The USA went to war against Nazi Germany, which was arguably no "specific threat" at the time, to the USA. Also, I'm not sure what perceptions were wrong, other than, perhaps, the extent of development of Iraqi WMD's which, as I have stated, were a greatly significant concern, but far from being the only cause for the invasion.
The "containment" was crumbling. "Sanctions" against against Iraq were widely unpopular because of allegations that they were resulting in sick and starving Iraqi children, with help for the "unpopularity" being enhanced by corruption of the "Oil for Food Program" (by which, Saddam was permitted to sell oil in order to acquire money, so as to have been able to feed and treat such children), such that he instead used a considerable amount of the money to pursue weapons development and build palaces and, especially, to bribe international political officials to disregard and advocate/vote for eliminating the sanctions, entirely. It seems to have been likely that, within a year or two, there would have been no more "containment" (which would, anyway, have been expensive and labor-intensive [and dangerous, to pilots and perhaps others] to maintain for the rest of his life, and his sons lives, and whoever might succeed them).
I very much doubt that.
It is not practicable for America to pursue, militarily, "a serious mission to rid the world of tyranny." Instead, I am inclined to regard the benefits to the Iraqi people, of eliminating their brutally despotic ruler, as but one of the several reasons that it was desirable to eliminate Saddam Hussein, and perhaps able to be regarded simply as a lucky coincidence, for them.
Well, I can certainly understand your reluctance to enter into a waging of warfare, and I respect your freedom to do what you think is best for you. I'm simply grateful that some of your guys helped our guys.
I was referring, particularly, to the British soldiers.
Well, you should have been able to recognize that a White House spokesman would not likely regard you as competent to argue about what the White House thinks.
Actually, my opinion is that the invasion of Iraq was reasonable under the circumstances - which included:
1) The contemporaneous threat of terrorism against the USA, and Saddam Hussein's Iraq's significance wrt being a potential or actual state supporter of such terrorism
2) Saddam's persistent violations of Gulf War ceasefire agreements - the promised consequence of which, was the resumption of the war and his likely removal from power
3) His continuing threat to his own citizens
- and that (his) removal would have been an inevitable necessity, eventually, inasmuch as:
1) He was a continuing nuisance wrt "containing" him, since he was:
a) Shooting at patrolling aircraft
b) Bribing foreign and, apparently, UN officials, in order to obtain international support for eliminating the sanctions that were designed to "contain" him
c) Pursuing further acquisition of more dangerous weaponry, while having demonstrated an inclination to aggression and having reportedly stated ambitions to be the prominent manifestation of Arab leadership, such as had been historically exemplified by Nebuchadnezzer and Saladin
2) When, eventually, he would have died, he was almost certainly to be succeeded as ruler over the Iraqi people, by one or both of his sons, who were at least as horrifically cruel and arrogant, as himself
I am not sure of your historical reference; I can only surmise that you are referring to IRA terrorism, generally. Anyway, I shall not presume what I would have regarded as appropriate to circumstances of which I know so little.
Indeed, I am quite ignorant of why the British pursued their policies. I know only the fact that Tony Blair, and several of his countrymen, actively supported the USA in its Iraqi policy. For that (and furthermore, for the persistently supportive and cooperative alliance between the USA and UK, almost since the founding of our nation), I am grateful.
Wow. Cool. It's a good thing, too; otherwise, Saddam might have tried to use it to bribe people, and stuff.
Even cooler; that way, nobody would get killed, and stuff.
Actually, I think that what remains of the insurgency, is mostly Mahdi Army, helped with some Iranian supplies. And btw, it's not technically a "haven," if one is liable to get killed, there, by American and Iraqi soldiers.
It includes various vaguely-defined stuff such as what would enable somebody to maintain a despotic government and brutalize the citizens (if there were such a person, which I'm not saying that there was...)
Ooooh! Philosophy! And with "faith" excluded. Hmm...that's a tough one. Well, for now, I'm gonna go with: no. Did I get it right? Huh? Did I?
