"Rockstar is being fined for misusing the ESRB system, not for producing a game with smut in it."
We both know that it is the smut that drove the whole thing and made the controversy. There'd have been nothing like this if the mislabelling was over something more substantial (such as a label that says Mac Compatible and it won't play on Macs).
" I bet that you would complain if the folks at Mars replaced the peanuts in your Snickers bar with dried cockroach larvae without changing the label"
That's the type of analogy that assumes that the non-"Hot Coffee" content was wonderful and very different from the "Hot Coffee" content. How about an analogy where you buy a candy bar labelled "Loaded with Mouse Feces" and complain because you find a hamster-turd in it?
...when, if someone does not like what is in a game, they simply refuse to play it and move on (no screaming, no lawsuits, no complaints to the government).
If we refuse to teach them addition, I think we can nip the multiplication problem in the bud. That, and pass a law prohibiting our neanderthal cousins from owning calculators.
"He's just using "copyright infringement" because that sounds somehow less menacing and evil than "theft" even though the end result is ultimately the same for both actions."
No, I'm just using "copyright infringement" because it is wrong to use words that don't apply. I don't care whether or not something is less or more evil in meaning. If you want, you can call copyright infringers "criminals". You will at least be correct, even if you are less precise. However, don't call copyright infringers rapists, arsonists, thieves, murderers, or counterfeiters. Even if all of these are crimes, you are entirely in error to jumble up specific crimes without regard to meaning by saying that one is the same crime as the other.
Copyright infringement is different from theft, that is all there is too it. It is not a defense of copyright infringement or a "justification" to point out this fact. A good comparison would be if liars keep saying OJ Simpson was an arsonist (just like the liars who call copyright infringment "theft" or "stealing"). I'd be perfectly correct in pointing out that OJ was a murderer, not an arsonist (even if the liars say that pointing out this fact of distinction of crimes was a justification for what OJ did).
The accusations that fly at those who merely point out the facts of meanings of different words are disingenous and have no logic. It is just like this sort of conversation: Person A says that Stalin killed 100,000 Tibetans. Person B corrects person A, saying that it was Mao who ordered this instead. Person A then accuses Person B of trying to make Stalin look good. Yes, calling someone a thief when they don't steal is bad, even if the supposed thief did something else wrong instead.
"It's sort of like arguing over whether to call a murder a "murder" or "taking a life". "
That's a bad example. Both mean pretty much the same crime, while copyright infringement and theft are two different crimes. A better example would be arguing over whether to call a murder a "rape": whether or not to use a word that just does not apply at all to describe a situation. Also, the common logic by the liars who call copyright infringement "theft" by claiming "Well, it is as BAD as theft!" are really mangling words.
"Way to toe the party line there buddy, but when you take something for free knowing full well..."
See what you wrote: "when you take". Taking does not happen in p2p. A duplicate is created instead.
"Feel free to explain how my argument is false.
Easy. You are using words without regards to meaning.
" if this lame rationalization helps you sleep at night"
Inevitably, someone like you will make this sort of great leap: when someone points out the fact that copyright infringement is not theft, someone else will get all confused and think that this fact means that copyright infringement is OK. I've got some news for you: there are plenty of things that are not theft that are crimes and are not OK. You seem to be operating on the assumption that if it is not theft, it is not wrong.
"If you download a song for free knowing you ought to pay for it, how is it not theft?"
Because it does not meet the definition of the word "theft".
"I've used this example before, but I'll use it again here. Go into a massage parlor and get a massage and then walk out without paying the bill. No "taking" has occurred"
I wonder why you used it before, because it does not fit at all! In your example you have taken up an amount of the masseur's time. This is not the case for p2p music: the artist's time has already been spent. Let's say he spent 4 days recording a song. This time is the same regardless of everyone buying 10 or 100,000 CDs, or whether or not 0 p2p copies are made or 13,000,000 copies are made.
I do not doubt they are. CD's are shoplifted from Wal-Mart, and music stores are broken into and robbed. However, this discussion item (guess what?) has nothing to do with theft. As you ponder that fact, I challenge you to find one Slashdot discussion item that actually discusses music theft. After you find none, look in Google for an news item involving theft of music.
"What the p2p theives just don't get..."
p2p thieves is an oxymoron. You just can't steal using p2p. You can infringe copyright, etc: but you apparently do not understand how p2p technology works. Everything it does involves duplication of files, not taking. You can't have theft if you don't have taking.
