Hezbollah is not only a terrorist organization, but a government organization. Before Israel bombed, they gave a day's notice and told people to evacuate. I'd say that bombing Hezbollah constitutes as striking out against a government yet the world seems to be currently villianizing Israel.
These are the most controversial strikes by Israel is recent history. There have been a good number of civilian casualties. However, how reputable is the journalism in the area? When the Iraq war started, the Arab media was reporting that the US was intentionally targeting hospitals to kill injured and weak civilians, stating that civilians deaths were in the tens of thousands every day. How accurate did that turn out to be?
The hospitals turned out to be abandoned years ago, and had been converted for military use. But the pictures of a destroyed hospital make for great press.
You suggested if I recall that Israel intentionally blocked off routes for evacuation and were bombing cars of civilians trying to escape. That doesn't coincide with past tactics. They have bombed individuals homes and such, but they have bombed the homes of Hamas leaders. I don't see the reasoning behind suddenly targeting Lebonnese civilians.
When we did the debate I did manage to take a fairly absolute position which polarizes people.
People often don't recall (or don't know) that bin Laden had attacked the US several times prior to 9/11. What motivated me to join the Marine Corps was a buddy of mine that did E-Lint (or Electronic Intelligence) at STRATCOM here in Omaha, NE. We discussed foreign politics all the time. I argued that China was this huge threat. They were willing to use force, they outnumbered us, and with the economy blooming, they could develop technology to rival us. He kept arguing it was the little guys we had to worry about. He talked a great length about bin Laden years before he was famous.
But back then he only attacked military targets, and the world ignored him. Honestly, I don't really have a problem with this. He disliked the US government, and he attacked the US government. I can't fault the guy, even though his tactics were still what you would associate with a terrorist.
But then he went and murdered thousands of innocent civilians. I draw a line there. The Oklahoma City terrorists (who originally planned to bomb the federal building in my home town of Omaha) hit a government building, but largely killed civilians, including small children in a nursery. That was their big mistake.
There are people who truly believe the US and Israel to be villians for whatever reason. And if their attacks were on our governments, I could understand them. Israel is taken to task (as is the US) for civilian casualties. We are both constantly accused (I believe falsely) for specifically targeting civilians. Individuals have specifically slaughtered civilians, which is most unfortunate, and they are usually prosecuted for those actions. But I do not believe it is policy for either government to go out of their way to kill civilians.
And while some sympathize with the rallying cries of a group like Hamas, I do not believe there is any justification for their tactics. A smaller force must resort to guerrilla tactics. And one can argue that violent revolution is justified. I draw the line at murdering civilians.
Are you suggesting that terrorism is a reasonable response to an uneven distribution of wealth?
I'm not sure where you're going. My senior year of high school we had a debate topic in our state that I loved. It was "be it resolved that violent revolution is a just response to an oppressive government." It was pretty hard to nail anyone to an absolute view on that topic.
In theory members of society are forced to obey laws for the betterment of everyone in society. In a global society, we'd have a world government to force nations to play nice with each other, as well as their own people. Too bad we don't have such a government. I love the concept of the UN. And while the world criticizes the US for playing global police force (or not playing global police force often enough) I think someone needs to do it.
Two of these links were pure opinion pieces. I thought we were focusing on facts.
The first link compares two events. The first event was England and France taking out a leader to gain control over an asset they needed. Many draw that parallel to Iraq and I can understand why. Most immediately say, Iraq has oil and the US needs it! This must be cut and dry!
When why has Bush said since day 1 that his top priority is to remove our dependence on oil? He has threatened oil companies with price-fixing suits, given tax breaks to hybrid owners, demanded car companies make more efficient engines, pumped money into fuel cell research etc. These don't seem like the actions of a man hellbent on controlling oil. Nope. However, he did promise that Iraq's government would be their own, and that we wouldn't attempt to run it as a puppet government. He also said we wouldn't take one drop of their oil. It belonged to the Iraqi people.
Iraq is selling oil today, but one can't really say we invaded Iraq for monetary gain. It has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars. We didn't get anything out of it. The parallel when you investigate the matter doesn't really hold up. So why then do people draw it?
The second article makes me laugh. I like this quote:
"If it does not wish to re-occupy either Gaza or southern Lebanon, then there needs to be in place a Lebanese government and a Palestinian Authority strong enough to prevent rocket or other cross-border attacks."
Hamas controls Palestine and Hezbollah represents 30% of the Lebonese government. Neither government has any intention of stopping attacks. Palestine demanded the Gaza Strip and said that if they had it, they'd be more likely to seek peace, yet they have only used the land to continue their attacks. Israel argued they needed the land because of the tactical value to protect civilians. The UN demanded they hand it over in the name of peace. Where did it get them?
I agree with the article that by fighting they may be helping Hamas and Hezbollah recruit. But should they sit back and do nothing when their citizens are kidnapped and murdered? What do you suggest they do?
The third article is all over the place, but no doubt I assume you wish to point out that the UN is claiming Israel deliberately killed UN peace-keepers. Israel insists it was an accident and promised to investigate the matter. There don't appear to many facts other than two sides telling two different stories at this point.
I do think it is funny that people are killed every single day in Israel by terrorists and the UN does absolutely nothing. The second that Israel retaliates, the UN is up in arms. How is that peacekeeping?
You also suggest the BBC remembers Bush saying that the purpose of invading Iraq was for self-defense. I didn't see that in any of the three articles. Am I supposed to be swayed by the fact that a member of the press has a similar opinion as you?
Given that mainly what I've seen from the press is spin-doctoring, partisan politics and lies, I don't care what his opinion is. If you can show me direct quotes where Bush said the primary motivation for going into Iraq was self-defense, I'd like to see it.
