Pangloss

I agree with Phi's post above. I can certainly understand why Europeans are so upset with the US. The devil, unfortunately, is in the details. What I object to are generalizations about Americans bringing this all on themselves, and causing all the world's ills. You bet we've caused some of these problems. I'm responsible. Me. Personally. So are *all* of *you*. For not asking enough of the right questions, for not holding politicians accountable, for not paying attention to who is being elected, what their policies are, and what they intend to do. We all share blame here. Getting ugly and pointing at Americans isn't going to solve *anything*. In response to Bloodhound's questions: I agree that the US should have signed the Kyoto accords, even if they were unfair to the US (and I'm not convinced that they were). So you won't find any argument from me there. It's part of why I agree with Phi's statement above. I also agree that we shouldn't be breaking WTO rules, even if other countries we're dealing with have done so. Unfortunately for the US, the political reality is that we're on a pedestal and we're pretty much everybody's whipping boy for the time being. So the only way to really make progress here is, again, as Phi said, to lead by example. As for the last statement, what would you have us do? Not only is America one of their few allies, but European nations often (if unintentionally) support Arab nations and their anti-Israel policies (as do flawed American approaches, such as with Saddam Hussein, who started as our ally and turned into our enemy). My point is that the rest of the world has no moral high ground to lord over Americans. Complain and criticize, sure. But let's drop the crass overgeneralizations that aren't supported by history. They're not getting us anywhere.

I think Bloodhound is capable of defending himself. On these points you and I agree, and it's a big part of why I think the war in Iraq was a huge mistake. It's not criticism of the US that I object to. It's when people oppose anything the US stands for or does, no matter what it is, *because* the US did it or said it. If that's not the opinion of anyone here, fine, I'm glad to hear it.

No, that's *your* interpretation. Mine differs, as stated above. That article is *very much* about assaulting Americans by way of misinformation, fear, and hate-mongering. In other words, if we don't interpret the article in the way in which you proscribe, we should keep our mouths shut? Nice.

Is it possible that the US might not be the only power responsible for its weakness?

Oh I got it. I just think the article fails to make its case, is wrong, and is agendized. Please don't mistake my ire for flaming. I'm not trying to suggest you guys are idiots or that it's wrong for you to post this, and if I gave that impression let me apologize. I think you guys have interesting opinions and far be it from me to try and stiffle anything. I do have a very strong negative reaction to the implication of this article, and I want to try and express that as viscerally as possible without offending anyone or suggesting that other opinions are not valid. My opinion is: 1) This is not really a change in policy (perhaps literally, but not analytically). (We've hit terrorist bases in allied countries without their permission with cruise missiles before. What difference if these come from space?) 2) There's nothing new about anti-satellite technology. 3) The Russians, not the Americans, started space weapon proliferation. 4) The point of this article is to bash America (and scare people).

Here's some information about existing anti-satellite programs, which Wired chose to ignore, if anyone is interested. By the way, it also ignored the fact that it was the Russians who built the first anti-satellite system. American System: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/asat.htm Earlier Russian System: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/is.html

If the US pulled out of the UN it would have a hard time continuing to exist. They spend about $3 billion per year on their regular budget, and about $2-3 billion more on peacekeeping. Out of which the US contributes about $3 billion. If the US were to pull out, *your* side of the debate would be screaming bloody murder. The U.N.'s failure would be blamed on -- you guessed it -- the United States. So the answer to your question is that pulling out wouldn't get us anything. We'd still have the same basic problem -- getting blamed for stuff that isn't our fault. By the way, what you actually said was "pull out of the security council". That would be an even more pointless course of action, gaining us nothing *and* making things worse. Libya's demanding a permanent seat on the Security Council. Would you like them to have it?

No, it is not.

I did, and I don't see your point. If you want to take issue with what I said, let's hear it.

