$357 million is less than 1% of the cash M$ has on hand. (I think I have my decimal points in the right places.) From a financial standpoint, it's a gnat on an elephant's ass. From a public relations standpoint, however, it's significant.

I have never seen Kano or Slam say that Germany sux's because of the codex laws. They might not agree with the law but they certainly don't bash their country over it.

When the Iraq deals with Germany came out, you did not see them on these forums complaining about German corruption. This isn't the place.

I just find it amazing the negaitive reaction the world - and some of the US - has towards my country.

I sometimes really wish that we would pull out of Iraq and tell them that they are on there own. To all the countries that have asked for our assisantce with money and food to pull out as well.

To pull all our jobs that we outsource to other nations back to the US (or tax those companies to the point where it would be more profitable to just stay here.)

To completely close our borders to imigrants with a statement that you proabably don't really want to be here and will just bitch when you get here like our own citizens do.

To become isolationist and tell the world that we are tired of being unappreciated and it will do just fine without us, our money, and our aid.

And if an indivdiual wants to donate to another country, fine, but no tax breaks for it. Most countries don't want our aid unless it is completely on their terms anyways.

Tarriffs should also increase making buying American more cost effect. The world doen't need our money anyways.

The sad thing is a lot of Americans have no since of "patitisom." The sad thing is that is now considered a dirty word in the States.

Attacking M$ would be tantamount to attacking their own military, if you get my drift. With a well placed "update" they could cripple many many countries.

But make no mistake, the only interest the US government really had in MS was that campaign contribution.

To pull all our jobs that we outsource to other nations back to the US (or tax those companies to the point where it would be more profitable to just stay here.)

To completely close our borders to imigrants with a statement that you proabably don't really want to be here and will just bitch when you get here like our own citizens do.

To become isolationist and tell the world that we are tired of being unappreciated and it will do just fine without us, our money, and our aid.

And if an indivdiual wants to donate to another country, fine, but no tax breaks for it. Most countries don't want our aid unless it is completely on their terms anyways.

Tarriffs should also increase making buying American more cost effect. The world doen't need our money anyways.

Even if it isn't actually a conspiracy it would be naive to think the CIA don't have people on the inside at M$ wouldn't it? It is hard to imagine that they wouldn't place agents in such a powerful place don't you think? Any non-US government that uses M$ has rocks in their head.

dpkg -l *selinux*
...
||/ Name Version Beschreibung
+++-================================-================================-================================================================================
ii libselinux1 1.30-1 SELinux shared libraries

Piper,

The gassing of the Kurds in the North was years before, did anyone come to their help then or the marsh arabs, there is only one reason for the war, to secure access to the second largest known oil reserves.

Ian

The U.S. is the only country condemned by the World Court for international terrorism-for "the unlawful use of force" for political ends.

In much of the world the U.S. is regarded as a leading terrorist state.

Edit: And what all of this has to do with the title of the thread about the Microsoft fine, I have no idea.

Then why is gas prices higher than ever

If oil is our real goal then we would do more drilling in our own country and lessen our reliance to foreign oil.

I.

Cathbard,

"they" are doing the same all over the place. Just goole for echelon, or recently was reveiled that "they" were surveilling the central swift-servers in Belgium, so "they" had an overview over more or less the worldwide money being transfered through that network for about five years.

hubi

Makes you think about a country that will bring the full weight of the law against a US president for sexual misconduct and lying about it, but not against one for crossing the limits of legality and human rights time and again. And what about bringing the country to war against another under false pretenses.

(Again, many Americans don't seem to realize this.)

If Sadam really had no weapons of mass destructions, he played really stupid games with the inspectors that would try to come to check on that.

If he was just bluffing and was really just planting roses and flowers it was a really stupid bluff.

This is all about power, not humanitarianism. America thinks they have the right to rule the world.

Piper: There's opinion, and there's fact.

You're welcome to your opinions. You want to think all Democrats are cowards, and publicly call them names, that's your problem.

But as far as your facts go, you're 99% full of shit. You might want to check into the reality of what you said. If you care about reality, that is.

And that's all I have to say to you about your post.

first, you werent there to witness ANYTHING, Kill anything, watch people die in your arms or watch lunchtime crowd get fragged, You weren't there PERIOD, and the biggest people that complain about the "scene" the most are people who have NO CLUE, because they weren't there.

piper: your analysis seems to be missing one fact.
If the Iraqi's had WMD why didn't they use them?
Given the large numbers of Iraqi's willing to die to remove Americans and the coalition the vast armaments that you say are hidden why didn't a single Baathist republican guard use a single one.

Having spent a fair amount of time in Iraq in more peaceful times (and mostly travelling with the Republican guard as an 'escort') I find it hard to imagine not a single until firing a missile, rocket or shell with a WMD warhead if they were so readily available.



Again this only opens more questions. We are told that most Iraqi's want the Americans yet a considerable number seem intent on killing them.
Its not possible to walk round a city like Bhagdad with an RPG or SAM and not be seen so many people most at least sympathise enough to not say anything.

WHY would you use a WMD of that "type" in a WAR in your homeland ?????

It certainly ain't all about oil, which actually makes me laugh outloud.

Right now Saddam Hussein is on trail for human rights violations he committed in 1982 (ie he was behind the killing of 150 or so Shiites). But 1982 was also the year that Ronald Reagan dropped Iraq from the list of states supporting terrorism so that the US could start providing him with extensive aid - including military aid - including means to develop biological and chemical weapons and missiles and nuclear weapons, and Donald Rumsfeld shortly after went to Iraq to firm up the agreement with Saddam.

The Next charge against Saddam Hussein - the next one that's going to come along - it's been announced - it's a much more serious crime - the atrocities against the Kurds in 1987/1988 killing probably 100,000 people - the US didn't object - in fact the Reagan administration blocked efforts in congress even to protest against it. Furthermore, the the support for Saddam by the US increased and continued. In fact Saddam was given an extra-ordinary privilege - remarkable - he got away with attacking a US navel vessel killing 37 US soldiers/seamen in 1987.

In 1989 Iraqi nuclear engineers were invited to the United States to take part in a conference in Portland Oregon in which they were trained in how to develop weapons of mass destruction.
[...]
Yes the human rights violations were horrendous, but does that have anything to do with the invasion of Iraq? No, nothing.

While I find this thread disturbing (like watching good friends beat each other up), I feel compelled to make this point. I do not believe that the Bush Administration invaded Iraq because of oil, at least not directly.

I don't think they existed. What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf War, and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the nineties.

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.

The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there.

I am confused. After watching, reading and listening all week to various middle eastern ambassadors, embassy officials, scholars, etc--all seem to be clamoring for the US to come and broker some sort of peace between Israel and Hezbala. Lots of criticism for us not being there in the middle of this most recent but never ending hate scenario immediately--at the same time not wanting us to interfere and criticising every thing we do. I for one would prefer to stay out of it and let the middle east take care of its own problem.

Politics and Economics have a massive impact on what we do here, so I would say "Anything Goes" ist the right place to talk about it. We try to protect this place as a free haven for free speech - as long as it does not lead to substantial problems for the Kanotix project.