But given that I watched the actual speech, and that wasn't the reason given, I'm not convinced.
I'll read the articles and comment here in a bit. I'm walking out the door for work.
However I watched the speech live when Bush announced we were going into Iraq. He never said it was for self-defense. He said that it was based on three things.
1 - We had legal right based on the UN authorizing military force, and only suspending military force given Iraq's total duplicity, which the security council had decided unanimously they have not given.
2 - 30 million lives worth saving in Iraq.
3 - Saddam funded terrorists.
Never did he mention that it was self-defense. He did say that we needed to remove WMD, but people assume that Americans should only concern themselves with direct threats to Americans. So if they don't have ICBM's pointed directly at us, we should ignore them. Apparently chemical attacks on others is perfectly acceptable.
Trolling and personal attacks don't replace facts. You call me an idiot while demonstrating an incredible grasp of grammar and proper punctuation. Let's review said section..
`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.
When Googling for this section, I found all kinds of commentary where people insisted that for voicing a political opinion you could be prosecuted and subjected to illegal searches. And you accuse me of poor reading comprehension. This states that one can make a request to seize property in an investigation, given that the grounds of the investigation are not based solely on fist amendment rights. You can not be investigated for reading a certain book, or voicing a particular opinion.
That request must be approved not only by a judge, but also the Attorney General. Where is this section does it say that your Constitutional rights have been removed? Oh wait, it doesn't.
Try again. Except next time drop the personal insults and try bringing some facts.
`(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--
`(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and
`(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
`(b) Each application under this section--
`(1) shall be made to--
`(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or
`(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and
`(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
`(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.
`(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).
`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.
`(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.
`SEC. 502. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT.
`(a) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall fully inform the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate concerning all requests for the production of tangible things under section 402.
`(b) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall provide to the
How often has land changed hands since the UN was formed? How often has the UN objected?
Wait, they only object 30 years after the fact, and only in the case of one country. Hell when the UN was formed, people argued that the Soviet Union was entitled to take over Eastern Europe as a buffer because of the lives they lost. Apparently the same can't be said of Israel.
With the current situation with Israel, the UN is up in arms that Israel has attacked a "sovereign" nation. But no one cares that the same "sovereign" nation's government's is 30% controlled by a terrorist organization, that the government funds. When England was attacked by terrorists, they told the world they weren't going to play around. They would do everything in their power to protect themselves, even if it meant rolling back on civil rights. Russia rolled back 50 years on civil rights in the wake of one major terrorist attack. The US has been greatly affected by one major terrorist attack.
Israel has been the victim of DAILY terrorist attacks for 30 years. And other than the US, no one seems to care or support them. What you would do if you were them?
Powell spent years trying to make sure we didn't go to war with Iraq. He always argued for peace. So I don't buy him lying to create a war that he was always against.
Later there were some questions into the validity of the intel that Powell presented, but I can't see the motivation for him to lie.
The photos he showed however where specific hazmat units that traveled with the chemical weapons. They demonstrated specific movements of chemical weapons. And it was Powell again who said he believed those weapons left the country.
Now no one knows for sure.
If Iraq wasn't making new WMD, then where did the training documents come from? Why issue orders on how to use the weapons on invading American troops if they never had them?
Why refuse to cooperate with weapon inspectors? They kept blocking them entrance to the country.
The few times they did "cooperate" they said, "you can only search on days we tell you, and only in these places." How is that remotely valid? Why place the security of your nation at risk if you have nothing to hide? Why did the UN Security Council find Iraq in violation 75 times?
And Israel is a seperate issue that would involve a lengthy debate. That is quite silly frankly that the UN would claim Israel "illegally" obtained land and demand that it give it up. Most of those resolutions stem from the 3-day war. Israel was attacked by hostile forces, and as a result, the hostile forces lost the land they attacked from. Israel was not the aggressor. The UN at the time said that Israel had a right to keep the land, and 30 years later the UN says Israel had no right to keep the land. Why flip-flop? Because various militant groups insist there might be peace if Israel makes this concession, and then this concession, etc. But for 30 years Israel has been making concessions, and the violence doesn't end. I don't understand why the world says you should not negotiate or give into terrorists, but that is exactly what the world insists of Israel.
I know civilians have died on both sides. Civilians are dying as we speak in Lebanon and Israel. One side bombs malls and school-buses while the other is giving advance notice for civilians to evacuate before dropping bombs. There is a distinction between the tactics of the two sides.
"So why was he in Iraq again? WMDs that have never been found? or revenge for Saddam's attack to kill his father maybe? Whatever reasons were presented have turned out to be either excuses or lies or both."
I'd say his father is the far greater villain in the situation. People forget the things he did when he was head of the CIA during the 80's. I digress. We're talking Bush Jr. Reasons to go into Iraq.
1 - 75 unanimous security council resolutions finding Iraq in violation of the terms of their surrender. In 1991 the UN authorized military force against Iraq, and peace was dependent on their complete duplicity. They did not cooperate, and while many say that the US belitted the UN, in fact one could argue that if the US did nothing, the UN would become a joke. I don't understand why the UN will jump head first into an evolving situation they don't understand (like sending troops into Yugoslavia as it broke up) while completely ignoring genocides like Rwanda. The UN waves its finger, but rarely does anything about anything. How many times could they insist "comply or else" if "or else" meant nothing?
2 - WMD did exist. Saddam used them on his own people, and he currently stands on trial for that. This is not disputed by anyone. We gave them plenty of advance warning before we went into the country, and we watched a huge caravan leave Iraq into Syria. At the time Powell suggested that those were the smoking guns we would now never find. But we did however find sarin gas, and illegal missiles. He found storage facilities, and training manuals detailing how to use the WMD. So they did exist, and we found some of them. Why do people continue to insist they never existed and they we never found any?