"since the majority of people who are aware of this problem seem to be comprised of either theives...by stealing music...wanting to steal things."
This topic involves copyright infringment, and does not involve theft or stealing. It's important to get the distinctions straight. None of the RIAA actions in the discussion "Reign of Terror" have been directed at thieves, nor are they related to stealing, so this should be mentioned.
"You fail to understand the enemy, and that is why you will lose"
You entirely missed the boat on what the issue is.
You'll see it, day after day. At Star Labs, everyone with proper clearance peers into the little iris-recognizing window and presses their thumb on the panel. They are them permitted into the building. Sitting on a bench near the entrance you'll find Edward Scissorhands and Scott "Cyclops" Summers, forlornly begging everyone who walks by and enters the building to for once, break security protocol and just let them in!
"Even when I was a little kid I had a low-tech method for copying fingerprints - I noticed that partially cooled hot glue was not that painful to stick my thumb into"
I know that there is a certain related painful and sticky situation you also got into that you'd rather not tell anyone about as well.
Always carry a pocketfull of eyeballs and thumbs...and realize, at one point, those lil' orbs are going to accidentally fall out and you are going to be chasing those slipper rolling suckers all over the floor.
It also shows that we might be moving into a situation where we'll get an obligatory impeachment of a President any time the opposing party has a strong enough majority in Congress.
"we're talking active, deployable, useful military weapons and not the past-due-date stuff"
So was I. The 500 that have been found in recent years still have potent chemical weapon contents: quite deadly. The rocket part of the shell is "past due", but each of these 500 shells was active and deployable by delivery through other means than launching, or launching on a new delivery system. To accept the idea that they are "past due", we have to use a silly and contrived definition of WMD that includes "if it can't be launched on a missile or artilery shell, it is not a WMD". One of these 500 shells is enough to prove "no WMD!" a lie. 500 is more than enough. That is certain. What is less certain (but very probable) is the idea that, if Saddam were kept in power and the ineffective Blix "inspect only when Saddam sanitizes the place" inspection regime were still in place, these would have NEVER been found.
And who provided him these weapons? Not the US, but a Dutch man named Frans van Anraat. You can replace the "There were no WMD in Iraq; Bush lied!" claim with your "There are plenty of WMD, but they are hard to launch".... but that is quite a retreat. Now as for Rush and Kool-aid: Rush (with or without Geddy Lee) did not find these WMD. If you think that the contents of the warheads are harmless, I invite you to drink. Just like Kool-Aid, eh?
"Even though we now know that France was right to be skeptical"
The hundreds of undocumented (i.e. hidden by Saddam's regime) potent WMD warheads found in Iraq in recent years shows that France's lie about them not existing is all the more shameful.
There are always sites like www.aintitcool.com that prove that some places are willing to give employment opportunities for the blind by letting them engage in web site design.
Only this time, the robots will have faces painted on the back of their heads, so (at least for a time) the opposing army will be tricked into believing that the French bot (rhymes with "boh") army is actually advancing.
"See, the fun fact of every discussion on this topic, the Israeli apologist will, at some time, imply that Palestians invaded Israel"
A concerted infiltration of soldiers into another country to engage in military offensives and do the typical military things (kill people, break things, take prisoners) counts as an invasion to me, and fits with any reasonable definition of the word. This invasion has involved far more than what you called "a few dozen soldiers" and the numerous buildings and busses blown up and/or attacked is far more than a "single building". Just because it does not look like Omaha Beach does not mean it is not an invasion. Just because it doesn't have orderly ranks of Redcoats marching over the hill does not mean it is not an invasion. In an era of guerrilla warfare invasions can look like this.
"Before, I might add, any peace accords, while the PLO was still controlled by Egypt. Blaming that on modern Palestine is insane"
Not when you realize that insertion into Israel and attacks by Palestinian government military branches such as Hamas and Al-Aksa Martyr's Brigade, engaging in typical invasion activities, has been fairly constant into the "modern" era.
"To 'invade' somewhere, you must attempt to hold territory"
I am not aware of this specific part of the definition of "invade". Besides, the ultimate goal of the armies is to conquer and hold territory. It is just that they are too ineffective, and the defense forces too strong, to let this happen.