You continue to miss the point. Saddam Hussein was not removed from power because of an expectation that his military forces would attack the USA; he was removed from power because he had control of Iraq's resources (money, weapons, land for sanctuary, various intelligence and technological capabilities and training facilities) that he would likely provide for the use of international terrorists, since he hated the USA and had demonstrated support for terrorism (as if his violations of the Gulf War ceasefire agreements were not enough cause for removal, already).
This is why it is incorrect for so many to say: the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and fighting terrorism (since Saddam wasn't, apparently, himself a terrorist). The point is that he had resources that would make actual terrorists more capable and therefore more dangerous, and there was good reason to expect that he would cooperate with them, since having the same motivation and goal (hatred for the USA, destruction of it), and good reason for urgent concern about that, since the 9/11 event had awoken the American government to the fact that it was involved in a serious war against such terrorists.
And it seems, to me, to be incredibly naive that you would imagine that Saddam Hussein would have "nothing to do with Al Quaeda" (or other terrorists - Al Quaeda does not represent the totality of terrorist enemies of the USA, anyway; there have been various terrorist attacks against the USA for more than 30 years). Do you imagine that two entities with a common motivation and goal would refuse to cooperate with each other, because having different reasons for their motivations, because having a difference of religious opinion? Have you never heard "politics makes strange bedfellows," or "the enemy of my enemy, is my friend" (popularized as a common Arabic proverb, during the first Gulf War)? Here in America, we have the Catholic Church cooperating with pro-abortionists (no, not about abortion or about Catholic religious doctrine; about other interests that they have in common).
And I've already mentioned a bit of what is, in fact, known about an actual relationship between Hussein and Al Quada, specifically (bin Laden's fatwa, and meetings).
And btw, have a look at the Iraqi flag, and how it was changed by "secular" Saddam Hussein in 1991:
Saddam put himself in power, by assassinating his superiors in the Baath Party and thereby rising to prominance in Iraq's ruling party.
The USA did, indeed, support him - in comparative opposition to Iran, which was a more demonstrable threat to the USA, at the time (1980's), inasmuch as having attacked the US embassy in Tehran and held its occupants as prisoners for more than a year (yes, I know; this was arguably their retaliation for the USA's having supported the autocratic Shah). Anyway, none of that constitutes a rational basis for arguing that Saddam was no threat in the context of circumstances that existed in 2002-2003.
Hussein's aggressive militancy was demonstrated by his wars against Iran and Kuwait (technically, such "aggression" would perhaps exclude his genocidal attacks against the Kurds of his own population). His attacks against the USA, specifically, included shooting at American (and British) aircraft patrolling the "no-fly zones" that were instituted for the sake of preventing his attacks against his own citizens - Kurds in the north, and Shia in the south - as a condition of the ceasefire of the first Gulf War (and of course, such shootings, and even fire-control radar-locks, were a violation of the ceasefire conditions), and attempting to assassinate a former US President.
The essential point is that he was a passionate enemy of the USA, with resources, and inclination, to assist other enemies of the USA.
Coalition soldiers tasked with destroying Hussein's weapons, stated that they were astonished at how much weaponry he had accumulated. Maybe he had planned to build more palaces out of that stuff.
Abu Nidal, for one. The names of other persons, have been reported, but I cannot recall them, specifically.
BTW, you may find useful, this website that I encountered:
Osama bin Laden specifically issued a fatwa, exempting Hussein and Iraq from attacks for their failure to be proper Muslims (as bin Laden would define that), since he was regarded as an ideological ally against the USA. There are reports of meetings between Iraqi Intelligence Service officials and emmissaries of bin Laden, but no certainty of operational cooperation.
This is an unkind, and informationally worthless comment. I will refrain from addressing you, and your ideas, in a similar manner, for now.