Here is what I don't understand. Governments all around the world insisted they had WMD. Clinton bombed Iraq without consulting Congress or the UN, and no one questioned him. Kerry, Gore, Clinton and every Democratic leader insisted Iraq had WMD. They all voted to go to war. But after the fact, they all insist the Bush invented the situation and lied. How is that possible? This is why I hate partisan politics. Facts are obscured by trying to make the other party look bad.
3 - 30 million Iraqi civilians lived in fear for their lives. Saddam intentionally kept food shipments out of cities, shut off water, used rape and torture as a means to keep the populace fearful. Some Iraqi civilians were driven to living in caves, because he declared open genocide on the Kurds.
I hate to invoke Godwin's law here, but consider this. After WWI, Germany was smacked down with the Treaty of Versailles. They weren't supposed to arm themselves. Hitler decided to test the water, built weapons and marched troops into the DMZ by the Rhineland. The world didn't want to go back to war, so they ignored the situation. Iraq is not the power Germany was, however, at the time Germany was in its worst economic situation ever and had no weapons. We watched as Hitler openly defied the League of Nations and braced for war. If we stopped Hitler when he first marched small forces into the Rhineland, how many tens of millions of lives might have been spared?
When someone is committing great atrocities, like Saddam did, you take action.
A comment made two years later isn't really made in the "context of 9/11". If you think every statement we make today is in direct relation to 9/11 then I don't know what to say.
Saddam had an open policy that he spoke of frequently where he promised the families of suicide bombers 10,000 if they ever attacked Israel or the US. Does that constitute funding terrorists in your book?
The only direct link Saddam had to 9/11 was when he issued a statement congratulating the terrorists for murdering innocent civilians, which I find pretty deplorable.
I'm curious what terrorist organizations we fund in Iraq? We put Saddam in power because he had a US education and the CIA thought they could trust him as an ally against Iran. It only showed how little the US knew about foreign policy in the Middle East. It also goes to show those people who insist that the US is an empire, and that we have all these puppet governments, that just because he help put someone in power, that doesn't mean we necessarily have any influence with that government.
My original point is that the media, and the world declares Bush as being a hate-monger. They say he hates all Arabs, or hates all Muslims. This is clearly not the case as I was demonstrating. I'll agree he is a poor public speaker, but we shouldn't propagate a lie that he a is a war-monger, or wants to see all Arabs dead. It only adds fuel to the fire of every person who wants an excuse to hate Americans. And I just don't like propagating lies in the first place.
From a person who has served in the military I can tell you that American soldiers have NEVER received mail and phone calls as POWs. I don't understand why it was put in the Geneva convention and agreed upon by everyone when no one on the planet does it.
And I wouldn't expect that treatment for myself, or my buddies. I do think it is a major security threat to allow them open communication with the outside world. I said they should be allowed Red Cross visits so that their families know they are alright. I do believe that to be reasonable.
Can you please find it? I've never read the whole document, but I have constantly challenged people to find these tidbits and they never do. I have at the very least read sections and the headings looking for these various clauses.
Even if such clauses did exist, you could argue that they violate the Constitution and thusly aren't valid.
Many of the core features only run with Java. You can opt out of these features, but things like New Document Wizards and the Help system do constitute core features.
I always remove that from my startup group actually. And even without the preloader, on these crappy dells at work with 512 megs of memory and celerons, Excel opens in 2 seconds. I really wish I could say the same thing about OpenOffice. I use preload on my Gentoo box with OpenOffice, but it is just slow.
OpenOffice's code isn't exactly free of bugs. Given that it is open-source, it would be very easy to discover (if not plant) exploits. I advocate open-source software. And I'm glad that projects like OOo are around. Don't get me wrong. But office suites in general form some of the largest applications we have. There is just a butt-load of code there. So flaws are bound to pop-up. And people do specifically really target Microsoft.
I still believe Office to be one of the best products they put out. And I do believe (though I can't quantify with real evidence) that you could easily see the same type (and number) of exploits in other office suites if they were targeted as often.
I believe it is Microsoft that is nearing 30 years, not Windows. Here lies the problem with the internet. Many sites just propogate links to other people's articles, like Slashdot does. If the first person doesn't fact check, then no one down the line does. They just pass erroneous information on.
When you really dig deep and lock, you can not only disable, but remove a LARGE chunk of Windows. But as for what you can remove, it depends on what your computing needs are. When I make custom install CDs, I take the 600 meg Windows XP SP2 install CD and rip it down to about 140 megs before I start adding back in newer drivers, and apps.
I'm guessing this comment was made in a facetious tone.
I love FOSS. I'll use it every chance I can get. I will sing the praise of FOSS all day long.
However, Office is one of the best products Microsoft has ever put out. It is feature rich, the new UI in Office 12/2007 is damned clever, and despite all the bells and whistles, it loads extremely fast.
KOffice isn't nearly as powerful. OpenOffice.org is slow and bloated. I'm also not crazy about how 20% of the program is in Java.
The big knock on MS Office is the security flaws that come from macros. Just turn them off. And people have done proof-of-concept macro exploits with OpenOffice as well. The reason that we see so many in MS Office is because people specifically target it. It hackers targetted OpenOffice as often, you'd likely see the same number, if not more exploits.
But honestly, MS Office is a pretty solid product.
Please find me a single quote where he directly linked Iraq to 9/11. It doesn't exist. He said the war in Iraq is part of the war against terror, because Saddam openly funded terrorists.
If the public can't understand the distinction, that didn't mean that he lied or intentionally misled people. It means they can't understand the distinction. And for the record, I'm very much a liberal. I just hate seeing a guy get beat up over media lies rather than his actual policies.
