They have attained that status through the rights and opportunities afforded to them by their governments.
Just one critical flaw in your argument. Typically those with power never freely decide to relinquish it. The rights and freedoms we currently enjoy weren't gifted to us from on high. They were attained through centuries of struggle and activism.
90 days is pretty standard for electronics in the US. Of course, I don't know why I'm replying matter-of-factly to this post since it's basically just a "my country is better than your country" flamebait, but I guess I'm just a sucker.
I appologise if the concept of protection for consumers offends you so. Having always been afforded the option of refund or repair for faulty goods it seems strange that a company wouldn't be held legally responsible for selling shoddy goods and felt that worth commenting on.
(There's one from Norway a few posts up that's even worse. What do you guys expect us to say to that? 'Oh! 5 year warranty! I'll move immediately!')
Assuming you're a rational human being I'd expect you to evaluate the concept and say 'Hey thats a pretty good idea, why don't we do that', or alternatively express why you think it's a bad idea.
Failing that of course I'd expect a redundant reply like the one you made.
It seems kind of irrelevant when you take into consideration how organizations like the NYT are funded...
If they truly stopped printing the opinions advertisers expect them to print there wouldn't be an NYT for very long. Or, more accurately, there would be a New York Times with a fresh new executive editor.
Well you can dispute all you want I'm just stating the facts. While you we're blaming the UN for the Rwandan genocide I merely pointed out that the US is member of the UNSC. It voted and applied diplomatic pressure for the withdrawl of UN troops and later opposed reinstating them.
As for refunding US aid. Considering any aid provided by the US is almost always tied directly to its foreign policy, refusing it probably wouldn't be an option...
While you're complaining about you're own generosity it might be worth noting that the US donates %.22(GNI) putting it behind all but Portugal, the top 5 countries donate over %.8(GNI). And before you say, but the US is a larger economy so %.22 is a huge amount, the UK, France and Germany alone donate more than the US.
Sorry, are you disputing how the US voted on this issue? Or are you disputing documented factual history on how they put pressure on the UN to remove the UNAMIR mission?
Strange, since the UN is the one that pulled out its peacekeepers from Rwanda, allowing the machete genocide, AFTER the UN was the one that disarmed the local population and left them helpless at the hands of the totalitarian overlords there.
It's also strange how you're glossing over the fact that the US is a member of the UN and voted on this issue. Guess how they voted? Well despite not having any troops involved they insisted that UNAMIR (the UN forces) should be withdrawn.
With much of the killing completed and most of the remaining armed forces fleeing the RPF's countrywide advance, US officials argue against a UN plan for a robust effort launched into Kigali to protect surviving Rwandans, rescue others, and deliver assistance. Such a plan, "in current circumstances, would require a Chapter VII mandate", and the US "is not prepared at this point to lift heavy equipment and troops into Kigali". It is however, willing to consider its own plan, "outside-in", by which protective zones would be established on Rwanda's borders. Even this plan, however, is likely to be "an active protection operation requiring the use of lethal force." As for the several thousand Rwandans in Kigali under deteriorating UN protection, "we recommend that these ad hoc protective efforts should continue until a suitable alternative arrangement can be ensured." Even when a plan for 5,500 troops with a protection mandate is finally approved on May 17, the troops would not all be in place until September, two months after the RPF captures the country and one month after Gen. Dallaire completed his service in Rwanda.
Whew, I don't know where to begin or even if I should? Okay assuming your not just trolling...
you made a blanket statement that implied we are not engaging terrorist organizations and non-Iraqi elements in Iraq, and that is demonstrably false.
I made no such claim that there are no foreign combatants but I fail to see why you're making such a big deal when the number of foreign combatants is probably a fraction of a percentage. Again, you seem to be suggesting that it's not the Iraqi's who are fighting the coalition? Besides that I was actually I was commenting on how it is proving almost impossible to 'win over the population' while you are actively fighting them in a guerrilla war. Go back and read the post I was originally replying to for some context.
They are NOT the Iraqi population - if they were comprised of the entire population our 130k strong contingent would be completely eliminated within 60 days.
How obtuse. When did i claim that the entire population of Iraq is engaged in combat. I said "we are fighting the population" obviously this does not include all 26 million Iraqis.
They comprise SMALL ELEMENTS of the Iraqi population, most of whom are acting on behalft of interests that have little or nothing to do with bringing peace and prosperity to the population as a whole. They are being used as pawns by entities attempting to gain power
If you stop for a second, take a deep breath... and re-read all the way through my post. You'd realize you're repeating exactly what I said in my previous post.
~"I haven't made any assumptions as to their motives, there are conflicting power groups in the country that are trying to gain power"
Next I really have no idea what you are talking about...
