-
Posts
975 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Everything posted by ~Di
-
Bush changes justification for invasion of Iraq...
~Di replied to Judge Hades's topic in Way Off-Topic
Just get home safely and save the propaganda. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That was rude and uncalled for, Colrom. -
People will believe, and justify that belief, in whichever figures most suit their own political bias, in my view. Those who hate the Iraq war will leap upon the larger figure as a way to demonstrate why their disapproval of the war is righteous. Those who support the Iraq war will probably dismiss the larger figure, since it would lend credence to those who think the war is a really bad thing. I think the war is a really bad thing. That said, I really think this figure is grossly exaggerated. I'm sure everyone would agree that using 39 households in the Sunni section of Baghdad would garner ten times the deaths that using 39 households down in the Shia stronghold of Basra, or up in the Kurdish area would garner. Color me suspicious, but this seems to me to be a bit of a propaganda tool by the anti-war group... of which I am one, but still... According to what I read on another forum, for this figure to be correct 722 people would have to have died PER DAY for the past 2.5 years. Do y'all really think the global media would have missed that? I'm more inclined to believe the IBC page because it includes all proven deaths, both combatants and non-combatants, that have died war-related deaths and supports those deaths with detail... how, why, when, where and in many cases, who.
-
Hateful trash? I see. Pointing out that repeatedly rioting, burning and killing in the name of one's religion is a bad, bad thing... and making excuses for those who are rioting, burning and killing in the name of one's religion is also a bad thing is now hateful trash. Sure, you can go back through the decades and centuries and find a group of Jews or Christians, Americans or Israelis or Europeans who have done bad things in the name of their religion/country... so is that how you shut up someone commenting on the way things are today, by basically saying "others have done it too, so criticizing what's being done by Muslims is hateful trash?" I honestly do not recall global riots in a dozen countries around the globe because of cartoons or a pope's reference to something said centuries ago happening in the past few years amongst the Jewish or Christian community. There aren't too many Christian churchs or Jewish synagogs that preach the destruction of the Muslim community and plans to take over the earch in the name of their god... but there are one hell of a lot of extremists Islamist mosques and madrasseh's that preach that very thing. Is it a minority of Muslims? Yes, I believe so... but there are over 1.3 billion Muslims in the world today, and millions of them are extremists. We don't currently have millions of Christians and Jews blowing folks up on a near-daily basis and plotting to take over the world. By the way, I'm neither Christian or Jewish. Please get off your self-righteous high horse. Simply pointing out the obvious that can be read in global headlines and expressing disapproval that people who preach death and destruction of those who do not believe as they are, extremists that they may be, is not hateful trash, sir. It is an unpleasant reality.
-
Yes, I think the world should make rude drawings and insulting cartoons about Americans in general, Bush in particular, toss in a few Jesus and Christian insults, then entire countries should hold contests to see how vile they can be in portraying Israelis... oh wait, that's already been done. In fact, it's all already been done, and is basically being done on an almost daily basis around the world, from ridiculing cartoons and comedy skits to truly hateful commentaries and mean-spirited movies, and everything in between. Nobody cares about pissing off America, Israel, Christians, politicians of every hue, Europeans, hell, nobody much cares about pissing off anyone on the planet... except Muslims. They and they alone have the apparent inalienable right to not be pissed off. Well, it pisses me off no end that while much of the globe feels quite justified in hurling insults and ridicule rather routinely those listed above, among others, and expects all those folks to merely suck up the insult as the "mature" thing to do. Meanwhile, Muslims manage to riot, burn and even kill when they feel insulted, but that's okay because people should have known better than to violate their Islamic sensitivities? I don't think so. Another example of global double standards, in my opinion... and no, I don't buy the "held to a higher standard because we are better than them" rationale, which is nothing more than a platitude to justify why it's supposedly okay to expect more from one group of people that we expect from another group.
-
As a parent, I can tell you that two things will assure you will raise a selfish, tantrum-throwing brat: The first is making threats you never enforce; the second is capitulating to blackmail, which is exactly what "you do what I want or I'll shoot off a nuke" is, folks. The USA (and in fact the whole freaking world) is guilty of the first when dealing with North Korea. If the USA now gives in to NK's threat and does what it wants (i.e., one-on-one talks and eliminating sanctions), then the threats will continue and escalate. Blackmailers who keep getting what they want continue using extortion because it works. So I sincerely hope that : First, Bush shuts has fat face with the "unacceptable" and "will not be tolerated" crap until he's ready to shove one up North Korea's personal DMZ; and second, that he never gives in to Kim's blackmail, and continues to refuse to meet one-on-one with NK so long as NK uses extortion to force its will.
-
I don't think anyone is seriously concerned about NK attacking the US mainland. I think the concern is that NK will attack South Korea (along with the 37,000 American troops stationed there) or Japan. Since both countries are our allies, we'd be sucked into a shooting war pretty quickly. Oh come on. North Korea has broken every agreement it has ever made. We are in this situation now because North Korea broke its word. Even Dubbya has more brains that to ever believe anything NK says. I disagree. I think he's nuttier than a sack of squirrels. If Kim drops a nuke on Seoul or flattens the place with a barrage of conventional weapons, the US will indeed bomb the squat out of NK. It will have no other choice. Ignoring such an action is an engraved invitation for any country to simply murder our soldiers and bomb our allies at will, because we are too weak or cowardly to respond. I hope the situation doesn't escate either. I hope your family, and you, will stay safe.