As far as the "crusade" quote goes, I'm actively Googling for it now. I see a direct crusade quote on three liberal blogs, but not a single actual news service yet. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if he made the remark however. Despite somehow pulling down a Master's from Yale, he isn't a very savvy speaker. Bush is also known to routinely stick his foot in his mouth.
If you want to argue that he poorly represents this country by looking like a fool, I'll agree with you. But again, when it comes to his supposed hatred for all things Arab and/or Muslim consider this:
Bush was the one person pushing to allow the sale of US ports to Arab group, citing it would build bridges of trust and cooperation.
And some quotes:
"Ours is a war not against a religion, not against the Muslim faith. But ours is a war against individuals who absolutely hate what America stands for, and hate the freedom of the Czech Republic. And therefore, we must work together to defend ourselves. And by remaining strong and united and tough, we'll prevail."
"Here in the United States our Muslim citizens are making many contributions in business, science and law, medicine and education, and in other fields. Muslim members of our Armed Forces and of my administration are serving their fellow Americans with distinction, upholding our nation's ideals of liberty and justice in a world at peace."
"Over the past month, Muslims have fasted, taking no food or water during daylight hours, in order to refocus their minds on faith and redirect their hearts to charity. Muslims worldwide have stretched out a hand of mercy to those in need. Charity tables at which the poor can break their fast line the streets of cities and towns. And gifts of food and clothing and money are distributed to ensure that all share in God's abundance. Muslims often invite members of other families to their evening iftar meals, demonstrating a spirit of tolerance."
"America treasures the relationship we have with our many Muslim friends, and we respect the vibrant faith of Islam which inspires countless individuals to lead lives of honesty, integrity, and morality. This year, may Eid also be a time in which we recognize the values of progress, pluralism, and acceptance that bind us together as a Nation and a global community. By working together to advance mutual understanding, we point the way to a brighter future for all."
"Islam brings hope and comfort to millions of people in my country, and to more than a billion people worldwide. Ramadan is also an occasion to remember that Islam gave birth to a rich civilization of learning that has benefited mankind."
"Some of the comments that have been uttered about Islam do not reflect the sentiments of my government or the sentiments of most Americans. Islam, as practiced by the vast majority of people, is a peaceful religion, a religion that respects others. Ours is a country based upon tolerance and we welcome people of all faiths in America."
"Islam is a vibrant faith. Millions of our fellow citizens are Muslim. We respect the faith. We honor its traditions. Our enemy does not. Our enemy doesn't follow the great traditions of Islam. They've hijacked a great religion."
"America rejects bigotry. We reject every act of hatred against people of Arab background or Muslim faith America values and welcomes peaceful people of all faiths -
Being physically bound and then asphyxiated clearly constitutes as physical torture. And that is not what I'm referring to. The most public and commonly described "torture incidents" that started this whole mess was stripping Arab men and interrogating them in front of White women to humiliate them. It is a tactic to play upon social stigmatisms, and doesn't constitute torture in my book, but people went to prison for that.
Having bounced from one abusive parent to another (my mother remarried 4 times) I can understand why someone says that emotional abuse is worse than physical abuse. However, I ask you how you would interrogate someone without using scare tactics?
If the lives of people that you loved depended on it, where would you draw the line?
Excuse me? Please point out where in the Patriot Act a citizen can be held without charges for years. It doesn't exist.
The Constitution trumps the Patriot Act, which guarantees the right to speedy and fair trial. There are non-citizens who have been held as political prisoners. Is there just reasoning? It is hard to say, but people are sure quick to jump to opinions without any real facts in these cases. Fundamentalists call them guilty without facts and don't care. Liberals assume they are innocent victims. Who is right? I say both are wrong for jumping to conclusions without facts.
Legally, if you are not a US citizen, then you don't have much in the way of rights or protection here. And when the country is at war, and if you are linked with that war, you don't have much protection either.
The Geneva Convention (in which I was schooled during my time in the Marine Corps) is pretty unreasonable. It says the POWs are to be allowed phone calls, send and receive mail, etc. etc. Personally, I wouldn't abide by that. I think they should receive humane treatment, with Red Cross visits. But communication is a serious security risk. But that's just my opinion.
Let me get this straight. If you speak out against the government, you go to jail. Yet every day I read countless people speaking out against the government, and nothing happens to them.
You say that if you are a Muslim you are jailed and tortured? Funny. There are Muslims all over this country who practice their religion freely and openly.
You accuse Bush of being this hate monger. Personally I think he is an idiot, and I don't care for his policies but the actual FACTS of the matter is that immediately after 9/11 he preached peace, diplomacy and tolerance. He asked the American people not to judge all Muslims on the acts of a few terrorists. He urged the American public not to push for war. Arguably if he went into Iraq right after 9/11 the world would have supported it more, though for entirely the wrong reasons. People accuse him of linking Iraq and 9/11, when in fact he has publicly spoken multiple times to distance the two.
You speak in hyperbole and lies. There is no way around it.
Is the world perfect? No. Is the US perfectly innocent? No. However, much of the "supposed" torture is anything but. And if I were in charge, and lives were on the line, then I'd use scare tactics as well. So long as people aren't really physically harmed, then scaring prisoners with dogs, or stripping them naked is fair game in interrogation as far as I'm concerned. For those who are in engaging in ACTUAL torture, I sure hope they are prosecuted.
And in case you missed it, we are in fact prosecuting soldiers for torture and sending their asses to jail.
So next time perhaps look up some facts before you spew your empty rhetoric.