"If so, the US invaded Italy a year or so ago"
I am not aware of this incident. News to me. However, I can make some guesses and assumptions and ask some important questions to distinguish it from real invasions such as Palestinian government vs Israel: (1) Was this US invasion of Italy part of a long ongoing effort involving many such incidents? (2) Did this US invasion of Italy involve the US military operating at its full capacity as part of a military campaign directed from the top levels of government? (3) Was this US invasion of Italy part and parcel of an intended and stated and concerted US effort to conquer Italy, even if it didn't do much to accomplish this goal?
"Erm, the 'legitimate reasons' for having a military presense in Palestine are, to this day, given as 'to protect Israeli settlers'"
The aggression by the neighboring Arab states (with the participation and encouragement of Palestinian political leaders) which forced Israel to occupy the land out of defensive necessity happened before the conquer-and-settle style "settlements". It was a lot like what is going on on Gaza right now: where the attacks from Hamas have forced Israel to move back into the place, and there is a good chance now that Israel soldiers will again have a strong presence in Gaza... with no settlements to defend. Additionally, Israel also occupied south Lebanon for a long time for this same reason (and with no settlements there either).
The "settlements" issue is more complicated as well. Some of these settlements are from Jewish families that have lived there for centuries. Some sprang up because of Jewish immigrants in the early "Zionist" era actually buying the land from the Arabs living there legitimately and then building houses. Yet, the Palestinian demands for getting rid of settlements include kicking these Jews out as well (instead of just the ones that are in the ones we tend to think of: 15-year old ugly subdivisions in West Bank Palestinian territory filled with Jews fresh from Russia). It is actually a demand for ethnic cleansing. The world seemed upset when Serbia demanded ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslims and Kosovars, but seems willing to overlook that the "reasonable" Palestinian government demands for the Palestinian state include the expulsion and elimination of all Jewish settlements and communities from the territories: the long-timers along with those recent interlopers that I think we both would agree are intruders.
"There is, however, equally likely odds that Hesbollah has slipped their lease"
I would tend to think, but am not certain, that Iran's control and direction of Hesbollah has been strengthened, and that its current offensive was ordered by the Iranian government as some sort of strategy. It would fit in with the renewed belligerence under Iran's new "president", and their stated determination to take care of the Jewish "problem" once and for all.
What the exact strategy is, I know. There seems to be a good chance that Hesbollah and Syria could permanently lose all control in Lebanon, which would not be to the Ayatollahs' interest. Perhaps they are goading players into a big enough conflict to justify direct, strong, high-casualty military action by Iran against Israel (something beyond the pot-shot crappy missiles being lobbed now).
I am more and more sure that Iran is the least rational player in this. Devoting so much of its resources and focus to the destruction of Israel no matter what the risk is not very smart. One can easily imagine how much more peaceful the area would have been had (1) the Shah, who was non-imperialist, remained in power or (2) the ultimate outcome of the Iranian revolution led to an entirely secular democratic regime, as per Abolhassan Bani Sadr (remember him?)... a man who is now a rebel-political type with a death sentence on his head.
"Iran is not a dictatorship"
I used to think otherwise, until someone pointed out to me the fact that the laws in Iran are set up to weed out anyone but a Muslim extremist from running for President, and anyone who wins is subject to the authority of the Ayatollahs who maintain the true legal power (similar to the power of the monarch in a country with an arctive monarchy). Now I know that denying Iran is a dictatorship is a hugely stupid whopper. It's in the message title now for the amusement of all.
"Hamas gained power solely because Israel kept wiping out the existing government."
This is the opposite of true. The Palestinian government at the time of the election had more of a presence than at any time previous in history (in matters of recognition, institutional establishment, and other matters). The main reason observers have given for the Hamas victory is as a reaction to the corruption of the Palestinian government officials being voted out. The voters noted certain things like hundreds of millions in contributions from other countries being drained out to personal Swiss bank accounts.
"Hesbollah went from eight seats to triple that amount in the election of 2005."
So? This is very little change. Before the election? Hesbollah was a powerful force controlling a large part of Lebanon with the approval of the Lebanese government... and no seats in a Parliament that was meaningless anyway in a non-democracy. After? They still control a large part of the country, and have a rather small set of seats.
"I will trivially admit that Hesbollah is trying to stir up trouble in Palestine"
Wha....? I am not aware of Hesbollah doing anything in Palestine! That's mighty big of you to admit something that is probably not happening.
"Israel could solve that problem in a week by staying the hell out of Palestine."