-
I actually don't believe North Korea has the capacity to put a nuke on a missle and successfully launch it where they intend for it to go. Eventually they will figure out how to do that, but unless they've purchased the technology from Pakistan in the past couple of years, I don't believe they have the capacity to do what Kim is threatening to do. If he tries, he's got a fair chance of blowing himself all to hell, which wouldn't break my heart. Of course, he'd take a few hundred thousand of his people with him... presuming there are that many left who haven't starved to death under his benign leadership. That isn't the point. Just the threat alone is enough that Japan is changing its constitution and getting ready to make its own nukes; South Korea now wants nuclear deterrents too. China is pissed beyond belief and Bush... BUSH... is in the Whitehouse with his own twitchy finger on the trigger. Nuke or no nuke, it's widely accepted that North Korea has enough conventional weaponry trained on the south to turn Seoul into a smoking crater in hours. And although Kim probably can't launch a nuke on a missle, he can certainly drop one out of an airplane. Or he can try. I imagine the USA would blow it out of the sky before the tail fin crossed the DMZ. This is still a truly scary and sucky situation, because Kim is simply not a rational human being.
-
Ok, thanks for the explanation. I understand what you are saying. Apparently Kim is not through being self-destructive. He is now saying that he considers the fact that the USA will not have one-on-one talks with Korea to be a declaration of war, and he is threatening to shoot off a nuclear missle. No, I am not making this up. Despite the fact that most experts suggest the only means he has to deliver a nuclear weapon... if indeed he has one that actually works... is via catapult, the words and threats alone are enough to give him all the attention he craves from the rest of the world... and probably some attention he doesn't crave. Terribly dangerous game that madman is playing. Terribly dangerous. My nephew is stationed in Korea at the DMZ. I'm really scared spitless about what's going on.
-
YOU'RE ALIVE!!!! (w00t) (Sorry for posting off topic) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> LOL!!! Heya, sweetie! Good to see you.
-
That is a rational thought. Kim, however, is not rational. He has just pissed off his only ally, China, which has issued a very stern, very bleak condemnation of this test. Kim quite obviously believes that having a nuke will give him leverage to blackmail the world into giving him more money and other freebies. Excuse me, but after watching Bush's move on Iraq I am convinced he cares more about his own reputation than he does the civilian population of any country except his own. His public bluster has been pretty clear. He's done everything but come out and say, "Test nukes and we'll shove so many bombs up your rear that you'll burp flame for a month"... and yet, that is the only thing he can do. Sanctions are out because we already have sanctions imposed on NK... sanctions the NK want lifted. China said a few days ago that the only way NK would stop the test is if sanctions were lifted. We didn't lift sanctions, and the test was done. So, what happens when they promise to nuke Seoul or Tokyo? Anyway, it's been rumored that NK could cause 10 million casulaties in the south with his conventional weapons alone, so I have no idea what Bush is going to do or what Kim will do. But it does not bode well for anyone in that part of the world. I see. You might wish to explain exactly what you found so enjoyably hilarious about North Korea's nuclear test. I found the post to be inappropriate and rather offensive because I apparently did not understand the cause of your mirth.
-
NK may not have the means to stick a nuke on a missle, but they sure can shove one in the back of a truck, plop one on a boat, or drop one out of an airplane. And in a few years, he probably will have the ability to deliver nukes via missle. My fear is what Bush will do now. After all, he's already going on record saying he 'won't tolerate' this. So now he has to show the world what he does when he 'won't tolerate' stuff or end up looking as weak Reagan after pulling our peacekeepers out of Bierut. Since we already have serious sanctions on NK, our options for publicly spanking them are pretty thin. And btw, Hildegard, I don't think this is funny. It's not Americans that will end up vaporized here, after all, so you may wish to rethink your joy.
-
I'm sorry, I don't quite understand the above statement. Why would NK bomb itself? And although I'm certain NK would love to bomb Washington, they don't even have a working missle that can reach the west coast, let along D.C. ... so what is it Americans should not be so sure about?? China?? I'm sorry, but there isn't a chance in hades even a madman like Kim Jung Il would attack China. What on earth would make you think he would? China is NK's closest... and probably only... ally.