Slashdot Mirror
Hezbollah is not only a terrorist organization, but a government organization. Before Israel bombed, they gave a day's notice and told people to evacuate. I'd say that bombing Hezbollah constitutes as striking out against a government yet the world seems to be currently villianizing Israel.
These are the most controversial strikes by Israel is recent history. There have been a good number of civilian casualties. However, how reputable is the journalism in the area? When the Iraq war started, the Arab media was reporting that the US was intentionally targeting hospitals to kill injured and weak civilians, stating that civilians deaths were in the tens of thousands every day. How accurate did that turn out to be?
The hospitals turned out to be abandoned years ago, and had been converted for military use. But the pictures of a destroyed hospital make for great press.
You suggested if I recall that Israel intentionally blocked off routes for evacuation and were bombing cars of civilians trying to escape. That doesn't coincide with past tactics. They have bombed individuals homes and such, but they have bombed the homes of Hamas leaders. I don't see the reasoning behind suddenly targeting Lebonnese civilians.
When we did the debate I did manage to take a fairly absolute position which polarizes people.
People often don't recall (or don't know) that bin Laden had attacked the US several times prior to 9/11. What motivated me to join the Marine Corps was a buddy of mine that did E-Lint (or Electronic Intelligence) at STRATCOM here in Omaha, NE. We discussed foreign politics all the time. I argued that China was this huge threat. They were willing to use force, they outnumbered us, and with the economy blooming, they could develop technology to rival us. He kept arguing it was the little guys we had to worry about. He talked a great length about bin Laden years before he was famous.
But back then he only attacked military targets, and the world ignored him. Honestly, I don't really have a problem with this. He disliked the US government, and he attacked the US government. I can't fault the guy, even though his tactics were still what you would associate with a terrorist.
But then he went and murdered thousands of innocent civilians. I draw a line there. The Oklahoma City terrorists (who originally planned to bomb the federal building in my home town of Omaha) hit a government building, but largely killed civilians, including small children in a nursery. That was their big mistake.
There are people who truly believe the US and Israel to be villians for whatever reason. And if their attacks were on our governments, I could understand them. Israel is taken to task (as is the US) for civilian casualties. We are both constantly accused (I believe falsely) for specifically targeting civilians. Individuals have specifically slaughtered civilians, which is most unfortunate, and they are usually prosecuted for those actions. But I do not believe it is policy for either government to go out of their way to kill civilians.
And while some sympathize with the rallying cries of a group like Hamas, I do not believe there is any justification for their tactics. A smaller force must resort to guerrilla tactics. And one can argue that violent revolution is justified. I draw the line at murdering civilians.
Are you suggesting that terrorism is a reasonable response to an uneven distribution of wealth?
I'm not sure where you're going. My senior year of high school we had a debate topic in our state that I loved. It was "be it resolved that violent revolution is a just response to an oppressive government." It was pretty hard to nail anyone to an absolute view on that topic.
In theory members of society are forced to obey laws for the betterment of everyone in society. In a global society, we'd have a world government to force nations to play nice with each other, as well as their own people. Too bad we don't have such a government. I love the concept of the UN. And while the world criticizes the US for playing global police force (or not playing global police force often enough) I think someone needs to do it.
Two of these links were pure opinion pieces. I thought we were focusing on facts.
The first link compares two events. The first event was England and France taking out a leader to gain control over an asset they needed. Many draw that parallel to Iraq and I can understand why. Most immediately say, Iraq has oil and the US needs it! This must be cut and dry!
When why has Bush said since day 1 that his top priority is to remove our dependence on oil? He has threatened oil companies with price-fixing suits, given tax breaks to hybrid owners, demanded car companies make more efficient engines, pumped money into fuel cell research etc. These don't seem like the actions of a man hellbent on controlling oil. Nope. However, he did promise that Iraq's government would be their own, and that we wouldn't attempt to run it as a puppet government. He also said we wouldn't take one drop of their oil. It belonged to the Iraqi people.
Iraq is selling oil today, but one can't really say we invaded Iraq for monetary gain. It has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars. We didn't get anything out of it. The parallel when you investigate the matter doesn't really hold up. So why then do people draw it?
The second article makes me laugh. I like this quote:
"If it does not wish to re-occupy either Gaza or southern Lebanon, then there needs to be in place a Lebanese government and a Palestinian Authority strong enough to prevent rocket or other cross-border attacks."
Hamas controls Palestine and Hezbollah represents 30% of the Lebonese government. Neither government has any intention of stopping attacks. Palestine demanded the Gaza Strip and said that if they had it, they'd be more likely to seek peace, yet they have only used the land to continue their attacks. Israel argued they needed the land because of the tactical value to protect civilians. The UN demanded they hand it over in the name of peace. Where did it get them?
I agree with the article that by fighting they may be helping Hamas and Hezbollah recruit. But should they sit back and do nothing when their citizens are kidnapped and murdered? What do you suggest they do?
The third article is all over the place, but no doubt I assume you wish to point out that the UN is claiming Israel deliberately killed UN peace-keepers. Israel insists it was an accident and promised to investigate the matter. There don't appear to many facts other than two sides telling two different stories at this point.
I do think it is funny that people are killed every single day in Israel by terrorists and the UN does absolutely nothing. The second that Israel retaliates, the UN is up in arms. How is that peacekeeping?
You also suggest the BBC remembers Bush saying that the purpose of invading Iraq was for self-defense. I didn't see that in any of the three articles. Am I supposed to be swayed by the fact that a member of the press has a similar opinion as you?
Given that mainly what I've seen from the press is spin-doctoring, partisan politics and lies, I don't care what his opinion is. If you can show me direct quotes where Bush said the primary motivation for going into Iraq was self-defense, I'd like to see it.
