OT: CPU heatsink "heat pipes"

Ah, good. Someone finally came up with a few that recognized them, which should put to bed the matter of recognition being bestowed by other governments and not simply a matter of 'existing'.

My statement about them not being recognized is the UN as that is the basis of international law (the only basis someone could attempt to argue the US did something 'illegal'). They had a few friends but not enough, by a long long shot, to be recognized. (Individual state recognition only matters to the individual states who do so but member nations are obligated to recognize any state that is UN recognized and international law applies)

As a side note, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (not sure about the UAE) are not a surprise as they, or strong elements in them, support radical Islamic fundamentalism and that's also a terrorist issue, how it was funded and spread, etc. I.E. The Taliban came out of the Pakistan madrassas funded by Saudi Arabia so they would naturally be 'sympathetic'.

Yep. Which should also put to bed the matter of holding a UN seat simply because one wants to.

Yes, I am aware of the seeming contradiction but it isn't of no consequence as the recognition matter affects a number of international standing issues.

Thank you for an informative post.

Yes, however the issue at hand is international law and that paragraph clarifies...

"In international law, sovereignty is the exercise of power by a state. De jure sovereignty is the legal right to do so; de facto sovereignty is the ability in fact to do so (which becomes of special concern upon the failure of the usual expectation that de jure and de facto sovereignty exist at the place and time of concern, and rest in the same organization). Foreign governments recognize the sovereignty of a state over a territory, or refuse to do so."

As the other articles have noted, people here are confusing de facto sovereignty, ability, with de jure sovereignty, legality.

Taiwan is a wonderfully bizarre matter, ain't it?

You need to reread what he wrote.

That, of course, is why there's a judge.

My favorite People's Court, back when Wopner was still the judge, involved a lawyer as the defendant and his arguments were so incorrect that Wopner asked him at one point where he went to law school. "Did they teach you that?" And said something akin to, if they did then I want to make a note to tell prospective law students not to go there.

But the most illuminating part was the after interview where he explained if he had been in a regular court he was sure he could have muddled things enough to get by but "you can't fool judge Wopner."

Or, put another way, he knew darn good and well he was in the wrong before he got there.

You really are clueless.

Nice try. Please quote this definition of sovereignty which you've alleged I've invented. For your further education, this is known as setting a up a "straw man".

And I tend to be a bit stuffy about fatuous inventions - try arguing with what I've written, rather than what you would have liked me to have written.

Anyone who reads the whole article will find a rather more balanced assessment of the issues involved in recognition.

Here's a quote which is more to my taste

" the three so-called traditional criteria of statehood (state population, state territory, effective government) "

Which was - as even you ought to appreciate - a joke.

The Northern Alliance might have been a recognised entity, but it wasn't a government, and certainly not of the 90% of Afghanistan ruled by the Taliban.

That international diplomacy has lot in common with high comedy, and very little to do with reality. You should love it.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

government.

bill.sloman:

David Maynard:

Notice how it moved from 'a specific term under international law', to 'it's 'specified' by whether it's recognized or not', to the silly argument that 'if it is not recognized, it is not recognized'.

bill.sloman:

David Maynard:

Notice that now 'recognized goverment' changed to 'recognized sovereign'.

bill.sloman:

/snip/.

David Maynard:

Of course not. It does not mean many other things either.

bill.sloman:

David Maynard:

Notice that it is ' his opinion on what he thinks...' Of course is his opinion; if he were giving an order it would not be an opinion.

David Maynard:

Could you explain how he has confused 'domestic commercial matters with the international political'? Where was any mention of 'domestic commercial matters'? It looks as if the confused one is you.

David Maynard:

Wrong. Read Spehro's reply.

Geo

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

laugh.

asked

Quoting JAD: 'A sovereign state is often described as one that is free and independent. In its internal affairs it has undivided jurisdiction over all persons and property within its territory. .... The United Nations is today considered the principal organ for

*restraining* the exercise of sovereignty. ...In the United States, the nation (i.e. the federal government) and each state are considered sovereign.'

