then a thousand civillians were killed. I figure if we did no better then kill 10 solders for every civillian we probably suck ass. The real figure is probably hundreds of thousands killed but we'll never know because we don't have free press in the US.
So you're saying made up those numbers? You are so full of shit.
Every single oil well is now under the control of the US military. If an iraqui tries to enter one they get killed.
ROFL. Where are you getting that propaganda?
nce again you are lying about what I said. It does not help your argument when you do that.
Once again? When was the last time?
Here's some quotes from you:
"War is the resort of those who lack the brains and the imagination to find a peaceful solution. Bush didn't even bother to try to find another solution."
"Freedom is not being in a nicer cage, killing people and taking their shit is wrong"
Followed by this:
"Well gee how about just assassinating the son of a bitch I think that might have worked"
I thought killing was wrong! Didn't you mommy ever teach you that?
PS. You've never answered by queries about post war Germany and Japan.
Obviously they did some very stupid things in the past (and will continue to do so in the future) but you have to remember that the US isn't a dictatorship. Adminstrations come and go....policies change...
It's impossible to know what could have happened. But we do know what did happen. The germans and the japanese lost. The russians won and formed the soviet union which opressed and killed people for decades afterwards. China after the japanese left did the same thing. North korea ditto.
The facts are indisputable. Defeating japan and germany did not result in the stop of the killings and in many cases led to countless more deaths.
Reality sucks huh?
That doesn't prove that war kills more than it saves whatsoever. For all you know, not entering the war could have resulted in 100X more deaths. My original statement stands. War can sometimes save more lives.
Yes I do. Saddams regime was a cult of personality. The assasination of a dozen people would have led to a collapse of the baath party apparatus. We could have done other things too. Invasion should have been the last thing we tried not the first.
Maybe you should run for congress.
Yes that's right. You can't only fix the ones where you can take over the oil wells. Otherwise people might question your motives.
So the US wants to target the ones that benefit them the most first. So what. Noone ever said they were altruists.
Yes they were. Did you watch the news? It was all over the TV. You must have seen bombs falling and the US army driving across the countryside.
The country wasn't being invaded. Saddam's regieme was being invaded. So did you watch TV? Looks like many Iraqis greeted the "invaders".
They were freed from saddam and put under the control of some US "official". Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
If you're an american you're under the control of a US "official". Sucks that you aren't under the control of Saddam instead doesn't it?
I am sure that the tens of thousands of dead humans and their families feel better because it was not "done on purpose". Why the hell did we drop bombs if we were not "intending" to kill people?
Where the hell did you get a figure of tens of thousands?
Oh yes I do believe that oil is valuable and we did take it.
Where is it now?
People are being killed all over the world right now and you are sitting around not doing anything about it. I guess that means you are immoral. How can you stand idly by while people are being killed in africa?
I never said it was immoral either way. I'm questioning *YOU* because you are the one running around attaching your moral benchmarks on everything. You say you should never kill no matter what but yet you support the assassination of Saddam and support complancency when it kills. I am not the one who has such a black/white view on war.
Shame on you!.
Michael...is that you?
Why yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Go pick up a history book and read about the murders that happened in Soviet Russia and China.
Care to explain how the US not entering WW2 would have prevented the social revolution in China?
Care to explain how you have seem to have concluded that atrocities wouldn't of happened anyway?
They deserve freedom period. Not half a freedom, not some freedom, not a little bit of freedom. They will never be free because we won't let them
But according to you we shouldn't give them freedom. We should let them live under Saddam.
Why yes I do think it was possible to do it without taking over the oil wells. I do think it was possible to do it without bombing and invading and occupying them.
That's not what I asked. How would you do it?
Liar. It does not help when you resort to lying. Stick to things I said and stop lying about it and stop putting words in my mouth. It makes your arguments look worthless when you resort to lying about what I said.
Care to back that statement up with facts?
Well gee how about just assassinating the son of a bitch I think that might have worked. We could have assasinated a few dozen people and that would have been that. You think Israel might have helped us with that one? How about Turkey? Even the Russians would have helped with that one. It would be relatively bloodless.
So you think Saddam's regieme would have fallen with his assassination?
First of all that is happening all over the world and yet I don't see you advocating invading every two bit country in the world.