But given that I watched the actual speech, and that wasn't the reason given, I'm not convinced.
I'll read the articles and comment here in a bit. I'm walking out the door for work.
However I watched the speech live when Bush announced we were going into Iraq. He never said it was for self-defense. He said that it was based on three things.
1 - We had legal right based on the UN authorizing military force, and only suspending military force given Iraq's total duplicity, which the security council had decided unanimously they have not given.
2 - 30 million lives worth saving in Iraq.
3 - Saddam funded terrorists.
Never did he mention that it was self-defense. He did say that we needed to remove WMD, but people assume that Americans should only concern themselves with direct threats to Americans. So if they don't have ICBM's pointed directly at us, we should ignore them. Apparently chemical attacks on others is perfectly acceptable.
`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.
When Googling for this section, I found all kinds of commentary where people insisted that for voicing a political opinion you could be prosecuted and subjected to illegal searches. And you accuse me of poor reading comprehension. This states that one can make a request to seize property in an investigation, given that the grounds of the investigation are not based solely on fist amendment rights. You can not be investigated for reading a certain book, or voicing a particular opinion.
That request must be approved not only by a judge, but also the Attorney General. Where is this section does it say that your Constitutional rights have been removed? Oh wait, it doesn't.
Try again. Except next time drop the personal insults and try bringing some facts.
`(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--
`(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and
`(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
`(b) Each application under this section--
`(1) shall be made to--
`(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or
`(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and
`(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
`(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.
`(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).
`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.
`(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.
`SEC. 502. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT.
`(a) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall fully inform the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate concerning all requests for the production of tangible things under section 402.
`(b) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall provide to the
How often has land changed hands since the UN was formed? How often has the UN objected?
Wait, they only object 30 years after the fact, and only in the case of one country. Hell when the UN was formed, people argued that the Soviet Union was entitled to take over Eastern Europe as a buffer because of the lives they lost. Apparently the same can't be said of Israel.
With the current situation with Israel, the UN is up in arms that Israel has attacked a "sovereign" nation. But no one cares that the same "sovereign" nation's government's is 30% controlled by a terrorist organization, that the government funds. When England was attacked by terrorists, they told the world they weren't going to play around. They would do everything in their power to protect themselves, even if it meant rolling back on civil rights. Russia rolled back 50 years on civil rights in the wake of one major terrorist attack. The US has been greatly affected by one major terrorist attack.
Israel has been the victim of DAILY terrorist attacks for 30 years. And other than the US, no one seems to care or support them. What you would do if you were them?
Powell spent years trying to make sure we didn't go to war with Iraq. He always argued for peace. So I don't buy him lying to create a war that he was always against.
Later there were some questions into the validity of the intel that Powell presented, but I can't see the motivation for him to lie.
The photos he showed however where specific hazmat units that traveled with the chemical weapons. They demonstrated specific movements of chemical weapons. And it was Powell again who said he believed those weapons left the country.
Now no one knows for sure.
If Iraq wasn't making new WMD, then where did the training documents come from? Why issue orders on how to use the weapons on invading American troops if they never had them?
Why refuse to cooperate with weapon inspectors? They kept blocking them entrance to the country.
The few times they did "cooperate" they said, "you can only search on days we tell you, and only in these places." How is that remotely valid? Why place the security of your nation at risk if you have nothing to hide? Why did the UN Security Council find Iraq in violation 75 times?
And Israel is a seperate issue that would involve a lengthy debate. That is quite silly frankly that the UN would claim Israel "illegally" obtained land and demand that it give it up. Most of those resolutions stem from the 3-day war. Israel was attacked by hostile forces, and as a result, the hostile forces lost the land they attacked from. Israel was not the aggressor. The UN at the time said that Israel had a right to keep the land, and 30 years later the UN says Israel had no right to keep the land. Why flip-flop? Because various militant groups insist there might be peace if Israel makes this concession, and then this concession, etc. But for 30 years Israel has been making concessions, and the violence doesn't end. I don't understand why the world says you should not negotiate or give into terrorists, but that is exactly what the world insists of Israel.
I know civilians have died on both sides. Civilians are dying as we speak in Lebanon and Israel. One side bombs malls and school-buses while the other is giving advance notice for civilians to evacuate before dropping bombs. There is a distinction between the tactics of the two sides.
I'd say his father is the far greater villain in the situation. People forget the things he did when he was head of the CIA during the 80's. I digress. We're talking Bush Jr. Reasons to go into Iraq.
1 - 75 unanimous security council resolutions finding Iraq in violation of the terms of their surrender. In 1991 the UN authorized military force against Iraq, and peace was dependent on their complete duplicity. They did not cooperate, and while many say that the US belitted the UN, in fact one could argue that if the US did nothing, the UN would become a joke. I don't understand why the UN will jump head first into an evolving situation they don't understand (like sending troops into Yugoslavia as it broke up) while completely ignoring genocides like Rwanda. The UN waves its finger, but rarely does anything about anything. How many times could they insist "comply or else" if "or else" meant nothing?
2 - WMD did exist. Saddam used them on his own people, and he currently stands on trial for that. This is not disputed by anyone. We gave them plenty of advance warning before we went into the country, and we watched a huge caravan leave Iraq into Syria. At the time Powell suggested that those were the smoking guns we would now never find. But we did however find sarin gas, and illegal missiles. He found storage facilities, and training manuals detailing how to use the WMD. So they did exist, and we found some of them. Why do people continue to insist they never existed and they we never found any?
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outl ook/3997601.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-de c98/clinton_12-16.html
Here is what I don't understand. Governments all around the world insisted they had WMD. Clinton bombed Iraq without consulting Congress or the UN, and no one questioned him. Kerry, Gore, Clinton and every Democratic leader insisted Iraq had WMD. They all voted to go to war. But after the fact, they all insist the Bush invented the situation and lied. How is that possible? This is why I hate partisan politics. Facts are obscured by trying to make the other party look bad.
