OT: CPU heatsink "heat pipes"

Those with a true understanding of Islam and the Quaran wouldn't bomb in an area with innocent people.

Tom Lake

tube -

toxic,

very

Petrol

... and what does my son have in his "styled computer": UV light, Four Off ;-))

Aren't Bush's campaigns against Afghanistan, Iraq, and (if he can get away with it) Iran based on exactly that logic?

Of course, it is not appropriate to spread responsibility between countries unless those countries were acting together. The Taliban regime in Afghanistan allowed Al Queda to operate in their country, and thus have a partial responsibility for them, without being fully responsible for their actions - they did not control Al Queda, nor was Al Queda dependant on them. It's a similar situation with the IRA and the USA, although the American authorities' part was turning a blind eye rather than actively helping (as distinct from countless other terrorist campaigns around the world, where the US authorities were directly involved).

I've never understood this attitude - the believe that terrorists are cowards, and that cowardice is the height of all evils, so terrorists are to be condemned primarily for their cowardliness and cowardly methods of attack. It is purely and simply the regurgitation of propaganda.

First off, suicide bombers are not cowards. They can be called many things, and condemned for many reasons, but they are not cowards - they are giving the lives for a cause, and (at least those with with more understanding of Islam) risking their souls.

Secondly, "cowardly" tactics are greatly to be preferred in war - would you ask a soldier to go into battle alone, armed with a small knife, because it is "braver"? No, you want him to go in an armoured truck with lots of weapons, protection, and backup - because you want him to come home alive.

The brave people are the relatives of 911 victims who asked "why", and want to look at the cause of the attack, rather than find someone to blame and punish.

I fear you have totally missed the point of my post. Perhaps I used a bit too much blindingly obvious sarcasm.

Let me put it in simple terms. The Iraqi people did not choose to have a brutal dictator ruling them - he rose to power through a series of historical events in which first the British government, and then the American government, had far more influence than the Iraqi people.

The Iraqi people did not choose anything, and were never asked their opinion on anything. They did not ask for democracy, and there is no a priori reason to suspect that the majority of Iraqis want a democracy. After all, even in western democracies, the majority of people know nothing and care nothing about who runs their country - they want the right to live in peace and freedom, pursuing health, wealth and happiness, and are far more concerned with their own day-to-day problems than anything political.

So you are now saying that the Iraqi people did not really choose Saddam as their leader? And I said the Iraqi people did not choose Saddam as their leader. Where exactly is the difference?

What you said earlier was that no sane person would have chosen Saddam - I disagreed, because it depends on the alternatives. There never were any alternatives given, so there is no way to judge whether Saddam would have been a good choice or not. Even if there were choices, there is nothing to say that Saddam would not have been the best - alternatives could well have been worse (and in Saddam's early days as the leader of Iraq, he achieved a great deal of good for the country as well as the well-known bad stuff).

Again, you miss the point. You claim to dislike misrepresentation - yet you indulge in it happily yourself. To show the absurdity of your "argument", a Texas resident who votes for a death-sentence fan as governor does so because he feels that his state is better off with that guy in charge - not because he personally wants to be gassed/injected/electrocuted, or whatever is considered "humane" execution these days.

No, my main arguments have been that without alternatives, there were no choices. But it's true that Saddam can be called a "reasonable choice", when there is a choice - it depends entirely on the alternatives. Saddam is a bad man, but there have been worse.

Few of right mind lament the end of Saddam's tortures, or his brutal repression of segments of his population. But a great deal look at today's Iraq and feel that overall, they were better off before. There were killings and torture under Saddam, but equally there are killings and torture now. At least before you knew who was doing it, and to a fair extent had the option of keeping your head down and being relatively safe.

Ah, here I see part of your problem - you believe that Iraq now has a free government? It has a puppet government that is torn between turning Iraq into a theocracy and appeasing the foreign occupiers, and has little real power outside a tiny part of the capital. The brutal dictatorship at least had control of most of the country, whereas much of Iraq is effectively anarchy.

If Iraq really did have a free government, which was voted in by the people, supported by the people, and properly ran the country, then it would be a different matter entirely. But I really don't believe such a system can be forced upon a people (much less three disparate peoples) from the outside.

It's far from alone or even the worst in these crimes, and they are not entirely accurate (it had no programs for WMD when baby Bush invaded - and it very pointedly did not use the WMD it had daddy Bush invaded). If these crimes had justified an invasion, then it is up to the UN to determine action, not the US, whereas in fact the UN were more leaning towards reducing sanctions than declaring war.