So if we can't fix them all we can't fix one right?
Now to answer your questions. I WOULD NOT INVADE THEM AND KILL THEM AND TAKE AWAY THEIR SHIT. I would find a way to make them truly free and not deny them the same rights that you and I have. I would not make them my puppets.
They weren't invaded or killed. They were being freeed from Saddam. I guess if your family was being taken hostage by madmen who wouldn't negotiate and was cutting their fingers off one by one you would advocate more negotiations?
Let me say this again. It is wrong and immoral to kill people and take away their valuables.
They're not being killed on purpose and noone has taken their valuables.
Funny how you think it's immoral to kill people but that it's a-ok to sit idly by and watch them being killed but do nothing even though you have the power to do something about it.
Why repeat your same morally corrupt argument. Why not try to make the iraquis as free as us? Don't they deserve more freedom then we are giving them? Don't they deserve the same degree of freedom that exists in israel, turkey, europe and america?
*You're* calling me morally corrupt? You are the one who wanted Iraqis to remain under Saddam. Are you saying that the Iraqis should have *no freedom* if the cost is explicit war?
Did you read my post? As a consequence of us entering WW2 we gave birth to soviet russia and communist china. Together those two regimes killed more people then hitler. We caused more death then we prevented. Have you read any history at all? Are you denying that the soviet union and china are murderous regimes? How many chinese were killed and tortured?
How interesting. Are you you saying that less people would have died if the US didn't enter WW2?
The only point you're managing to make here is that the US made a mistake in not invading and stopping soviet russia and china. LOL.
Why repeat your same morally corrupt argument. Why not try to make the iraquis as free as us? Don't they deserve more freedom then we are giving them? Don't they deserve the same degree of freedom that exists in israel, turkey, europe and america?
They derserve more freedom than they had. We can't just give them total freedom a month after the fall of a regieme. That would only make way for a possible worse and more corrupt regieme. Think about it Einstein.
Yes they are. Exactly how ignorant are you. Karzai is the president of Kabul, the rest of afghanistan is being run by warlords. Karzai is only alive because he is being guraded by US secret service.
What's your point here? That Afghanistan is exactly the same except for the fact that Karzai is president?
You keep making the same argument, it's better if we steal their shit then saddam, it's better if they are under our own control then saddams, it's better if they live under our rule then saddams. I don't think anybody is arguing that. I am arguing that it's better if we didn't take anything and they were free people.
You idiot. They weren't free people before this started. They're now more free than they were before. Over time they will get more and more freedon. Just like Japan. Just like Germany
Why don't the iraquis deserve the same degree of freedom that you have? Why do they have to be your slaves, why do you have to steal their shit? Doesn't it bother you that your govt is stealing shit and subjugating people to it's will? If so why not?
ROFL. Iraqis are slaves? My government? I'm not an American you doofus.
You're saying Iraqis deserve all this freedom. I agree. Now tell me, how do you suppose we can give it to them without invading and taking down the current regieme? You can't just walk in and arrest Saddam you know -- dictators tend to do something called "fighting back".
The people of Iraq are now more free than they were before and in time they will be even more free.
What you want is for the US to never invade in the first place and permit the Iraqi people (many of whom asked for our help) to continue living under Saddam. Nice one. You seem to think you know all the solutions. Tell me, how do you remove Saddam from power (and believe me, Iraqis wouldn't be free until he is) without resorting to violence? If I recall correctly, the war never would have started if Saddam released his grip on power. He was given the choice and he chose unwisely. Thankfully, the US headed the calls of many Iraqis (both inside and abroad).
Here's a simple question for you:
Lets say you come across this country that's been taken over a dictator. Political dicidents are telling you that the dictator is murdering people. There are reports that he is funding terrorism. He tried to invade a neighbouring country. The people aren't free. They can get killed by secret police for talking about the government. You want to give them freedom. The dictator will *NOT* listen to anything you say. Do you sit around trying to convince the dictator to be "nice" for the next 50 years?
War is the resort of those who lack the brains and the imagination to find a peaceful solution. Bush didn't even bother to try to find another solution.
LOL. You're more ignorant than I thought. I guess you think the US should never have entered WW2? Complacency can kill more people than war can.