Time and again, in the past, such efforts by Israel have been considered (and used) by their enemies as just one step in victory: one step closer to the goal of wiping out Jews. Retreat from Gaza was only seen by Hamas as a chance to build up for more first-strikes into Israel. Similar with Israel leaving south Lebanon.
"Iran has not threatened to invade Israel."
They have not only threatened to, they have done it.
"and we have exactly as much right to use force against countries that threaten us as Iran has to use against countries that threaten it."
Except the threats from Iran are unjustified, unprovoked, backed up with aggression and atrocities from Iranian military forces... and, guess what? No country has ever threatened Iran really since Saddam's era. The more you try to justify Iran's war against Israel, the more of a fog of antisemitism you produce. Iran simply has no right to object when the countries it attacks (now) and threatens to obliterate (past, present, future) retaliate for the unreleting aggression.
"And if Israel wants to live in peace, why don't they build a fence and do so, instead of continually provoking Palestine?"
This exactly what they did in the Gaza matter. Hamas reacted by launching missiles, digging tunnels, and kidnapping people.
"Ladies and gentlemen, I present what is left of the GOP"
It's funny that you try to create a false partisan division here. Do you want the ample and true documentation from Clinton and other Democratic leaders about the reality of Saddam's WMD and the necessity to deal with the danger? Many Democrats also still stick to principles and facts on the issues (esp. Joe Lieberman). These are the Democrats who think it is a bad idea to give in to terrorists in the hopes that it will damage Bush politically.
"Where 500 non-working shells left over from before the first Gulf War"
How misleading. The shells cannot be launched, but the WMD warhead in each one remains active. There was nothing in the cease-fire agreements that allowed ANY existing WMD or WMD programs. Also, these 500 get added onto other additional prohibited WMD that were discovered AFTER Saddam and his (paid?) liars from Howard Dean to Michael Moore said there were none. Time to face t
Slashdot Mirror
...and someone else has pointed out that the supposedly-misleading rating that the game bore actually allowed for sexual content.
"Rockstar is being fined for misusing the ESRB system, not for producing a game with smut in it."
We both know that it is the smut that drove the whole thing and made the controversy. There'd have been nothing like this if the mislabelling was over something more substantial (such as a label that says Mac Compatible and it won't play on Macs).
" I bet that you would complain if the folks at Mars replaced the peanuts in your Snickers bar with dried cockroach larvae without changing the label"
That's the type of analogy that assumes that the non-"Hot Coffee" content was wonderful and very different from the "Hot Coffee" content. How about an analogy where you buy a candy bar labelled "Loaded with Mouse Feces" and complain because you find a hamster-turd in it?
...when, if someone does not like what is in a game, they simply refuse to play it and move on (no screaming, no lawsuits, no complaints to the government).
" convince ... to get one of her eggs to be fertilized by a neanderthal-sperm!"
I bet you really score with these pick-up lines, don't you?
"Then the clone's start multiplying"
If we refuse to teach them addition, I think we can nip the multiplication problem in the bud. That, and pass a law prohibiting our neanderthal cousins from owning calculators.
...at this point, everything found in biology supports evolution.
"He's just using "copyright infringement" because that sounds somehow less menacing and evil than "theft" even though the end result is ultimately the same for both actions."
No, I'm just using "copyright infringement" because it is wrong to use words that don't apply. I don't care whether or not something is less or more evil in meaning. If you want, you can call copyright infringers "criminals". You will at least be correct, even if you are less precise. However, don't call copyright infringers rapists, arsonists, thieves, murderers, or counterfeiters. Even if all of these are crimes, you are entirely in error to jumble up specific crimes without regard to meaning by saying that one is the same crime as the other.
Copyright infringement is different from theft, that is all there is too it. It is not a defense of copyright infringement or a "justification" to point out this fact. A good comparison would be if liars keep saying OJ Simpson was an arsonist (just like the liars who call copyright infringment "theft" or "stealing"). I'd be perfectly correct in pointing out that OJ was a murderer, not an arsonist (even if the liars say that pointing out this fact of distinction of crimes was a justification for what OJ did).
The accusations that fly at those who merely point out the facts of meanings of different words are disingenous and have no logic. It is just like this sort of conversation: Person A says that Stalin killed 100,000 Tibetans. Person B corrects person A, saying that it was Mao who ordered this instead. Person A then accuses Person B of trying to make Stalin look good. Yes, calling someone a thief when they don't steal is bad, even if the supposed thief did something else wrong instead.