No, you'll screw the ENTIRE population by fighting for a premature withdrawal of coalition forces before the Iraqis can fend for themselves. You'd be happy as a pig in shit if Saddam were still shredding Iraqi people, Uday raping newlywed brides in front of their grooms, using rape as a systematic tool of terrorism - if it meant the US gets some comeupance. You're happy as heck to see the coalition fail and embolden Iran and Syria.
Since I never actually voiced an opinion on what would be the best policy for Iraq it's amazing how you've drawn that conclusion. Personally I don't think a complete withdrawal will be feasible by the end of the decade.
You myopic fool, you selfish asshat. Sitting in your nice, safe western home, you'll throw the possibility of ME democracy down the shitter because you lack the stomach to make the sacrifices necessary to change the paradigm in the ME. You truly make me gag.
No I haven't made any sacrifices, have you? Did anyone ask the Iraqis if they wanted to make the sacrifice we imposed on them?
You've given examples of two foreign nationals involvement, are you really trying to suggest that the majority of combatants opposing coalition forces are not Iraqi?? A few foreigners spouting ideological rubbish does not mobilize a populous to civil war. However systematically removing the societal infrastructure and all governmental authority will.
Amusing that you've copy and pasted a list of organizations the majority of which have formed in the wake of the occupation, so in effect you are proving my point. However you decide to label them the people opposing the coalition and fighting in what is now a civil war are the Iraqi population. I haven't made any assumptions as to their motives, there are conflicting power groups in the country that are trying to gain power this was to be expected.
However I for one will not demonise human beings responding in an entirely anticipated way to a situation that we have created.
I'm surprised no one has come to the conclusion that America as a geopolitical entity has won, really it's in a win-win situation at the moment. Before the invasion in '03 you had a country that wouldn't play economical ball with its natural resources. China becoming more economically active in the region looking to secure resources Iraq would have found itself in a position to start dictating terms, extremely costly. However more importantly the continuing consolidation of ideology (leading to strengthening economic ties) between the major powers in the region is the real threat. A unification of Arab states is the current nightmare scenario for Washington.
The current state of Iraq could easily have been predicted, and was. How many military interventions has the US undertaken in the last fifty years? The answer is a lot and the outcome is always the same. Careful analysis is done by experts, even though a person of reasonable intelligence could draw the same conclusions. What is going to happen when you invade a secular country remove all forms of control on day to day life (note how this was the first thing to be done disbanding the army, police and government) and turn the country into a meat grinder where the toughest guy survives? Well the answer is clear civil war. You've created a power vacuum and the various factions are going to fight tooth and nail to be the ones to fill that vacuum.
So given that the people who decided we were going to invade knew the outcome you look at who benefits. America as a geopolitical entity benefits for one. The region has been destabilized Iran and Iraq aren't going to cozy up and cause big problems. China doesn't get another foothold in the region. The US has direct military control of oil in the country, a minor benefit, slightly inconvenient for those in direct power though. The Iraqis don't benefit, well some of them will. The US backed faction who take control of the oil when the country is divided up, after the sponsored death squads have taken care of the opposition, will benefit.
So you do have a credible threat to the United States just not any of the ones that were reported. As an interesting aside The strange thing is how this wasn't discussed well really anywhere in the media, mainstream or otherwise. I suppose the reason power didn't want it reported that way is because the population could actually have an opinion on it. I mean obviously an invasion of Iraq would be hugely beneficial to maintaining US supremacy (perhaps even necessary). But try explaining that to the average person on the street, if your in politics you can't because they might say no. Even if it is in their long term interest.
The obvious problem with letting the population have a say is that, I believe, the majority are decent human beings and would oppose a war killing however many to secure power. Its a testimony to the White House PR machine that they were able to maintain a straight face while the media reported the imminent threat to US sovereignty from a tinpot dictator on the other side of the world.
What, you think US military systematically targets civilians while at the same time trying to win the trust of the local populace? Don't be an idiot!
Who do you think we've been fighting for the last three years? These people we're killing aren't members of super secret terrorist organisations or foreign insurgants that have entered Iraq, we're fighting the Iraqi population.
I tend to believe that a significant percentage of the intelligence community (and I include senior military commanders here) actually did believe that Iraq represented a legitimate threat. You can argue all day that this belief was based on laughably thin evidence, and I wouldn't disagree with you, but that's not the point.
So therefore surely a significant percentage of the intelligence community should be out of a job by now, right?
He was not just some former spy. There are plenty of those around the world after the fall of the Soviet Union. He was investigating the murder of Anna Politkovskaja and obviously got too close to the truth.
So, your saying Russia didn't want anybody to know they murdered Politkovsaja. Litvinenko was close to revealing that the Russia government was behind Politkovskaja's death so they very publicly had him assisinated?
Wouldn't that kind of be like saying "Hey! we don't want anybody to know we murdered somebody so nobody try and link us to state sponsored murder or we'll murder you like we just did this guy!"