There were a number of attempted uprising from parts of the Iraqi population (some instigated by the USA), which Saddam quelled. What did you expect him to do? What do you think the US government would do if, for example, the southern half decided it was fed up with the other half and wanted to be separate? Fair enough, it was a bad move all round to use chemical weapons (though the US saw nothing wrong with it at the time), and many of the reprisals were well overboard, but a government that does not quell an armed uprising with armed response can hardly be called a government. That in no way justifies the persecution of the Kurds and other crimes against humanity committed by Saddam - there were good reasons for some of the attempted uprisings.

As I've been saying all along, the Iraqis never had any choices.

What premise? I suppose you are trying to suggest that the US (and the coalition of the bribed/willing) did not bomb random innocent people? If that's the case, then I think you have a very poor understanding of what went on at the beginning of the war (doesn't the name "Shock and Awe" have connotations of "Terror" ?), and what is still going on?

Really? Tell that to Dick "we reserve the right to torture" Chenney. Of course, I do believe that the majority of US military and "intelligence" people do try to treat the majority of prisoners humanely. But there are a large number of cases and circumstances where torture is used by Americans, directly or indirectly, and it is without doubt sanctioned at least in principle from the highest levels.

True.

From the transcript (see

):

Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

And how about the war in Afghanistan - isn't it officially over yet? Surely the USA is not still at war with their pet government in Kabul?

As has been noted in other posts, the Geneva convention does not mention the synthetic term "illegal combatants". There was no such concept until Bush's gang invented it as a way to try to get around the Geneva Convention so that they could torture and otherwise abuse prisoners (I can't think why - it's well established that torture in general does not work, and if it makes sense in a few special cases then it could be done in secret in the traditional manner). It's quite simple - if people are shooting at you when you invade their country, they are considered soldiers. Either they are part of the regular army, or they are a militia. You kill them if necessary, capture them if possible, and treat them as prisoners of war. Anyone else who gets caught alone the way is either a civilian (and therefore released immediately) or a criminal, and thus should be tried according to national or international law.

Do you really think Bush has improved world safety, or the safety of Americans? Not even many Americans are that confident any more, and certainly no one else is.

Rather discuss the meaning of "a" and "an" in the phrases "a big boom" "an incredibly big boom" Why ? because I can't believe that your debating 'big boom' as if it were some technical term for 'explosion/implosion'............

After all is said and done and you have determined the the exact death toll tonnage blast wave %'s etc etc...is that going to change a single thing? What do you want? An apology from a generation that either was not born yet or had little say about what kind of bomb was going to be dropped where?

Don't hold your breath

PS sorry Dave hijack,,,for some strange reason I KF'd the guy in

1999(guess I carry a grudge)... well not so strange

No, my purpose is, as I said, to put decisions made in the perspective of the times in which they were made.

And a good day to you too.

of=20

ical=20

t and=20

Then you would be infinitely more informed than anyone at the time was.

e of=20

That depends on what one considers the "real consequences" of what you're= =20 calling a "nuclear event" to be and what kind of "nuclear event" it is, n= ot=20 to mention the folks in charge of the Manhattan Project were not the=20 decision makers.

as=20

"Within reason" is an interesting qualifier and they only knew the actual= =20 relative efficiency after the test. Prior to the test speculation, and th= e=20 betting pool, at Trinity ran from it being a dud, to 3 kiloton (little mo= re=20 than the existing 22,000LB Grand Slam, which would have meant an incredib= le=20 waste of money for a not so dramatic improvement over existing bomb=20 technology), to igniting the atmosphere and destroying the entire planet.= =20 And since these were all people intimately familiar with the project we=20 might say these speculations were, at the time, "within reason" although = I=20 seriously doubt any one today would think so.

on,

You'd never see anyone neglecting that today because, you might say, we=20 know better now.

Yes, and they also knew it would kill, just as the intense thermal=20 radiation would kill. But then, no one expected any kind of bomb to be=20 harmless.

les

I presume you mean Alpha and Beta particles.

=20

e=20

Your=20

at=20

, I=20

Don't worry and no matter. The point is it was in consideration of=20 potential blast effects.

239)=20

y=20

In the first place I never used the word "just" and you misunderstand=20 "incredibly big boom." Boom in this context, that of a bomb, means the=20 explosion one would reasonably expect from the device under consideration= =20 and if you like the word "explosion" better then feel free to substitute = it=20 where ever I use "boom."

Of course, since that was the purpose of it, just as that was the purpose= =20 of any of the bombs dropped on enemy targets. 'Air burst' was nothing new= =20 and many bombs, even artillery shells, used it.

red=20

The=20

and=20

nd=20

igher=20

ties,=20

Another of those things they didn't know about.

ated=20

quent=20

n the=20

hese=20

Those numbers are in line with the most reliable ones I've seen and are=20 considerably less than the 500,000 touted elsewhere in the thread, like 8=

0%=20 less.