"It's sort of like arguing over whether to call a murder a "murder" or "taking a life". "
That's a bad example. Both mean pretty much the same crime, while copyright infringement and theft are two different crimes. A better example would be arguing over whether to call a murder a "rape": whether or not to use a word that just does not apply at all to describe a situation. Also, the common logic by the liars who call copyright infringement "theft" by claiming "Well, it is as BAD as theft!" are really mangling words.
"Way to toe the party line there buddy, but when you take something for free knowing full well..."
See what you wrote: "when you take". Taking does not happen in p2p. A duplicate is created instead.
"Feel free to explain how my argument is false.
Easy. You are using words without regards to meaning.
" if this lame rationalization helps you sleep at night"
Inevitably, someone like you will make this sort of great leap: when someone points out the fact that copyright infringement is not theft, someone else will get all confused and think that this fact means that copyright infringement is OK. I've got some news for you: there are plenty of things that are not theft that are crimes and are not OK. You seem to be operating on the assumption that if it is not theft, it is not wrong.
"If you download a song for free knowing you ought to pay for it, how is it not theft?"
Because it does not meet the definition of the word "theft".
"I've used this example before, but I'll use it again here. Go into a massage parlor and get a massage and then walk out without paying the bill. No "taking" has occurred"
I wonder why you used it before, because it does not fit at all! In your example you have taken up an amount of the masseur's time. This is not the case for p2p music: the artist's time has already been spent. Let's say he spent 4 days recording a song. This time is the same regardless of everyone buying 10 or 100,000 CDs, or whether or not 0 p2p copies are made or 13,000,000 copies are made.
"people ARE stealing their music"
I do not doubt they are. CD's are shoplifted from Wal-Mart, and music stores are broken into and robbed. However, this discussion item (guess what?) has nothing to do with theft. As you ponder that fact, I challenge you to find one Slashdot discussion item that actually discusses music theft. After you find none, look in Google for an news item involving theft of music.
"What the p2p theives just don't get..."
p2p thieves is an oxymoron. You just can't steal using p2p. You can infringe copyright, etc: but you apparently do not understand how p2p technology works. Everything it does involves duplication of files, not taking. You can't have theft if you don't have taking.
"since the majority of people who are aware of this problem seem to be comprised of either theives...by stealing music...wanting to steal things."
This topic involves copyright infringment, and does not involve theft or stealing. It's important to get the distinctions straight. None of the RIAA actions in the discussion "Reign of Terror" have been directed at thieves, nor are they related to stealing, so this should be mentioned.
"You fail to understand the enemy, and that is why you will lose"
You entirely missed the boat on what the issue is.
You'll see it, day after day. At Star Labs, everyone with proper clearance peers into the little iris-recognizing window and presses their thumb on the panel. They are them permitted into the building. Sitting on a bench near the entrance you'll find Edward Scissorhands and Scott "Cyclops" Summers, forlornly begging everyone who walks by and enters the building to for once, break security protocol and just let them in!
"Even when I was a little kid I had a low-tech method for copying fingerprints - I noticed that partially cooled hot glue was not that painful to stick my thumb into"
I know that there is a certain related painful and sticky situation you also got into that you'd rather not tell anyone about as well.
Always carry a pocketfull of eyeballs and thumbs...and realize, at one point, those lil' orbs are going to accidentally fall out and you are going to be chasing those slipper rolling suckers all over the floor.
It also shows that we might be moving into a situation where we'll get an obligatory impeachment of a President any time the opposing party has a strong enough majority in Congress.
"we're talking active, deployable, useful military weapons and not the past-due-date stuff"
So was I. The 500 that have been found in recent years still have potent chemical weapon contents: quite deadly. The rocket part of the shell is "past due", but each of these 500 shells was active and deployable by delivery through other means than launching, or launching on a new delivery system. To accept the idea that they are "past due", we have to use a silly and contrived definition of WMD that includes "if it can't be launched on a missile or artilery shell, it is not a WMD". One of these 500 shells is enough to prove "no WMD!" a lie. 500 is more than enough. That is certain. What is less certain (but very probable) is the idea that, if Saddam were kept in power and the ineffective Blix "inspect only when Saddam sanitizes the place" inspection regime were still in place, these would have NEVER been found.