-
I'm not sure China still thinks they can control NK... unless they are lying to the world about having told NK not to test missles a few months ago, at which time NK promptly shot a half dozen missles, giving an unmistakeable diplomatic finger to China... and the rest of the world too. Yes, I think it's more than possible NK would use nukes if it believed China would not retaliate (and face it, I don't think anyone seriously believes China would do more than make a few public speeches of condemnation). The question is, where would NK send those nukes? NK could wipe out 10 million people in SK in a single hour with conventional weapons alone, then take over the south without having to worry about irradiated lands. So if NK uses a nuke, it will be against either Japan or, if they ever get their long-range missle to work, against the west coast of the USA. Now, if the USA retaliated in kind, turning NK into green glass, that would piss off China to no end since the wind blows in their direction, would also piss off South Korea, Japan, and every other country over which the wind would carry those delightful glowing particles, which would pretty much be the official signal of WW3. So NK could gamble that the USA would not retaliate with nukes of their own, and presume it could absorb any conventional weaponry while it easily over ran the rich south, and "reunified" the country under Il's benign rule. It's a scenario and a gamble that I, frankly, can see a madman like Jung Il taking eventually. He may not, of course... but it wouldn't surprise me if he did. Still, I'm not going to lose sleep worrying over it. And I live on the west coast of the USA.
-
I desperately want Gothic 3. My computer cannot handle Oblivion, though (I bought Oblivion because my husband promised me a video card upgrade... but Oblivion is still sitting on my desk in it's shipping container, because I haven't the heart to open it when I know I can't play it). Looks like my gaming days are definitely over until I can manage to get a better computer. *cries*
-
1)9 2)12 3)6 4)8 5)1 6)4 7)2 8)3
-
I'm sorry, but without a citable source I do not know who is making this point or even if the point is valid, so I'm certainly not going to use it in my own studies or work. Others can with my blessing, I suppose, but I certainly wouldn't. I would make my own points based upon my own research into citable, reliable sources. *shrug*
-
I'm probably not understanding you properly... but a textbook is in print; it has been edited and reviewed by educators, and the facts therein cannot be changed on a whim by every person who reads the book. I see no corrolation whatsoever between using the information in a textbook and using information that can be accessed and changed by everyone with an internet connection. Am I missing something here?
-
You can for the most part, as any self-respecting wiki page that would like to be taken seriously should have references. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The sources offered, if sources are offered, may indeed contain accurate and useful information. However, the Wiki articles themselves do not, in my opinion. I have also used Wiki to drum up a handy list of references. I do not, however, use the information in Wiki itself since it is untrustworthy unless every statement and fact is diligently researched via the sources... and that being the case, it is the sources I would be trusting, not Wiki. Edit: Although I don't know what is or is not allowed in high school or college research material nowadays (I'd be pretty stunned if unsourced Wiki articles were allowed in our educational system, but sranger things have happened); however, if I tried to support facts in my books via Wikipedia, my editor (when she finished laughing) would certainly let me know that if I couldn't come up with a verifiable and accurate source, then the fact in question would be edited out of my manuscript.
-
If one cannot discern between information that is correct and information that is not correct, then referencing the site to find out something one does not already know is useless. That's kind of obvious, I would think.
-
Anyone can change anything on the site. Anyone. I argued with someone about a specific figure, since I had CNN and BBC sources that give one figure, and this person had inflated the figure to enhance her political position. I challenged her to prove it. A day later, she came back with a Wiki link that gave her exact figure. Two days later that figure was different. I went in and edited the figure myself, thus proving (at least to myself) that every piece of info on Wiki is suspect, because it simply cannot be sourced. *shrug* I'm not making this stuff up. If "facts" cannot be proven or sourced, then they are as unreliable as gossip, rumor and hearsay, in my view. And that makes it utterly useless.
-
The thing is that anyone... and I mean anyone... with an internet connection can edit anything on Wikipedia. That makes the information contained therein to be less than useless, since there is no way to know who put it there, or who might have changed it. At least with a regular enclyclopedia, once it's in print it can't be rewritten by any idiot with an axe to grind. So I voted "failed experiment".
-
The hot water heater broke last week. A week of cold showers and boiling water to hand-wash dishes. The hot water heater broke because the filter my husby put on the water line clogged, causing the water heater to explode when the dishwashing timer clicked on (at 2 am). The filter clogged because our well water looks like pond scum. Our well water looks like pond scum, because our pond leaks, turning the front acreage into a marsh and contaminating our well. It will cost $2000 to replace the special-sized propane water heater. It will cost $5000 to try to repack the well to keep out the pond seepage. It will cost $20000 to drain the pond and line it with concrete. Rural living sucks. That is all.
-
... "culprits cannot be punished...?" That's odd. I could have sworn that the "culprits" of any criminal act, soldiers or not, have been hauled in front of a court. There have been millions of American soldiers stationed around the world over the past 60 years. To dwell upon the minute percentage who have committed crimes while in uniform... and to pretend that those crimes were ignored... is nothing more than propagandized hate speech, in my view. Personally I dispise Bush, dispise his personal war in Iraq and dispise just about everything he's done in office. However, the spouting of basic "America is evil" pap has been the faddish thing to do since long before Bush was in office. It's just gotten to the point of being ridiculous. If any other reference... black, muslim, European, whatever, was substituted for the word America in these hateful diatribes, folks would be outraged by the bigotry. But as long as it's only America and Americans being pilloried, folks are okay with it. Bah.
-
The victimes of these crimes were not just murdered, they were absolutely slaughtered. It was the work of sadistic, homicidal maniacs who, in my opinon, should never freely walk the streets of society again. So I am not surprised that she was denied parole. I'd have been surprised if she'd been granted parole. Surprised, and very annoyed.