For perspective, conventional tonnage dropped over Japan was 13,800 tons = in=20 March 1945, 42,700 tons in July, and was planned to reach a constant=20

115,000 tons per month had the war not ended early. Tons being bomb weigh= t=20 not yield, which one could expect to be 50-60% of weight. So it was=20 expected that the conventional equivalent of roughly 4 Little Boys would = be=20 dropped every month.

The March 9-10 raid on Tokyo alone killed an estimated 100,000 compared t= o=20 the combined 'nuclear event' bombings of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki=20 totaling 103,000 (adding your numbers).

First, what either you or I 'consider' about it isn't the issue. It's wha= t=20 they knew or didn't know, what the circumstances were or perceived to be,= =20 what alternatives they thought they had, and what the basis of their=20 decisions were that's under discussion.

Second, I didn't say "just," which should be clear from the diametrically= =20 opposite "incredibly big" that I did say.

a=20

ath,=20

Yes, because it was an 'incredibly big boom' with the corresponding=20 destructive power one might reasonably expect from an 'incredibly big boo= m'=20 and Oppenheimer's lament is similar to that expressed about machine guns = in=20 WWI; how man had invented a dramatically improved way to kill more people= =20 in less time than ever before.

It's instructive to read the memos and notes of the time and the protest =

sent to the President. The issue was their disillusionment with the bombi= ng=20 of what they considered to be civilian targets, that was already taking=20 place, and concerns that their new bomb would be used for the same, in=20 their view, 'unnecessary' purpose.

It was considered a 'big boom' in the same context as the rather smaller =

boom a 2,000 pounder makes, and you're just as dead if either lands on yo= ur=20 head, with the 'big difference' being you didn't have to drop as many=20 'gadgets' as you did 2,000 pounders for what was expected to be similar=20 results.

The 'instant terror' that merely mentioning the word 'nuclear' or=20 'radiation' evokes today did not exist in 1945.

Exactly, so those that *do* bomb are torn between the belief that they are part of a necessary war (the Koran allows for certain types of "just and necessary" war, such as against foreign oppressors), and the passages in the Koran that make it clear that killing innocent people is a mortal sin. Thus these bombers are risking their very souls, and are by no means cowardly.

om

=2E

=20

=20

=20

=20

=20

=20

=20

=20

=20

=20

=20

=20

=20

=20

No, my purpose is, as I said, to put decisions made in the perspective of= =20 the times in which they were made.

And a good day to you too.

Same thing was said about Germany.

If being a dictator is your measure of how to deal with ethnic groups.

Iraqi oil production in 2002 was 2.25 Mn B/D, the result of an over-production policy from neglected facilities, and even with the insurgents trying to blow it up every day 2005 production was 1.80 Mn B/D.

The British thought pretty much the same thing about T. Jefferson and company.

Ask yourself why the IRA, who declared war on Britain, cried foul and claimed all manner of abuse of rights when the British Army started ambushing them and used the SAS against them. After all, the IRA DECLARED WAR on Britain yet seemed to think that it was unfair when the British Army were allowed to use actual battlefield tactics against them instead of just patrolling in armoured Land Roves.

--
Conor

Windows & Outlook/OE in particular, shipped with settings making them 
as open to entry as a starlet in a porno. Steve B

Your purpose is to argue, mine to inform. That is sufficient.

Good day.

[snip]

I wonder if degassifying the water would help. If one uses the stuff that comes out of the kitchen tap, its got quite a bit of air, chlorine and who knows what else in it.

--
Paul Hovnanian     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are going to try cross-country skiing,
start with a small country.

Apparently blinding in your own mind.

On that we agree.

He rose to power by walking into the assembly and executing, on the spot, anyone who didn't swear obedience.

Certainly not Saddam.

Simply not true and Iraq was making an attempt at it when Saddam seized power.

Speak for yourself.

The question is, and always has been, what form of government is most conducive to producing those results and I submit that Saddam was not it.

There is no "so now" to it.

No, you suggested that having democracy 'forced' allowed of 'no choice'.

That is the classic demagoguery that, well, maybe a murderous dictator hauling your family and friends off to a mass grave in the middle of the night is a 'good choice' after all and is almost as bad as postulating that perhaps those in German concentration camps didn't want to be liberated because, after all, the Allies didn't 'ask' them about it before doing so.