Actually, I will address your ideas in a similar manner, here (although not so rudely as yourself). It is, in fact, the often-repeated falsehood, that Iraq was invaded because of fear of WMD's. Instead, the US Congress's authorization of force against Iraq included a couple of dozen, at least, reasons (I cannot recall the precise number). Many of them pertained to Hussein's many violations of the ceasefire agreement of the first Gulf War. Others involved his support for terrorism. Others involved his brutality toward the citizens of Iraq. Concern about WMD's was but one of many reasons for arguing that Saddam Hussein should be removed from power, although certainly a reason of particularly noteworthy concern. Overall, he was removed from power in Iraq, because his ability to enhance the threat of terrorism, by providing resources to terrorists, was intolerable in the aftermath of the 9/11 event (and also, because this was the appropriate response to his failure to comply with the conditions of the ceasefire, although the circumstances following the 9/11 event made his removal a matter of some urgency, whereas he might otherwise have been regarded as merely a continuing nuisance and an abomination wrt human rights). His removal from power in Iraq, is at least likely to ensure that Iraq's national resources will not be directed to the service of enemies of the USA.
I haven't noted any "worshipping." Veterans are honored for their having served their fellow citizens (and risked [at least] great danger, to do so). The USA is also generally proud of its military capabilities, since the US military is:
1) very capable, and very technologically advanced
2) effectively useful for defending against, and especially deterring, threats to the USA and its allies
3) effectively useful for addressing some humanitarian concerns, such as helping with natural disasters, worldwide, and fighting against genocidal tyrants
Some time ago, I read something to the effect that "there will always be wars, as long as people think that soldiers are worthy of honor." It made some sense at the time, but I have since recognized that it is overly simplistic. Wars seem likely to be an inevitable part of the human condition, and it's better to be able to win. Also, the US military has done a lot, to help a lot of people, in a lot of places and diverse circumstances.
1) Too bad; it's better than surrendering to it
2) No; a lot of terrorists have been killed, and their capabilities diminished
3) That's always likely to be a problem, when there is a war going on. And btw, freedoms have been progressively taken away, here, for a lot less than the necessity to avoid destruction ("progressives" call it "democracy" and "the greater good"). WRT limitations on freedom, due to the "war on terror," it seems to me not a major problem at this point (although airport security procedures are certainly an annoyance), and we're jealous of our freedoms (in some ways, at least), so we're keeping an eye on things, so that hopefully they don't get out of hand.
4) I have personally read/seen dozens of speeches, writings and videos of Muslim clerics and such, preaching advocacy for terrorism and for the destruction of the USA, democracy and Western Culture (and in some cases, doing so while surrounded by cheering followers), so I don't suppose that it's mere "media spin."
I somehow missed that speech, I guess. The most I've heard, wrt to any reference to "God," by President Bush, was his statement that "freedom is God's gift to everyone," which is consistent with founding American principles.
If you were a lawyer, you could perhaps express this as: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." That would be arguably more eloquent paranoia.
It is worth noting that corporations lack government's license to compel compliance with its will, by force of violence. Fascism would be exemplified by the actions of government to control corporations, rather than "combining of corporate and government powers," whatever that means.
Anyway, I believe that the pertinent complaints about the Bush administration, have been that it seeks "privatization," which is the elimination of non-essential, current governmental functions, in favor of private enterprise.
It is furthermore worth noting that, to the extent that corporations influence government (which I'm guessing to be, more or less, the import of your complaint) this pursuit of influence is the result of government's inclination to exert its power over matters that involve corporate interests. Where government threatens to control the pursuits of private enterprises, they will seek to influence the extent and manner of that control, and they will also seek to exploit government's control so as to benefit themselves at the expense of their competitors. This is simply the natural consequence of governmental involvement in such matters.