And who provided him these weapons? Not the US, but a Dutch man named Frans van Anraat. You can replace the "There were no WMD in Iraq; Bush lied!" claim with your "There are plenty of WMD, but they are hard to launch".... but that is quite a retreat. Now as for Rush and Kool-aid: Rush (with or without Geddy Lee) did not find these WMD. If you think that the contents of the warheads are harmless, I invite you to drink. Just like Kool-Aid, eh?
"Even though we now know that France was right to be skeptical"
The hundreds of undocumented (i.e. hidden by Saddam's regime) potent WMD warheads found in Iraq in recent years shows that France's lie about them not existing is all the more shameful.
There are always sites like www.aintitcool.com that prove that some places are willing to give employment opportunities for the blind by letting them engage in web site design.
Whenever Gates pushes for open source anything, it is always wise to consider it in the light of historic precedent:
"Joshua Pushes for Jericho to have Open Wall Policy"
Greeks Push for Trojan "Open Gate" Policy.
just keep your finger in the dyke.
Only this time, the robots will have faces painted on the back of their heads, so (at least for a time) the opposing army will be tricked into believing that the French bot (rhymes with "boh") army is actually advancing.
"See, the fun fact of every discussion on this topic, the Israeli apologist will, at some time, imply that Palestians invaded Israel"
A concerted infiltration of soldiers into another country to engage in military offensives and do the typical military things (kill people, break things, take prisoners) counts as an invasion to me, and fits with any reasonable definition of the word. This invasion has involved far more than what you called "a few dozen soldiers" and the numerous buildings and busses blown up and/or attacked is far more than a "single building". Just because it does not look like Omaha Beach does not mean it is not an invasion. Just because it doesn't have orderly ranks of Redcoats marching over the hill does not mean it is not an invasion. In an era of guerrilla warfare invasions can look like this.
"Before, I might add, any peace accords, while the PLO was still controlled by Egypt. Blaming that on modern Palestine is insane"
Not when you realize that insertion into Israel and attacks by Palestinian government military branches such as Hamas and Al-Aksa Martyr's Brigade, engaging in typical invasion activities, has been fairly constant into the "modern" era.
"To 'invade' somewhere, you must attempt to hold territory"
I am not aware of this specific part of the definition of "invade". Besides, the ultimate goal of the armies is to conquer and hold territory. It is just that they are too ineffective, and the defense forces too strong, to let this happen.
"If so, the US invaded Italy a year or so ago"
I am not aware of this incident. News to me. However, I can make some guesses and assumptions and ask some important questions to distinguish it from real invasions such as Palestinian government vs Israel: (1) Was this US invasion of Italy part of a long ongoing effort involving many such incidents? (2) Did this US invasion of Italy involve the US military operating at its full capacity as part of a military campaign directed from the top levels of government? (3) Was this US invasion of Italy part and parcel of an intended and stated and concerted US effort to conquer Italy, even if it didn't do much to accomplish this goal?
"Erm, the 'legitimate reasons' for having a military presense in Palestine are, to this day, given as 'to protect Israeli settlers'"
The aggression by the neighboring Arab states (with the participation and encouragement of Palestinian political leaders) which forced Israel to occupy the land out of defensive necessity happened before the conquer-and-settle style "settlements". It was a lot like what is going on on Gaza right now: where the attacks from Hamas have forced Israel to move back into the place, and there is a good chance now that Israel soldiers will again have a strong presence in Gaza... with no settlements to defend. Additionally, Israel also occupied south Lebanon for a long time for this same reason (and with no settlements there either).
The "settlements" issue is more complicated as well. Some of these settlements are from Jewish families that have lived there for centuries. Some sprang up because of Jewish immigrants in the early "Zionist" era actually buying the land from the Arabs living there legitimately and then building houses. Yet, the Palestinian demands for getting rid of settlements include kicking these Jews out as well (instead of just the ones that are in the ones we tend to think of: 15-year old ugly subdivisions in West Bank Palestinian territory filled with Jews fresh from Russia). It is actually a demand for ethnic cleansing. The world seemed upset when Serbia demanded ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslims and Kosovars, but seems willing to overlook that the "reasonable" Palestinian government demands for the Palestinian state include the expulsion and elimination of all Jewish settlements and communities from the territories: the long-timers along with those recent interlopers that I think we both would agree are intruders.
