OT: CPU heatsink "heat pipes"

Despite the fact that your idea of what constitutes a "fact" is as ill-defined as your idea of what constitutes an argument, we do seem to be agreed on one point - there is no basis upon which to proceed.

Hahaha. Seriously,Happy New Year and I'm not as nasty as you think and you're not as knowledgeable as you like to think. Don't worry, my term here is completed so I won't be back making your life miserable. :-)

I don't think this is an adequate explanation. The 'old' countries (ie. Europe) had to co-exist or battle it out (both tried over the years of course). In the course of doing this they did learn the art of state-to-state dialogue and co-operation (or at least armed co-existence) while battling for resources.

America (as we know the USA) basically had an open field with which to play (ie. the new colonists could easily over-power the existing population and have what they wanted). The state remained essentially in isolation as it grew with enough local resources so it didn't have to coerce, cajole or do battle, until it had grown to such a size and power that we have our current situation where it is, well, bigger than the rest of us.

No-one's fault, you just don't *have* to learn manners in this situation. We get by amazingly well despite this.

Ken

Just a question on the general theme of the above:

The Cleric Muktada al-Sadr is wanted for murder, kidnap and torture. There is a warrant for his arrest. Yet openly on TV, a US Army Intelligence Officer based in Sadr City said that they and the Iraqi Police have been ordered by the US Command in Iraq not to arrest him if they see him.

Surely this can't be right?

Or could it have something to do with the fact that the US Forces have basically handed control back to al-Sadr and the Sadr Bureau in exchange for a more peaceful situation there to try and convince the US public that things are going to plan? It's so bad that say you have your car stolen and go to the IP or the US Army and they'll tell you to contact the Sadr Bureau

Same thing is happening in Basra where the British Army have effectively surrended control to the Mardi Army for the same reasons.

And in a twist with so much irony, it's not funny, the US Forces are doing the same in Baghdad WITH THE BA'ATH PARTY, the very same group they invaded Iraq to get rid of.

I already explained the 'secret': looking things up.

No problem.

You love throwing out accusations with no support or reasoning whatsoever, like those.

If the issue is what the Geneva Convention says and I quote the text of what it says, that is a 'fact'. One might then want to debate an 'interpretation' of it but you don't do that either and just throw out another unsupported accusation that, usually, flies in the face of the already shown facts.

You claim the Taliban were the "recognized government," a specific term under international law, of Afghanistan and when I show they were not, by pointing to the fact of the Northern Alliance holding Afghanistan's UN seat at the time, you decide to invent your own meaning of 'recognized' government.

But feel free to explain what your 'well-defined' vision of a 'fact' is.

IMO, your frustration stems from coming up against facts that show the truth to be in direct opposition to the propaganda sources you had placed almost infinite faith in.

Well - we are waiting to see how you think that internatlional lawyers specify a recognised government.

My own quick web search threw up this from a British judgement

which suggests that the crucial qualification is effectiveness (which is roughly what I've been saying). If the Northern Alliance still represented Afghanistan at the U.N. when the Taliban controlled 90% of the country, more fool the U.N. If you think that it mattered, more fool you.

Your own definition of "recognised government" - when you get around to presenting it, may make entertaining reading. I could do with a good laugh.

You mean a diversion to something completely unrelated to Afghanistan and the unrecognized Taliban, the topic under discussion above. A typical "throw as much crap as fast as possible in the hopes it'll so befuddle things the other side will give up" tactic.

Sure it can, and for good reason.

But first, that Sadr is 'wanted for murder' doesn't mean the US would be acting 'unlawfully' if they prosecuted it, nor does not prosecuting it for the moment make it any less a 'crime' (If it's true. It's an indictment, not a 'conviction'), which was the point of the above discussion you're now trying to obfuscate.

The issue of Sadr and the 'wanted for murder' indictment was a matter of some disagreement in the American ranks but the gist of it is that the Iraqi provisional government decided that the goal of establishing the Constitution and permanent Government was more important, for the time being, than attempting to 'arrest' Sadr and, contrary to the critics assertion that the US 'runs' everything, the US bowed to the government's policy decision, which is also why US forces delayed for so long in militarily confronting the various militias.