Yes. We interfered and we won. This gave birth to soviet russia and communist china. In the end just as many people died if not more. There is no way of knowing what would have happened if we didn't get involved.
Oh right. I guess it's more likely that less people would have died under facist europe. Excellent. Thanks for your insight.
Freedom is not defined as having a better cage. Sure they are better off but they would be even better off they could control their own oil supplies. You are making a morally corrupt argument which basically states states that they they are better off being our slaves then somebody elses slaves. If you want to free them then fucking free them.
You idiot. Do you think you are free? Noone is ever totally free but they are *more* free than they were under Saddam.
No they won't. For example they will never be allowed to elect a shiite leader. We have final approval of any elected official.
Like I said though it's kind of moot. Afghanistan still hasn't had a general election even after years of "liberation". I figure it might take five to ten years before the iraqis will be allowed to vote at all.
Things take time. Look at the UN...
No it's not. It's still a place run by tribal leaders and warlords. You just don't hear about on Fox news or Rush Limbaugh. In fact it's probably less stable (depends on how you measure stability) due to long festering tribal issues now being resolved by violence.
Oh sure. I guess woman are still beaten to death by the government for showing their faces. I guess they're still blowing up 2000 year old buddahs too.
Huh? Says who? Even it was true policing does not equate to looting. The function of police states is not to invade, occupy, install puppets and to take over natural resources.
So we're looting Iraq now? Well, I guess better us than Saddam. LOL.
I am disgusted with brainless, flag waving, cultlike acceptance of the bush/wolfowitz immoral foreign policy. I guess that makes us even.
So am I. I guess we're not even now.
BTW I am not Anti American I am anti Bush. The fact that you would try to smear me that way shows how much contempt you have to freedom and democracy in the first place.
Oh, I didn't realise that disagreement was anti-freedom and anti-democracy. I'd better reevaluate my own definition of freedon and democracy.
LOL.
Why have skirmishes at all?
It'd be nice if everyone agreed and there wasn't a need. In this case even the UN supported the sanctions and weapons inspections wrt Iraq. If Iraq doesn't comply what do you think we should do? Keep talking while people die? It's not very easy to know what decision will lead to the least amount of lives lost. There is always the possilbility that war will save more lives. I can't say that it will, but then I can't say that it won't.
Do you think the US should have stayed out of the Europen conflict in WW2? What about staying out of Kosovo? Sometimes war can save more lives..
First of all the Iraqis have now lost control of their most important natural resource which is oil. They will never be able to join OPEC, they will never be able to control their production to maximize the price of oil (and therefore maximize their profit). Their oil production will be calibrated to provide the cheapest oil possible for the US and to offset production cuts by OPEC. This is a heavy price to pay.
That's all speculation on your part. The Iraqis never had control of their oil anyway -- Saddam had control. I'm betting that Iraqies will be better off (economically) now that Saddam is gone. Sure, Americans will want to come and sell them macdonalds and subways. But when it comes down to it, their standards of living will increase. How can that be a bad thing? I mean, you live under "American" rule don't you? Do you think you'd be better off under Saddam controlled Iraq?
Secondly they have now permanently lost a percentage of their country to america. According to runsfeld the US will set up at least a half dozen permanent military bases in Iraq.
Japan & Germany both base the US military. They seem a whole lot better off now than they did in 1945 don't you think? They don't seem to have 'permnantly lost' everything to the US.
finally even though they now have more freedom then they did before they still don't have the same degree of freedom as the rest of the world. They can only elect leaders we approve of, those leaders can only implement policies we approve of.
Huh? Eventually they will be allowed to elect their own leaders. Just like Germany and Japan and numerous other countries the US has 'interferred' with.
Oh right our invasion didn't kill anybody or destroy infrastructure. Not to worry though friends of bush now have fat contracts to rebuild the country though
I didn't say that. I'm saying that at least the conflict did something positive. It removed Saddam. There was a *point* to the war. There was no point to sending cruise missles into Iraq and killing civilians just to say "fuck you". Both of Bush's wars have achieved something. Afghanistan is now more stable and 'free' than it was before. Time will tell, but I bet Iraq will benefit in the same way.