3 - 30 million Iraqi civilians lived in fear for their lives. Saddam intentionally kept food shipments out of cities, shut off water, used rape and torture as a means to keep the populace fearful. Some Iraqi civilians were driven to living in caves, because he declared open genocide on the Kurds.
I hate to invoke Godwin's law here, but consider this. After WWI, Germany was smacked down with the Treaty of Versailles. They weren't supposed to arm themselves. Hitler decided to test the water, built weapons and marched troops into the DMZ by the Rhineland. The world didn't want to go back to war, so they ignored the situation. Iraq is not the power Germany was, however, at the time Germany was in its worst economic situation ever and had no weapons. We watched as Hitler openly defied the League of Nations and braced for war. If we stopped Hitler when he first marched small forces into the Rhineland, how many tens of millions of lives might have been spared?
When someone is committing great atrocities, like Saddam did, you take action.
A comment made two years later isn't really made in the "context of 9/11". If you think every statement we make today is in direct relation to 9/11 then I don't know what to say.
Saddam had an open policy that he spoke of frequently where he promised the families of suicide bombers 10,000 if they ever attacked Israel or the US. Does that constitute funding terrorists in your book?
The only direct link Saddam had to 9/11 was when he issued a statement congratulating the terrorists for murdering innocent civilians, which I find pretty deplorable.
I'm curious what terrorist organizations we fund in Iraq? We put Saddam in power because he had a US education and the CIA thought they could trust him as an ally against Iran. It only showed how little the US knew about foreign policy in the Middle East. It also goes to show those people who insist that the US is an empire, and that we have all these puppet governments, that just because he help put someone in power, that doesn't mean we necessarily have any influence with that government.
My original point is that the media, and the world declares Bush as being a hate-monger. They say he hates all Arabs, or hates all Muslims. This is clearly not the case as I was demonstrating. I'll agree he is a poor public speaker, but we shouldn't propagate a lie that he a is a war-monger, or wants to see all Arabs dead. It only adds fuel to the fire of every person who wants an excuse to hate Americans. And I just don't like propagating lies in the first place.
From a person who has served in the military I can tell you that American soldiers have NEVER received mail and phone calls as POWs. I don't understand why it was put in the Geneva convention and agreed upon by everyone when no one on the planet does it.
And I wouldn't expect that treatment for myself, or my buddies. I do think it is a major security threat to allow them open communication with the outside world. I said they should be allowed Red Cross visits so that their families know they are alright. I do believe that to be reasonable.
Can you please find it? I've never read the whole document, but I have constantly challenged people to find these tidbits and they never do. I have at the very least read sections and the headings looking for these various clauses.
Even if such clauses did exist, you could argue that they violate the Constitution and thusly aren't valid.
Many of the core features only run with Java. You can opt out of these features, but things like New Document Wizards and the Help system do constitute core features.
I always remove that from my startup group actually. And even without the preloader, on these crappy dells at work with 512 megs of memory and celerons, Excel opens in 2 seconds. I really wish I could say the same thing about OpenOffice. I use preload on my Gentoo box with OpenOffice, but it is just slow.
OpenOffice's code isn't exactly free of bugs. Given that it is open-source, it would be very easy to discover (if not plant) exploits. I advocate open-source software. And I'm glad that projects like OOo are around. Don't get me wrong. But office suites in general form some of the largest applications we have. There is just a butt-load of code there. So flaws are bound to pop-up. And people do specifically really target Microsoft.
I still believe Office to be one of the best products they put out. And I do believe (though I can't quantify with real evidence) that you could easily see the same type (and number) of exploits in other office suites if they were targeted as often.
Bill Gates went from being a buy who publicly said he didn't believe in charity to being Time's Man of the Year.
People can in fact change.
I believe it is Microsoft that is nearing 30 years, not Windows. Here lies the problem with the internet. Many sites just propogate links to other people's articles, like Slashdot does. If the first person doesn't fact check, then no one down the line does. They just pass erroneous information on.
I'm really shocked I haven't seen anyone mention Bold Fortune's guide, nLite, or anything like that.
b 89452dcfefedd94d476b&showforum=89
http://www.bold-fortune.com/forums/
http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?s=51e07579a39
http://www.microwinx.com/
When you really dig deep and lock, you can not only disable, but remove a LARGE chunk of Windows. But as for what you can remove, it depends on what your computing needs are. When I make custom install CDs, I take the 600 meg Windows XP SP2 install CD and rip it down to about 140 megs before I start adding back in newer drivers, and apps.
I'm guessing this comment was made in a facetious tone.
I love FOSS. I'll use it every chance I can get. I will sing the praise of FOSS all day long.
However, Office is one of the best products Microsoft has ever put out. It is feature rich, the new UI in Office 12/2007 is damned clever, and despite all the bells and whistles, it loads extremely fast.
KOffice isn't nearly as powerful. OpenOffice.org is slow and bloated. I'm also not crazy about how 20% of the program is in Java.
The big knock on MS Office is the security flaws that come from macros. Just turn them off. And people have done proof-of-concept macro exploits with OpenOffice as well. The reason that we see so many in MS Office is because people specifically target it. It hackers targetted OpenOffice as often, you'd likely see the same number, if not more exploits.
But honestly, MS Office is a pretty solid product.
Damn misleading headlines! I thought this was a 12-step plan to recover from using Microsoft products!
With the belief in a higher power (Linus) you too can break free from Microsoft dependence!