You conveniently leave out that these 'militia' groups lost the battles big time and subsequently agreed to participate in the political process rather than armed conflict, for the moment at least.

Your argument also hinges on the fallacious premise that if one can find something less than ideal then 'no progress' is being made.

Not paying attention again, I see.

Except they have.

This isn't rocket science, it's 'specified' by whether it's recognized or not and if the international community doesn't 'recognize' the government then it isn't 'recognized'. It's simply a statement of what is and you can't just stomp your foot and say "oh yes you do" when they don't.

Well, I guess you can 'say' it but it's nonsense nevertheless.

It's an interesting article on his opinion of when a government should, or might, recognize another government but it doesn't mean the government *is* recognized.

Convenient to pick (b) and ignore (a) (and all others), "whether it is the constitutional government of the state," when arbitrarily deciding what you think is "the crucial qualification," ain't it?

Now, you could argue it's your opinion they *should* have been recognized but the *fact* remains they were not.

I already presented one, whether it occupies the official UN seat.

Then there is the rather obvious matter of whether other governments have officially recognized it.

You may now giggle yourself to death but I'm afraid that a government isn't recognized just because you'd like that to be the case. One looks around at the countries of the world and ask "do you recognize that government" and if the answer is no, like in this case, then it isn't "recognized."

Bollocks. It's because it gives them an easy life.

Except they haven't.

government.

As an international lawyer, you don't make it to first base. Who is "the international community"? What do they do to "recognise" a government?

Your "simple statement" is simple because it is meaningless. Try and find something that relates to objectively defined and verifiable facts.

As you fail to recognise when you "say" something.

It is an interesting article on what a court has to look at when they want to decide whether a government is "recognised" or not.

It is identified as the one that carries most weight in U.S. courts. The U.K. courts are less independent.

Whose "fact" is this? Your opinion isn't exactly decisive in any tribunal I've ever heard of.

And I've had my good laugh - when the Northern Alliance hung onto to its UN seat when it only controlled 10% of Afghanistan, that definition of a "recognised government" became the stuff of comedy.

As yours did, by giving the Taliban money to help root out the opium-growers - a job they were managing much better than anybody else ever did, and much better than anybody else has since they were booted out.

I'm certainly giggling. A government isn't unrecognised just because you'd like it to be the case either.

"recognized."

Only if you believe their answer. Try looking at what they did, rather than listening to what their mendacious diplomats chose to say.

And try to find a little evidence to support your parochial opinions - right winger's don't seem to be able to google, and precious few ever come up with a URL. Even fewer come up with URL's that might be seen as unbiased.

If you want to play illiterate and pretend to not understand that the Geneva Convention specifies who qualifies for prisoner of war status and those who meet that criteria qualify and those who do not meet it don't, then so be it, but I've already gone through the matter in excruciating detail with you and am not inclined to play your 'repeat the same fallacious argument over and over forever' game.

Your claim was:

'You should try reading it because the Geneva Convention also explicitly states what constitutes legal vs illegal combatants and what rights the two enjoy.' 'The fact of the matter is that the U.S. is wholly complaint and treats illegal combatants much better than anything stated in the Geneva Convention.'

The text you quoted makes no mention whatsoever of 'illegal combatants' as you claimed. Besides the Geneva Convention is not one single paragraph, but a number of documents. Read the rest of them.

The text you quoted and that keep on mentioning talks about 'prisioners of war'. 'Illegal combatants' are not mentioned by the Convention, and the detainees are not being treated 'better than anything stated in the Geneva Convention.'

You have claimed international law when it was convenient, but not when it did not suit you. You made no mention of the the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, or the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

And while you are at it check the Section 2242 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act.

Now go and look it up. Geo

Who is the "recognized governemnt" of Taiwan?

Dang! I guess I missed it.

Octane the linear hydrocarbon molecule maximum non-exploding burning rate is the basis of the octane fuel rating. The Germans could not make much fuels with a higher than 100 octane ratings.

That is weird, because i just spent about 2 hours carefully reading it and there is no discussion of "illegal combatants". If you read it you will find that that the US administration definition of "captured illegal combatants" falls within the Geneva Convention definition of "prisoners of war".

It is in your own best interest to properly know what you are citing.

You are not in a strong position to make that claim given your misrepresentation of the Geneva Convention.