"Begun"? They've been working on space battle scenarios since the 1950s. They already have one deployed anti-satellite weapon (such as it is). Why did he write it like this was something new? Oh I see. For the same reason you posted about it on the Politics board. Well, given the number of countries with space programs and satellite capability, it's just a matter of time before a need arises for enforcement in orbit. Sooner or later a nation with satellite capability will invade another nation and someone will have to enforce the UN mandate to put a stop to it. I believe North Korea already has LEO satellite capability. I trust I don't need to explain why a rogue nation with nukes and satellites in orbit is a bad thing. Of course, what this article is really about, and the reason I imagine it's been posted here, is whether the rest of the world is okay with the US putting weapons in orbit. I imagine there will be a serious international effort to stop the US from doing so, which the US will ignore (but be demonized for doing so), and then when it becomes necessary to deal with a rogue nation, rather than beg and plead for US assistance, the international community will chastise the US for not doing something about said rogue nation earlier. In other words, business as usual.

Yah I think that's definitely part of it. On the other hand, Mozilla could be said to be less vulnerable because IE is so tightly integrated with the OS.

Maybe Edwin Meese was channeling him.

Why didn't they do anything about it? Are they anti-Bush, or was there an actual reason?

*Incredible*. And this is what I typically hear, too. For a savvy user, like I assume pretty much everyone reading this, it's no big deal. But sometimes it can lead to a serious virus problem if you're not vigilent. Where it's really a problem is for the vast majority of computer users, who really don't know what they're getting into. It's gotten to the point where if you do nothing you're *guaranteed* to get spyware/viruses.

Just curious if anyone else here has ever caught a virus or spyware on their computer using Mozilla or Firefox. I use Mozilla as often as I can, but sometimes I have to hit a site using IE because of formatting problems in Mozilla. But so far I don't think I've ever caught spyware on my system using Mozilla, and it's been ages since I've had anything at all. Meanwhile everyone I know who's using IE is getting hit left and right, unless they're using anti-spyware, ad blockers, MyIE2, etc.

Oh look, it's one of those nasty English mountains! Do you need extra oxygen to climb that? (runs for cover) Just kidding, it's a beautiful picture.

When I was growing up in suburban Atlanta we had two kinds of politicians: Democrats and Democrats. You had your choice, you cast your vote, and that's that. It wasn't until the late 1980s that the Republicans began to make a showing in the south (great book: "The Vital South" by Earle and Merle Black of Emory University). Things DO change. It just sometimes takes a while. Believe me, it's *better* that way.

But you know what, I'm kinda nitpicking there, so just ignore me. It's a little silly.

Yes, but if you think about it, it's not relevent to finding the goods (I'm afraid to call them WMDs now -- you guys have me all flumoxed!). ;-) What I mean by that is that had he gone another two weeks he would have produced exactly the same report that he did, with exactly the same geopolitical result. The real issue is whether he should have been allowed a much longer time frame.

We had a Reform Party. Its more famous candidates included Perot, Ventura and Nader. Now it's defunct, mainly due to division over Nader. You pick a side you object to less, and then concentrate on more relevent areas. You might not know this being in the UK, but a lot of Americans do this, and it's pretty well reflected in polls and election results.

It's possible, I just don't remember now. I don't think it's particularly relevent.

rofl

I actually don't agree with you guys (the four posts above), although I respect that opinion a great deal, and certainly sympathize with it. Ultimately the system is what it is. You can either lead, follow, or get out of the way. The real problem (in our system; I can't speak for England, knowing almost nothing about it) is the lack of attention paid at the level where it not only matters, but at which individuals can make a huge impact. Put another way (a little more abruptly, but again no offense is intended), Americans should stop complaining about the presidential race and pay a little attention to the House races. We vote on them every two years, and yet most people don't know who their current rep is, much less who their opposition might be, with the election only a month away. I blame the media for this problem too, btw.

Blix did want a lot more than two weeks, in fact I vaguely recall from his book that he wanted another six months (don't make me look it up, I think it's under a HUGE pile in the bedroom).

Agreed!