If the public can't understand the distinction, that didn't mean that he lied or intentionally misled people. It means they can't understand the distinction. And for the record, I'm very much a liberal. I just hate seeing a guy get beat up over media lies rather than his actual policies.
As far as the "crusade" quote goes, I'm actively Googling for it now. I see a direct crusade quote on three liberal blogs, but not a single actual news service yet. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if he made the remark however. Despite somehow pulling down a Master's from Yale, he isn't a very savvy speaker. Bush is also known to routinely stick his foot in his mouth.
If you want to argue that he poorly represents this country by looking like a fool, I'll agree with you. But again, when it comes to his supposed hatred for all things Arab and/or Muslim consider this:
Bush was the one person pushing to allow the sale of US ports to Arab group, citing it would build bridges of trust and cooperation.
And some quotes:
"Ours is a war not against a religion, not against the Muslim faith. But ours is a war against individuals who absolutely hate what America stands for, and hate the freedom of the Czech Republic. And therefore, we must work together to defend ourselves. And by remaining strong and united and tough, we'll prevail."
"Here in the United States our Muslim citizens are making many contributions in business, science and law, medicine and education, and in other fields. Muslim members of our Armed Forces and of my administration are serving their fellow Americans with distinction, upholding our nation's ideals of liberty and justice in a world at peace."
"Over the past month, Muslims have fasted, taking no food or water during daylight hours, in order to refocus their minds on faith and redirect their hearts to charity. Muslims worldwide have stretched out a hand of mercy to those in need. Charity tables at which the poor can break their fast line the streets of cities and towns. And gifts of food and clothing and money are distributed to ensure that all share in God's abundance. Muslims often invite members of other families to their evening iftar meals, demonstrating a spirit of tolerance."
"America treasures the relationship we have with our many Muslim friends, and we respect the vibrant faith of Islam which inspires countless individuals to lead lives of honesty, integrity, and morality. This year, may Eid also be a time in which we recognize the values of progress, pluralism, and acceptance that bind us together as a Nation and a global community. By working together to advance mutual understanding, we point the way to a brighter future for all."
"Islam brings hope and comfort to millions of people in my country, and to more than a billion people worldwide. Ramadan is also an occasion to remember that Islam gave birth to a rich civilization of learning that has benefited mankind."
"Some of the comments that have been uttered about Islam do not reflect the sentiments of my government or the sentiments of most Americans. Islam, as practiced by the vast majority of people, is a peaceful religion, a religion that respects others. Ours is a country based upon tolerance and we welcome people of all faiths in America."
"Islam is a vibrant faith. Millions of our fellow citizens are Muslim. We respect the faith. We honor its traditions. Our enemy does not. Our enemy doesn't follow the great traditions of Islam. They've hijacked a great religion."
"America rejects bigotry. We reject every act of hatred against people of Arab background or Muslim faith America values and welcomes peaceful people of all faiths -
Perhaps read the articles you link?
Being physically bound and then asphyxiated clearly constitutes as physical torture. And that is not what I'm referring to. The most public and commonly described "torture incidents" that started this whole mess was stripping Arab men and interrogating them in front of White women to humiliate them. It is a tactic to play upon social stigmatisms, and doesn't constitute torture in my book, but people went to prison for that.
Having bounced from one abusive parent to another (my mother remarried 4 times) I can understand why someone says that emotional abuse is worse than physical abuse. However, I ask you how you would interrogate someone without using scare tactics?
If the lives of people that you loved depended on it, where would you draw the line?
Excuse me? Please point out where in the Patriot Act a citizen can be held without charges for years. It doesn't exist.
The Constitution trumps the Patriot Act, which guarantees the right to speedy and fair trial. There are non-citizens who have been held as political prisoners. Is there just reasoning? It is hard to say, but people are sure quick to jump to opinions without any real facts in these cases. Fundamentalists call them guilty without facts and don't care. Liberals assume they are innocent victims. Who is right? I say both are wrong for jumping to conclusions without facts.
Legally, if you are not a US citizen, then you don't have much in the way of rights or protection here. And when the country is at war, and if you are linked with that war, you don't have much protection either.
The Geneva Convention (in which I was schooled during my time in the Marine Corps) is pretty unreasonable. It says the POWs are to be allowed phone calls, send and receive mail, etc. etc. Personally, I wouldn't abide by that. I think they should receive humane treatment, with Red Cross visits. But communication is a serious security risk. But that's just my opinion.
Let me get this straight. If you speak out against the government, you go to jail. Yet every day I read countless people speaking out against the government, and nothing happens to them.
You say that if you are a Muslim you are jailed and tortured? Funny. There are Muslims all over this country who practice their religion freely and openly.
You accuse Bush of being this hate monger. Personally I think he is an idiot, and I don't care for his policies but the actual FACTS of the matter is that immediately after 9/11 he preached peace, diplomacy and tolerance. He asked the American people not to judge all Muslims on the acts of a few terrorists. He urged the American public not to push for war. Arguably if he went into Iraq right after 9/11 the world would have supported it more, though for entirely the wrong reasons. People accuse him of linking Iraq and 9/11, when in fact he has publicly spoken multiple times to distance the two.
You speak in hyperbole and lies. There is no way around it.
Is the world perfect? No. Is the US perfectly innocent? No. However, much of the "supposed" torture is anything but. And if I were in charge, and lives were on the line, then I'd use scare tactics as well. So long as people aren't really physically harmed, then scaring prisoners with dogs, or stripping them naked is fair game in interrogation as far as I'm concerned. For those who are in engaging in ACTUAL torture, I sure hope they are prosecuted.
And in case you missed it, we are in fact prosecuting soldiers for torture and sending their asses to jail.
So next time perhaps look up some facts before you spew your empty rhetoric.