Nice try but the, so called, death-sentence fan governor didn't write the laws, the elected legislature did (not to mention a citizen court convicted and the accused had access to nearly infinite appeals) and he doesn't go around murdering people who write the wrong name down on the voting ballot, or assassinate half the legislature, or murder your brother because his son wanted to bed his wife, or hang you up by the thumbs and beat you near to death because you missed a hockey goal.

Put bluntly, your false equivalency is a false equivalency.

Which is a false argument when what you call "no choices" is a system that, by design, provides choices.

It is an absurd word game to say Saddam might be a "reasonable choice" compared to Tito so 'good alternatives' to Democracy weren't given.

That is certainly the logic that all tyrants, and terrorists, count on. Obey and we might let you live, unless my son wants your wife or you miss the next hockey goal.

Not completely but they're making remarkable progress toward it.

Convenient to say so, isn't it?

Rather it's the reverse. The insurgents control very little, if you call being able to cause periodic mayhem 'control'.

Perhaps you missed the multiple elections.

That part takes time but even the Sunni leadership called for participation rather than obstruction.

You might want to give them at least a chance to try. After all, the election was just last month.

Ask the Germans and the Japanese.

Try telling that to the dead: "The guy who killed you wasn't the 'worst' murderer the world has ever known."

It's a false 'excuse'.

Yes they did and *that* part is well documented.

And you just gave why the U.S. had to act. The so called 'containment' was collapsing.

Lose.

Certainly not exterminate entire populations.

Well, no reason to hold a grudge over such a little "bad move" that just anyone might do, eh?

Flat wrong.

You're right, it doesn't justify it, although you're doing your best to call it a 'ho-hum' and deny it at the same time.

They do now.

Correct, the U.S. did not intentionally "bomb random innocent people."

It's is you who apparently have no idea what was targeted.

No, it is "You won't have a plane, tank, communication, or command and control center left because we can launch a missile and fly it into the precise second story window we pick. Impressed yet?"

, and what is still going on?

Tip: The guys with uniforms on are ours. The 'look like civilians' walking into shopping malls with bombs strapped on their chest are the enemy.

Yes, really.

Don't have to as he already knows it, your cute names notwithstanding.

I don't have the time or inclination to get into a discussion of what 'torture' is.

Yes, "major combat operations" ended. Are you trying to tell me you don't know what "major combat operations" means?

We are not at war with the government in Kabul.

As I have already explained in great detail, the Geneva Convention spells out who is entitled to prisoner of war status. Those who aren't, aren't.

Just because you are unawares doesn't mean there was no such concept.

"U.S. Supreme Court EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) . . . By universal agreement and practice the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations7 and also between [317 U.S. 1, 31] those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful...

Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war...

Nor are petitioners any the less belligerents if, as they argue, they have not actually committed or attempted to commit any act of depredation or entered the theatre or zone of active military operations..."

That's 1942 and just a few years before you claim "Bush's gang invented it."

Not so and hasn't been for at least a few hundred years.

Simply not true and since I've already quoted the Geneva Convention in detail I see no reason to repeat it.

Yes.

They're not 'torn' at all and have those promised virgins waiting to help them celebrate.

You're assigning *your* 'logic' to them but they'd say you should die for defiling the meaning of the Koran.

What is a "styled computer"?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

You've not looked back far enough. Ben Laden was a heroic freedom fighter against the Russians back when the Taliban was part of the U.S. subsidised "indigenous resistance" against the Russian occupation. The Taliban's loyalty to their comrade in arms from that period is understandable. That the U.S. attitude to the "indigenous" freedom fighters changed when the U.S. became the occupying power is also understandable, but your rewriting of history to dispose of this inconvenient episode is not.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

No

Al Qaeda didn't just happen to be in Afghanistan, Bin Laden and the Taliban were joined at the hip.

Here is an old 1998 Iranian article on a different problem with the Taliban but note our friend in there, long before Bush even ran for office.

"Usama bin Laden is indeed a partner of the Taliban and their most notorious financial backer...

First, the international community must hit the Taliban economically. There are three financial sources supporting the militia: the Saudi government, Usama bin Laden, and the Taliban's own drug trade. In this regard, the U.S. decision to freeze bin Laden's bank account was a step in the right direction. "

No it isn't. Bin Laden/Al Qaeda were *the* perpetrators, not some misguided souls philanthropically donating to their besieged brothers in the homeland.

No need to look very far as Bin Laden explained it. Death to all non believers (of his version) because that is the will and word of Allah... with the rest basically details on who gets it first and that it's the duty of all believers to kill as many nonbelievers, men women and children, as they can, whenever they can, any way they can, till none are left defiling the earth.