It's not our job. If they wanted to change it they should have done it themselves. The russians did it, the cheks did it, the east germans did it, the polish did it. Any way what good did it do to them anyway. Now they will get a choice between US puppet A and US puppet B. I am sure they are happy about that.
The US is the most powerful country in the world. The US has the burden and *responsibility* of stabilising the world. Why do you think the US keeps getting pulled into the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? Why is the US asked to host all the peaces talks?
All large states have the responsibility of stabilising the world. If you don't think the US is in this position then imagine this: What would happen if the US withdrawl all its troops from international bases (e.g. South Korea, Germanny, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Indonesia etc etc) and closed its borders. What do you think would happen?
We have a lot of reasons to be be pissed off with past and present US governments but I'm sick to death of all this blind and ignorant anti-Americanism.
So you think that having skirmishes with Iraq for the next 50 years won't kill anyone?
Bash Bush all you want but at least some good came out of the war (Saddam is gone). Remember the cruiser missles Clinton sent into Iraq after the weapons inspectors left? How about the ones he sent into Iraq to punsih them for attempting to assassinate Bush Sr? How about the missles he sent into Afghanistan because Osama bombed the USS Cole? What good did those attacks (read: acts of war just like the last war) do? They did nothing but destroy infrastructure and kill people. They didn't change the goverments of either country. And you're a fool if you think those goverments didn't need changing. The people wanted it. We wanted it.
You're right. World peace can only be attained by sitting idly by and watching dictators take over the world. It worked in WW2, why shouldn't it work now...oh wait..
But
Yes it can and it works fine.
Now, in Java, acecss to private class members is strictly forbidden by the JVM, so as long as there are no bugs in the API of the class, the code is secure.
Bull. See my previous post.
You can set the security in Java to prevent access to private members but you can do the same thing with
In the second volume of Dan Appleman's popular "Hijacking .NET" series, Appleman demonstrates how you can "trick" classes into calling hidden (aka "abstracted") members by using so called "virtual methods", "object decorators" and "proxies".
Can't wait!
And the same reflection security policies apply to .net assemblies running of the internet.
Java, on the other hand, DOES prevent this kind of acces. It qualifies scope (at RUNTIME) to ensure that no private methods or members can be actively called from outside of the class that contains them. That's the key difference here.
The key difference is that you don't know what you're talking about.
Not to mention that .NET security policies can be configured to restrict access to private members.
PS. You summed up my observations about Appleman perfectly.
Oh, and it's nice to see that he's ensuring the next generation of VBers will continue to write broken code by encouraging them to access and utlilise private members.
Dan's target audience has always been VB programmers.
I'm often amused at how easily he can "wow" them with his "magic".
mmm diamond heatsinks for overclocking :D~~
I like to think of intelligence as the "metadata" of the universe. The self describing part :D.
Did anyone else raise their eyebrows when they saw the words "success" and "enterprise" in the title?
Not to mention the logo which looks like a naked richard stallman hacking at a snake with an axe.
It doesn't work out of the box but you can use media player if you install the OGG directshow filter.
Windows based computers have been shipping with three mouse buttons for ages. In fact, they've been shipping with 5 mouse buttons because the mouse wheel has three directions (forward, back, down).
_ To have a locked computer on sunday morning because you just installed a RAM upgrade is really a pain. (*)
Hmm. The activation centres here in NZ are automated (unless you've changed too much hardware). I had managed to activate at 3am in the morning.
_ To have a very unpleasant MS guy on the phone Monday morning really improves your general bad feeling about MS and Windows. (**)
Yes. I was unfortunate enough to have to need to talk to a human operator once. They're suspicious and treat you as *guilty* until you prove otherwise. I had a most unpleasent conversation with one of their operators. I tried explaining to them that I was reinstalling XP cause I had just upgraded my motherboard and cpu. They treated me like an idiot and asked me if I was sure that I wasn't installing it on a second machine. When I said "yes", there was a pause (obviously they were looking at the hardware ID changes) and they said "are you sure?".
It wasn't until I got very pissed off with them that they let me activate.
Not a very nice way to treat your customers.
$0...4Re +heY g01Ng +0 N33d @ L3Et 5p3aK 1n+erpre+Er nEXt?