Ever think they didn't care if it was going to be traced to them? Perhaps the murder of Anna Politkovskaya did not send the message loudly enough that they were trying to get out,
And what message is that? don't become an outspoken conspiracist who has fallen into obscurity?
during Gulf War 1 Iraq was considered to have I believe the 3rd largest standing army.
Considered being the operative word. It's now accepted that the strength and number of the Iraqi forces were greatly exaggerated.
It's tanks while unable to stand up to US firepower were not really that old.
The majority of which being t-55's (upgraded design from the 50's based on t-54 from the 40's) and t-62's (60's design). So as stated completely inferior equipment, which the coalition could engage and destroy at three times the distance the Iraqis could.
And lets not forget that we had aircraft in service Such as the Tomcat that were considered to be on par with the Iraqi MiGs.
It's also worth remembering that well over half of the IQAF consisted of 50's and 60's soviet or chinese technology. Not suprising that the IQAF didn't challenge coalition aircraft and over half fled to Iran in the first week.
As shown by the shock and awe campaign in Iraq, the US armY has a clear advantage in conventional combat. I bet the US can win a war against any naval, air and and armored enemy army.
Any army has a clear advantage if the enemy is ill equipped using outdated weaponry and surrenders on sight. When was the last time the US military fought a equivalently modern well equipped army? You're probably gonna have to go back 50 years at least.
Slashdot Mirror
You should really just relax.
Just one critical flaw in your argument. Typically those with power never freely decide to relinquish it. The rights and freedoms we currently enjoy weren't gifted to us from on high. They were attained through centuries of struggle and activism.
Of course, I don't know why I'm replying matter-of-factly to this post since it's basically just a "my country is better than your country" flamebait, but I guess I'm just a sucker.
I appologise if the concept of protection for consumers offends you so. Having always been afforded the option of refund or repair for faulty goods it seems strange that a company wouldn't be held legally responsible for selling shoddy goods and felt that worth commenting on.
(There's one from Norway a few posts up that's even worse. What do you guys expect us to say to that? 'Oh! 5 year warranty! I'll move immediately!')
Assuming you're a rational human being I'd expect you to evaluate the concept and say 'Hey thats a pretty good idea, why don't we do that', or alternatively express why you think it's a bad idea.
Failing that of course I'd expect a redundant reply like the one you made.
I don't know about the States but in the UK...
I've never bought of heard or any appliance that didn't come with a manufacturers 12 month guarantee.If they truly stopped printing the opinions advertisers expect them to print there wouldn't be an NYT for very long. Or, more accurately, there would be a New York Times with a fresh new executive editor.
A lesson on making contentious claims without any established evidence?
Its the only way to be sure, man.
Can you provide sources for this claim. I would have thought the majority are in fact native Iraqis.
As for refunding US aid. Considering any aid provided by the US is almost always tied directly to its foreign policy, refusing it probably wouldn't be an option...
While you're complaining about you're own generosity it might be worth noting that the US donates %.22(GNI) putting it behind all but Portugal, the top 5 countries donate over %.8(GNI). And before you say, but the US is a larger economy so %.22 is a huge amount, the UK, France and Germany alone donate more than the US.
It's also strange how you're glossing over the fact that the US is a member of the UN and voted on this issue. Guess how they voted? Well despite not having any troops involved they insisted that UNAMIR (the UN forces) should be withdrawn.
It's also interesting that the US later opposed sending UN troops back in after the genocide started.you made a blanket statement that implied we are not engaging terrorist organizations and non-Iraqi elements in Iraq, and that is demonstrably false.
I made no such claim that there are no foreign combatants but I fail to see why you're making such a big deal when the number of foreign combatants is probably a fraction of a percentage. Again, you seem to be suggesting that it's not the Iraqi's who are fighting the coalition? Besides that I was actually I was commenting on how it is proving almost impossible to 'win over the population' while you are actively fighting them in a guerrilla war. Go back and read the post I was originally replying to for some context.
They are NOT the Iraqi population - if they were comprised of the entire population our 130k strong contingent would be completely eliminated within 60 days.
How obtuse. When did i claim that the entire population of Iraq is engaged in combat. I said "we are fighting the population" obviously this does not include all 26 million Iraqis.
They comprise SMALL ELEMENTS of the Iraqi population, most of whom are acting on behalft of interests that have little or nothing to do with bringing peace and prosperity to the population as a whole. They are being used as pawns by entities attempting to gain power
If you stop for a second, take a deep breath... and re-read all the way through my post. You'd realize you're repeating exactly what I said in my previous post.
~"I haven't made any assumptions as to their motives, there are conflicting power groups in the country that are trying to gain power"
Next I really have no idea what you are talking about...