It is not surprising, therefore, that corporations would seek to influence governmental policy that pertains to them. The problem began when government decided that, whatever may have been Constitutional restrictions upon its Powers, nevertheless it should do whatever would be most pleasing to The People, and along the way, corporate people decided that they had better do what they could, to ensure that they got what was most pleasing to them. One can only wonder what diabolical methods "Big Oil" might tend to employ, to deal with the recent advocacy, by Democratic Party legislators, that oil companies should be "nationalized."
Additionally, I'm not sure quite what you mean by "rampant nationalsim, using religion and fear to sway public opinion, etc..." The USA is at war with religious fanatics who seek to destroy the USA (and democracy and Western Culture, generally). This is something to fear, and it is something that threatens the nation as a whole, so that it is a good idea to sway public opinion to oppose it. I have noted that President Bush seems to have been quite diligent in attempting to avoid characterizing the threat as one that pertains to matters of religion.
At the moment, the war in Iraq is finishing the job of removing Saddam Hussein from power, by ensuring that Iraq will survive as a nation (and with a replacement government that is representative of its citizens and not an enemy of the USA). I will leave it to you, to conjecture what that may be "about."
While Wikipedia can be a useful source of information, I suggest caution with regard to its articles that pertain to matters of current political significance. Wikipedia articles can be edited by anyone, and it is likely that persons will use such an opportunity to assert their particular perspectives and opinions. Moreover, there have been several reports that this has been done in some cases, so that there are Wikipedia articles that arguably reflect significant ideological biases.
This is less likely to occur, in cases where the subject of the article tends not to be politically/ideologically sensitive.
It is also worthwhile, when reading a Wikipedia article, to consider the extent to which its information is accompanied by citations that indicate the source of the information, so that its accuracy can be checked.
Having said all that, I am not particularly troubled by what seems to be the "Wolfowitz Doctrine," although the Wikipedia article states that the "document was widely criticized as imperialist as the document outlined a policy of unilateralism and pre-emptive military action to suppress potential threats from other nations and prevent any other nation from rising to superpower status" - which is a bit of a mischaracterization of the document as actually quoted in the Wikipedia article, and is furthermore a description of opinions about the document, rather than a description of the document, itself, and this may lead to misconceptions about what the document actually argues.
In fact, the quotations from the document state that:
1) The USA should be concerned with preventing the emergence of any hostile superpower such as had been the case with the Soviet Union. It should not be surprising or worthy of condemnation, that the USA would wish to avoid being confronted with a powerful enemy.
2) The USA should act on behalf of its interests, including the avoidance of any increase in influence or aggressiveness of its "potential competitors," and without expecting that any international partnerships would be permanent, or controlling and limiting. Some Americans might call this an intent to pursue one's own concerns, and an intent to remain free to do that. It does not represent any statement of intent to be violently aggressive or "imperialist."
3) #2, above, particularly applies to concerns about oil (which, btw, is arguably the foundation of modern technology, being not only the principal fuel for all sorts of transportation, but also a fuel for generating electricity, and the source of organic molecules that are the basis for all sorts of synthetic materials, including plastics, fabrics, and pharmaceutical products). Again, note that there is no statement of intent toward violent aggression or "imperialism;" there is simply a statement that oil is important and that the USA should strive to ensure that it remains available.
Further responses to your posting:
The invasion of Iraq was very much "about fighting terrorism," since its intent was to remove Saddam Hussein as ruler/owner of Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a militantly aggressive enemy of the USA, with a hell of a lot of money, weapons and other resources (including intelligence services and training facilities), and he was a financial supporter of, and provider of sanctuary to, known international terrorists. And this was at a time when the USA had found itself at war with such terrorists. Additionally, Saddam Hussein's removal, from power to rule over Iraq, was in accordance with his refusal to fulfill the conditions of the ceasefire that suspended the first Gulf War (following his [imperialist] annexation of Kuwait) and that allowed him to remain as ruler of Iraq IF he complied with those conditions.
All evidence indicates that Iraqis retain ownership of their oil, and there is no indication that the Bush administration is "going after Persian Gulf oil" in any way other than by ensuring that Iraq's oil remains under the control of Iraqis who are free to dispose of it according to legitimate commercial means (which they are doing - including entering into contracts with many non-American oil companies).