'neither claiming/being proclaimed Sovereign, nor merely exercising the power of a Sovereign is sufficient, sovereignty requires both elements.'

You had claimed that 'the "recognized government," (is) a specific term under international law', but in the URL you quoted says 'as an attorney, I am well aware of the fact sovereignty is not a legal/international law issue'

So, what is it?

Geo

Notice that when quoted by Bill it was just an opinion, but when he is the one doing the quoting it becomes authoritative.

Wrong. Read Spehro's reply.

Geo

It is, and I understand that it is used as the last ditch effort to confuse a conversation, because of its complexities and the fact that a governmental structure seems to exist there, but hardley in the conventional manner, and really is a conundrum.

around

good

which

asked

be

ROFLMAO...what completely uninformed typical Merkin bullshit.

--
Conor

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

The US Government does alot of business with certain groups like the Taliban, labelling them terrorists when they finally decide not to do Washingtons bidding.

--
Conor

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

ISTR the US government also did business with the Taliban, paying them to reduce opium production.

Thomas

Very good read. Thanks JAD. I have never seen that document before and it puts a lot into perspective about how (and why) we are handling the situation like we are.

Ed

You do make it difficult to quote a 'definition' because you spend more time stomping around crying "no it ain't" than anything else but you've made it clear that 'controlling' territory is pretty much it.

You will, no doubt, say that's inaccurate but it doesn't really matter because you deny the reality of it, which means whatever you will fail to explain it is while opining "that isn't it" is still, being contrary to reality, an invention.

And you work real hard at it too.

For some strange reason I actually do.

You're a hoot. I pull 5 whole sections of the article and you call it "very selective quotations" and rebut with a 14 word sentence fragment ripped out of context. Not only that but, to make your attempted deception even more apparent, the sentence fragment you ripped out as 'your quote', while suggesting mine was 'selective', was *INCLUDED* in my quotation, except with the rest of the words around it that YOU selectively eliminated.

And then, to complete the farce, you snip my fuller quotations out.

What they'll find is that most of the rest is examples and explanations of why the portions I pulled out are the case

Isn't that nice? Except that all the words around it, that you ripped it out of, are explaining why that isn't the case, why it could not be the case, and why it isn't desirable that it ever be the case. Which is *IN* what you call my "very selective quotation."

Putting that one (of 5) "very selective quotation" back in...

"It is only by recognition that the new state acquires the status of a sovereign state under international law in its relations with the third states recognizing it as such. If it were to acquire this legal status before and independently of recognition by the existing states, solely on the basis of the three so-called traditional criteria of statehood (state population, state territory, effective government)..... It would not be possible to bring about the `negative' legal consequence intended by non-recognition, i.e. denial of the legal status of a state under international law."

What I 'selectively' removed at the ..... was an example to emphasis the point using Rhodesia and the Serbian Republic in Bosnia-Herzegovina and removing it did not alter the meaning, just saved some space.

*Your* selective culling of those 14 words is a deception attempting to suggest exactly the opposite of what the text says.

I also cut the paragraph short as the rest of it reinforces the last sentence in my quote but, lest anyone doubt and is too lazy to follow the link, here's the rest.

"Legal personality under international law, which non-recognition was intended to prevent, would already have been acquired, and non-recognition would then in a sense be futile and would merely be an expression of political censure of the way in which the state came into existence, without this flaw having any significant legal consequences under international law. Such an assumption is not consistent with state practice."

In other words, it ain't the case, can't be the case, isn't desirable that it be the case, *and* is inconsistent with state practice.

Well, it sometimes helps to laugh when you haven't got a leg to stand on.