No, you'll screw the ENTIRE population by fighting for a premature withdrawal of coalition forces before the Iraqis can fend for themselves. You'd be happy as a pig in shit if Saddam were still shredding Iraqi people, Uday raping newlywed brides in front of their grooms, using rape as a systematic tool of terrorism - if it meant the US gets some comeupance. You're happy as heck to see the coalition fail and embolden Iran and Syria.
Since I never actually voiced an opinion on what would be the best policy for Iraq it's amazing how you've drawn that conclusion. Personally I don't think a complete withdrawal will be feasible by the end of the decade.
You myopic fool, you selfish asshat. Sitting in your nice, safe western home, you'll throw the possibility of ME democracy down the shitter because you lack the stomach to make the sacrifices necessary to change the paradigm in the ME. You truly make me gag.
No I haven't made any sacrifices, have you? Did anyone ask the Iraqis if they wanted to make the sacrifice we imposed on them?
Amusing that you've copy and pasted a list of organizations the majority of which have formed in the wake of the occupation, so in effect you are proving my point. However you decide to label them the people opposing the coalition and fighting in what is now a civil war are the Iraqi population. I haven't made any assumptions as to their motives, there are conflicting power groups in the country that are trying to gain power this was to be expected.
However I for one will not demonise human beings responding in an entirely anticipated way to a situation that we have created.
The current state of Iraq could easily have been predicted, and was. How many military interventions has the US undertaken in the last fifty years? The answer is a lot and the outcome is always the same. Careful analysis is done by experts, even though a person of reasonable intelligence could draw the same conclusions. What is going to happen when you invade a secular country remove all forms of control on day to day life (note how this was the first thing to be done disbanding the army, police and government) and turn the country into a meat grinder where the toughest guy survives? Well the answer is clear civil war. You've created a power vacuum and the various factions are going to fight tooth and nail to be the ones to fill that vacuum.
So given that the people who decided we were going to invade knew the outcome you look at who benefits. America as a geopolitical entity benefits for one. The region has been destabilized Iran and Iraq aren't going to cozy up and cause big problems. China doesn't get another foothold in the region. The US has direct military control of oil in the country, a minor benefit, slightly inconvenient for those in direct power though. The Iraqis don't benefit, well some of them will. The US backed faction who take control of the oil when the country is divided up, after the sponsored death squads have taken care of the opposition, will benefit.
So you do have a credible threat to the United States just not any of the ones that were reported. As an interesting aside The strange thing is how this wasn't discussed well really anywhere in the media, mainstream or otherwise. I suppose the reason power didn't want it reported that way is because the population could actually have an opinion on it. I mean obviously an invasion of Iraq would be hugely beneficial to maintaining US supremacy (perhaps even necessary). But try explaining that to the average person on the street, if your in politics you can't because they might say no. Even if it is in their long term interest.
The obvious problem with letting the population have a say is that, I believe, the majority are decent human beings and would oppose a war killing however many to secure power. Its a testimony to the White House PR machine that they were able to maintain a straight face while the media reported the imminent threat to US sovereignty from a tinpot dictator on the other side of the world.
Who do you think we've been fighting for the last three years? These people we're killing aren't members of super secret terrorist organisations or foreign insurgants that have entered Iraq, we're fighting the Iraqi population.
So therefore surely a significant percentage of the intelligence community should be out of a job by now, right?
That was my point, have you seen back to the future?
Surely you mean 1.21 Jigawatts?
So, your saying Russia didn't want anybody to know they murdered Politkovsaja. Litvinenko was close to revealing that the Russia government was behind Politkovskaja's death so they very publicly had him assisinated?
Wouldn't that kind of be like saying "Hey! we don't want anybody to know we murdered somebody so nobody try and link us to state sponsored murder or we'll murder you like we just did this guy!"
And what message is that? don't become an outspoken conspiracist who has fallen into obscurity?
Considered being the operative word. It's now accepted that the strength and number of the Iraqi forces were greatly exaggerated.
It's tanks while unable to stand up to US firepower were not really that old.
The majority of which being t-55's (upgraded design from the 50's based on t-54 from the 40's) and t-62's (60's design). So as stated completely inferior equipment, which the coalition could engage and destroy at three times the distance the Iraqis could.
And lets not forget that we had aircraft in service Such as the Tomcat that were considered to be on par with the Iraqi MiGs.
It's also worth remembering that well over half of the IQAF consisted of 50's and 60's soviet or chinese technology. Not suprising that the IQAF didn't challenge coalition aircraft and over half fled to Iran in the first week.
Any army has a clear advantage if the enemy is ill equipped using outdated weaponry and surrenders on sight. When was the last time the US military fought a equivalently modern well equipped army? You're probably gonna have to go back 50 years at least.
Somebody please inform this mod of humour and Monty Python..
Subsidization of the economy through the Pentagon system suggests a complicated ship for a simple mission would be acceptable.