"There is, however, equally likely odds that Hesbollah has slipped their lease"
I would tend to think, but am not certain, that Iran's control and direction of Hesbollah has been strengthened, and that its current offensive was ordered by the Iranian government as some sort of strategy. It would fit in with the renewed belligerence under Iran's new "president", and their stated determination to take care of the Jewish "problem" once and for all. What the exact strategy is, I know. There seems to be a good chance that Hesbollah and Syria could permanently lose all control in Lebanon, which would not be to the Ayatollahs' interest. Perhaps they are goading players into a big enough conflict to justify direct, strong, high-casualty military action by Iran against Israel (something beyond the pot-shot crappy missiles being lobbed now).
I am more and more sure that Iran is the least rational player in this. Devoting so much of its resources and focus to the destruction of Israel no matter what the risk is not very smart. One can easily imagine how much more peaceful the area would have been had (1) the Shah, who was non-imperialist, remained in power or (2) the ultimate outcome of the Iranian revolution led to an entirely secular democratic regime, as per Abolhassan Bani Sadr (remember him?)... a man who is now a rebel-political type with a death sentence on his head.
"Iran is not a dictatorship" I used to think otherwise, until someone pointed out to me the fact that the laws in Iran are set up to weed out anyone but a Muslim extremist from running for President, and anyone who wins is subject to the authority of the Ayatollahs who maintain the true legal power (similar to the power of the monarch in a country with an arctive monarchy). Now I know that denying Iran is a dictatorship is a hugely stupid whopper. It's in the message title now for the amusement of all. "Hamas gained power solely because Israel kept wiping out the existing government." This is the opposite of true. The Palestinian government at the time of the election had more of a presence than at any time previous in history (in matters of recognition, institutional establishment, and other matters). The main reason observers have given for the Hamas victory is as a reaction to the corruption of the Palestinian government officials being voted out. The voters noted certain things like hundreds of millions in contributions from other countries being drained out to personal Swiss bank accounts. "Hesbollah went from eight seats to triple that amount in the election of 2005." So? This is very little change. Before the election? Hesbollah was a powerful force controlling a large part of Lebanon with the approval of the Lebanese government... and no seats in a Parliament that was meaningless anyway in a non-democracy. After? They still control a large part of the country, and have a rather small set of seats. "I will trivially admit that Hesbollah is trying to stir up trouble in Palestine" Wha....? I am not aware of Hesbollah doing anything in Palestine! That's mighty big of you to admit something that is probably not happening. "Israel could solve that problem in a week by staying the hell out of Palestine." Time and again, in the past, such efforts by Israel have been considered (and used) by their enemies as just one step in victory: one step closer to the goal of wiping out Jews. Retreat from Gaza was only seen by Hamas as a chance to build up for more first-strikes into Israel. Similar with Israel leaving south Lebanon. "Iran has not threatened to invade Israel." They have not only threatened to, they have done it. "and we have exactly as much right to use force against countries that threaten us as Iran has to use against countries that threaten it." Except the threats from Iran are unjustified, unprovoked, backed up with aggression and atrocities from Iranian military forces... and, guess what? No country has ever threatened Iran really since Saddam's era. The more you try to justify Iran's war against Israel, the more of a fog of antisemitism you produce. Iran simply has no right to object when the countries it attacks (now) and threatens to obliterate (past, present, future) retaliate for the unreleting aggression. "And if Israel wants to live in peace, why don't they build a fence and do so, instead of continually provoking Palestine?" This exactly what they did in the Gaza matter. Hamas reacted by launching missiles, digging tunnels, and kidnapping people. "Ladies and gentlemen, I present what is left of the GOP" It's funny that you try to create a false partisan division here. Do you want the ample and true documentation from Clinton and other Democratic leaders about the reality of Saddam's WMD and the necessity to deal with the danger? Many Democrats also still stick to principles and facts on the issues (esp. Joe Lieberman). These are the Democrats who think it is a bad idea to give in to terrorists in the hopes that it will damage Bush politically. "Where 500 non-working shells left over from before the first Gulf War" How misleading. The shells cannot be launched, but the WMD warhead in each one remains active. There was nothing in the cease-fire agreements that allowed ANY existing WMD or WMD programs. Also, these 500 get added onto other additional prohibited WMD that were discovered AFTER Saddam and his (paid?) liars from Howard Dean to Michael Moore said there were none. Time to face t
Why not the iSticky Pad? Or the Sticky Pad 360? Or the Sticky Pad 24/7?