What you *think* should have been the case doesn't matter. The fact is the Taliban was not the recognized government of Afghanistan and, as the article explains, there are reasons why 'recognition' matters, that there's more to a government that simply 'control' over territory, and just having 'power' doesn't automatically bestow legitimacy.

If we were sitting around talking about the ironies of life in a general sort of way I might agree with you, or at least find it amusing, but it isn't very funny when someone is harboring and aiding the folks who declared war on you and just mass murdered a few thousand of your fellow countrymen.

Osama ben Laden may have been the titular head of Al-Qaeda, which is a loose organisation. One of the Saudi-based branches of Al-Qaeda seems to have organised and executed the the assault on the Twin Towers, but at the time you invaded Afghanistan you would not have been able collect enough evidence of ben Laden's involvement to make a case in your courts or anybody else's, which means that you weren't in a position to demand his extradition. You might have been able to get him for involvment in the August 7, 1998, bombings of the U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, but I can't recall that being mentioned at the time.

Even today, the only real evidence of his involvement in the attack on the Twin Towers is a video tape, made long after the event, where he claims to have been privy to the initial planning. Since you'd by then started a small war on the presumption of his guilt, he didn't have anything to lose by claiming some responsibility, and he did gain some prestige amongst his supporters.

Don't misinterpret what I'm saying as support for him or Al-Qaeda - we'd all sleep more soundly if he and his supporters were safely behind bars, but history suggests that we will have to wait until the survivors have all died of old age.

What I do understand - and you clearly don't - is that Al Qaeda's real success in knocking down the Twin Towers wasn't the material damage, the casualty list, or the wide-spread feelings of insecurity, but their success in provoking your administration into abandoning the rule of law. Not that your current administration seems to have needed much provoking.

Any terrorist organisation that can provoke the target government into harrassing innocent citizens has achieved a considerable strategic victory at essentially no cost to themselves.

I've yet to hear of a real terrorist being arrested under emergency regulations.The British anti-IRA legislation has been on the books for around thirty years now, and about 95% of those arrested under it were released without charge, while none of the remaining 5% were ever charged with terrorist offences - almost all of them were charged with being illegal immigrants of one sort or another. And the pressure on the U.K. police did produce a small crop of convictions of innocent people, who had been "pressured" into confessing.

There does seem to be a fair amount of anedotal evidence that government over-reaction can encourage some members of minority groups to join terrorist organisation they see as defending their minority against an oppressive government.

Go figure.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Yeah. It can be a tactic in a general strategy that I sometimes refer to as divert and befuddle, not that folks use who it are always aware it comes out that way.

Another is what William Buckley explained as the "false equivalency:" attempting to claim substantively different things are 'the same' based on a 'technically true', but false for the substance, 'similarity'. His example went something like:

Murder pushes elderly woman into the path of an oncoming bus.

Hero sees elderly woman about to be struck by an oncoming bus and pushes her out of the way.

Demonizer claims your hero is 'just like' (the same as, no different than, just as guilty as) a murderer because they both push around old ladies (they do 'the same thing').

When, of course, the substance of the matter is that one is trying to kill her and the other is trying to save her.

You can make the false equivalency more difficult by having both fail to achieve their goal so your hero is even 'worse' than the murderer, or so the demonizer will claim, because not only does he push around old ladies, 'just like' the murderer, but he's killed more of them than the murderer (never mind that the murderer had also deliberately killed, or attempted to kill, 2 men and 3 fashion models, they're not old ladies, and that the elderly woman's death wasn't the hero's intention).

Since you already had it ok, otherwise i would suggest a (near) perchlorinated (methyl, ethyl, propyl, or butyl hydrocarbon) ketone. Not very toxic, very nearly ozone safe, and non-flammable; they are used in "Clean agent fire extinguishing systems". Hey, who is that chemist? He ought to be able to do better than this.

--
JosephKK

You realize that most of the US going off to "fix" other people's problems (ala "banana republic") is at the behest of multinational corporations.

--
JosephKK