"Fascism" was principally defined by Benito Mussolini (who basically invented it) as a philosophical idea that one's human significance is dependent upon his participation in, and contribution to, his society. Of the political factions that exist in the USA, I have seen no indication that this philosophy is preached by President Bush (or "neocons" such as Wolfowitz).
Also, btw, "imperialism" is the pursuit of an "empire," which is a political jurisdiction constituted by conquered provinces which are then ruled (and generally, exploited) by the conqueror and thus live under laws enacted in a foreign land. I have seen no indication that this would describe the intent of any American. Indeed, as has been pointed out by others, if the USA were pursuing empire in Iraq, then it would have seized their money, rather than be spending its own for the purpose of ensuring their sustainability as an independent and self-governing nation.
If I stood upon open ground, on a clear day, my ~180deg. FOV would presumably allow me to see from the horizon on my left side, to the horizon on my right side. Because of the curvature of Earth, this horizon-to-horizon distance seems, by calculation, to be ~10km.
My computer monitor is ~15inches wide and occupies perhaps a 30deg. FOV when I'm sitting in a normal viewing position. However, if I move my face right up to the screen, my computer monitor then occupies ~180deg. FOV.
This means that my computer monitor has mysteriously expanded from 15inches wide, to 10km wide. And yet this is much bigger than my whole house! How is it possible that my 10km wide computer monitor still fits in my house, when I press my face up against it?!!!
One thing that you could try, is to ask your grandparents to SHOW you how they want you to drive their car. They might appreciate your willingness to be respectful of how they want you to treat their car (and behave toward other drivers and road conditions, generally), and if you demonstrate to them that you are so respectful of their concerns, then that might convince them to trust you.
Reportedly, the Lisbon treaty would have involved changes in the Irish Constitution, and Irish law requires that any constitutional changes must be approved by referendum. So, that's how the Irish got to vote on it.
You could try reinstalling the TrackIR drivers. TrackIR works fine, for me, in LFS (although, regrettably, Patch Y has restricted its view to no more than 90deg. right and left, which makes it very difficult to drive in reverse).
None, as far as I know (edit: this is not quite correct; see my next post, below). Green plants absorb CO2 (and turn it into sugar), and emit oxygen (young plants do this more than older ones).
I was unaware of any such thing. What then happens to the absorbed CO2?
Also, water vapor is, by far, the most significant greenhouse gas. Additionally, I think that termites produce a lot of methane.
Al Gore becomes even more smug (or maybe blows up, or something).
USE LIGHTS (big, bright ones) when riding your bicycle at night, and wear light colored, or otherwise reflective, clothing!!!
In my neighborhood, it is popular for bike riders to ride in the middle of the lane, wearing dark clothing and using no reflectors and a teeny little headlight, powered by a generator that is driven by the rotating wheel, and thus blinks dimly when moving, and pretty much goes out when stopped. This is a very effective system for simulating a distant firefly, and thereby annoying automobile drivers who would prefer notification of other humans occupying the road.
Well, gasoline is basically a mixture of hydrocarbons (molecules consisting of carbon and hydrogen). Combustion (combination with oxygen) of a simple hydrocarbon (an alkane; e.g. - octane) results in the products: carbon dioxide and water.
2 C8H18 + 25 O2 -> 16 CO2 + 18 H20
However, there are impurities in the gasoline (including nitrogen - presumably, because petroleum is of biological origin), and the combustion also tends to be "incomplete" (I don't really know the details; it may pertain to the combustion of complex hydrocarbons [alkenes and alkynes, having double and triple carbon-to-carbon bonds, respectively, and accordingly, less hydrogen]), so that nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide are also produced and emitted in automobile exhaust. Moreover, these tend to be noteworthy, since being "pollutants," whereas the CO2 and H20 are not generally regarded as such.
In short form, carbon dioxide is the expected (and presumably, greater) product, but some carbon monoxide occurs, also.
The main reason for adding oxidizers (such as MTBE) to gasoline, is - according to my understanding - to produce more "complete" combustion and thus, presumably, less carbon monoxide (at least) pollution. Also, as mentioned, catalytic converters result in some chemical reactions that reduce various incidental pollutants.
I will also mention that carbon monoxide (CO) is dangerous, because it binds much more readily to hemoglobin (the iron-containing compound in red blood cells), than O2 does. This results in an unavailability of hemoglobin, to do its necessary job of carrying O2 and supplying it to the cells of the body. CO2 is, as far as I know, not significantly dangerous to the human body, as long as it is not in very high concentration, in which case it would tend to acidify the blood plasma (since producing carbonic acid [H2CO3], when dissolved in water), which can produce a variety of ill effects.
I would add, btw, that I am familiar with a recent (within the last few months) report that it does, indeed, seem to be a recent trend, that live performances are tending toward becoming a more lucrative activity for popular musicians, than the activity of producing recorded music.
However, I wonder how pleasant a trend this might actually become, if recorded music is henceforth to be regarded as merely advertising for musicians' concerts. I like having good, recorded music, and being able to listen to it, anytime I want, and its being repeatedly enjoyable.
I am also aware that recording technology is much more easily accessible, than had previously been the case, when there were only expensive recording studios and their equipment, available. But I also know that, in those old days, there was quite a lot of innovation and creativity in recording, with various, unusual sources of sounds and interesting techniques for processing sounds; recorded music was, in some cases, a unique art form in itself.
Overall, a continued interest in producing good, recorded music, is desirable. Concerts are enjoyable, too; but the sound quality, or ability to observe, is not always optimal (and these days, concert tickets can be awfully expensive, not to mention the effort of getting there, parking, getting searched for weapons or whatever, dealing with raucous crowds, thrown or spilled drinks, etc.). And what I especially like about concerts, is being able to observe the skill of the instrumentalists; I'm not sure that I would find it so enjoyable, merely to see someone stand around and operate an electronic playback device, assuming that some creative innovation had gone into producing a recorded sound, to be reproduced onstage - an alternative would perhaps be no such innovation in sound production, such as would be useful for a recording, but not for a stage show.
Anyway, the point is that I like recorded music, and if it were of little concern to musicians, except as a way to inspire people to buy concert tickets, then I wonder if its quality would tend to be such as to make it worthwhile having (even if it were free). I also like the idea of inexpensive, recorded music; and it's nice that musicians are finding their way of adapting to a tendency toward copyright infringement, while still making a good living and producing good music. But I tend to doubt that there would likely continue to be good, recorded music, if it were all to be provided without any expectation of payment to those who create it. I have yet to encounter an advertisement that I would want to keep.
How about the obvious cases - of a book, or movie? Somebody spends years, researching a book (or drawing illustrations, and such) - or millions of dollars, producing a movie (and paying the participants) - and then the book, or movie, is placed on the internet (or otherwise distributed by someone who did not create it, and has no rights to distribute it), and it becomes available with no compensation for the creator.
Copyright (and patent) laws exist, for the intended purpose of encouraging people to produce creative works, by ensuring that they can expect to benefit from their efforts. If people cannot expect to benefit from their efforts, then why would they be expected to spend all the time, effort and money, to produce creative works? We would all lose, if creative people didn't produce intellectual works. Creating art (in its various forms, including what may be characterized as simply an "intellectual product") is a professional occupation for many persons, in an advanced civilization; if it could not be a professional occupation, it is unlikely that such products would exist (at least to the extent of being products of noteworthy quality).
Well, what you can do is use Stuff's LYTe (layout editor), and make a several-piece ramp and then save it as a pack, so that you only have to construct the larger ramp, once. I recommend this thread (and especially, that you read the exchange starting at post #78):