If you are offended by words such as "internet" or "war", or are offended by people discussing the realities of cyber-attacks as terror or as acts of war, then may I suggest that you go read some other thread that you do like.
www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/...
I see this form of warfare becoming popular. It can be very effective and cause great disruption.
At the risk of starting a flame war, BN, the US really decides when it respects international treaties. Guantanamo anyone?
That's not 100% true. Usually we do abide by the letter of the agreement, but we will take advantage of every loophole in them that our armies of lawyers can find.
There is not much difference between what you are saying and what I said.
The US do respect treaties, as long as they fits it's needs. And alot of treatires are just not signed. Like the ban on land mines treaty.
That's what I said, we won't sign it but we'll (generally) abide by it. And we're not the only ones who search for loopholes, and some other countries are much worse when it comes to blatantly violating them, they just don't get as much media attention.
On the note of Guantanamo, what specifically are you addressing? There's nothing inherently wrong with the detention center itself. The waterboarding was an issue, but a stop was put to that some time ago.
And FYI the reason the US didn't sign the landmine treaty was Korea since the DMZ is still mined and probably will be for as long as a state of war exists. Everywhere else, the US voluntarily abided by it and even went a step further than what was required while other countries like Italy continued to manufacture and export landmines for a while (that eventually stopped when its citizens finally realized what their government was doing and got pissed off).
And FYI the reason the US didn't sign the landmine treaty was Korea since the DMZ is still mined and probably will be for as long as a state of war exists. Everywhere else, the US voluntarily abided by it and even went a step further than what was required while other countries like Italy continued to manufacture and export landmines for a while (that eventually stopped when its citizens finally realized what their government was doing and got pissed off).
And let's not forget the fact that we keep very detailed records about where we mine so we can dig them up when the war is over. We even have new high tech mines that can be remote detonated, or programmed to detonate after an elapsed time, for easy cleanup (they showed it on the History Channel).
As for what MP mentionned, these aren't 100%. Not using landmines is 100% sure a kid won't lose a leg on it (which is almost has good as the pregnant woman losing two legs on a mine example).
Nothing is 100% as long as people are involved anywhere in the process, so I don't use 100% as my yardstick for something being good enough. Mines are too effective a tool of war to be abandoned (unless you care to give the DoD a replacement technology that is equally effective), so responsible use is the only real possibility remaining.
As for what MP mentionned, these aren't 100%. Not using landmines is 100% sure a kid won't lose a leg on it (which is almost has good as the pregnant woman losing two legs on a mine example).
Nothing is 100% as long as people are involved anywhere in the process, so I don't use 100% as my yardstick for something being good enough. Mines are too effective a tool of war to be abandoned (unless you care to give the DoD a replacement technology that is equally effective), so responsible use is the only real possibility remaining.
Yet 156 countries have said, no to landmines. Only 39 have said yes.
I won't say the rest of the stuff I was going to type. I am a new model poster now.
The number of countries agreeing to the treaty are rather unimportant to the discussion that land mines remain an effective tool of war. Also noteworthy is that many of the countries that are signatories to the treaty are island nations or countries whose conflicts are mostly internal (e.g. civil wars).
We should use them around prisons.
Prisons? Around houses you mean. It is my right to protect my house, family and belongings from criminals and terrorists. Suburbs LandminesTM are the way ot the future. Yeah Proposition 148!
Do not doubt for a second that I would approve hypothetical Proposition 148. If the law puts you somewhere, stay there, if the law bans you from somewhere, stay the **** out. A realistic chance of explodyness reinforces that idea quite well I think. Ohh! Border crossings. Another place begging for landmines.
The number of countries agreeing to the treaty are rather unimportant to the discussion that land mines remain an effective tool of war. Also noteworthy is that many of the countries that are signatories to the treaty are island nations or countries whose conflicts are mostly internal (e.g. civil wars).
The fact that 156 countries have decided to sign the treaty is important. It means that most countries are willing to wadge war differently. Of course to an American this might be a foreign language. Massacre is the word right? Iraq's death ratio for Iraqies and Americans is the same then Vietnam after all.
There is no international government and therefore no global majority rule. Each nation is free to do as it likes with regard to ratifying treaties or not. I'd also be more inclined to take the opinions of other countries seriously if they didn't expect us to solve their problems.
Libya begs for our intevention, then whines that it's not to their liking. Mabe we should have just stayed out of it and let Ghadafi slaughter them all. Or maybe Europe should have grown some sack and handled it themselves. France pushed for the resolution. And Europe is just across the street from Libya (geographically speaking).
It's high time we started telling other nations to settle their own affairs. Then we wouldn't have runaway military spending and could actually get a better handle on our deficit.
I am sorry, but the majority of the country who signed aren't island countries and aren't engage in civil war. There isn't 39 countries who aren't islands or engage in a civil war in the world right now. You have better counter arguments then this.
I never said majority. that was your word. I said many. Of the island nations there are: Ireland, the U.K., Australia, Japan, Morroco, New Zealand, the Phillipines, Iceland, Jamaica, Malta, Trinidad and Tobago, Solomon Islands, Sao Tome and Principe, Samoa, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Lucia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Papua New Guinea, Palau, Madagascar, and possibly others. I don't care to go into all the warring african states and other nations with internal military conflicts because I have no desire to waste my time doing research for someone who likely doesn't care what the results of that research are. The list of signatory nations is here if you feel like doing the work for yourself.
... meaningless rant ...
So much for this:
I am a new model poster now.
And next time you drop the race card, make sure you do it on someone that will actually be baited by it.
Neither did MP. That was just a cited example.
Neither did MP. That was just a cited example.
Thanks for the backup. It's nice to see there are other people who realize that citing one example doesn't mean you think it's the only example.
Neither did MP. That was just a cited example.
He is the one who specifically mentionned Africans. He could have just said other warring countries.
Racism is a incidious little devil.
He said African states and other nations. You're really not that bad at reading, are you? If so, just let us know so we can use shorter sentences and simpler words. Or if you truly equate the mentioning of a continent and the events going on there with racism, let us know that as well.
Oh, and news flash for you. There are other ethnicities and races besides "blacks" that live in Africa.
After a war, the US will spend a ****load of money demining the areas it mined.
I believe land mines are a legitimate, legal, and effective form of warfare.
*shrug*
U_S is a race baiter from way back...
try not to pay attention to it...
Okay, and how many of thoes 156 countries had access to easily findable and/or self disposing land mines or have historically shown an inclination to remove their own landmines after armed conflict ceases?
Not the US it would seem, but it didn't sign such a treaty.
Sooo, mabey answer the question then?
If the USA is the world leader, why can't it lead this dossier?
We're not the world leader. Everyone just expects us to be because we're the most successful family on the block.
If the USA is the world leader, why can't it lead this dossier?
We're not the world leader. Everyone just expects us to be because we're the most successful family on the block.
Say that to your politicians and your fellow citizens who keep calling the US a leader.
We are A leader. We're just not THE leader. The major countries of the world are like a board of directors at a company, only there's no CEO to provide the necessary individual leadership because there's no global President/PM.
Of course, if Canada (or almost any other nation) wants to recognize us as THE leader I'd be glad to help you petition Congress for statehood.
Statehood gets us all that sweet, sweet tax money.
Not only that, you'd get to legally vote for the US president and have representation in the U.S. Congress.
Edit: Specifically, you'd have 53 members in the house of reps and either 2, 20, or 26 senators (depending on whether canada comes in as one state or each province is an individual state; and whether the territories count as states)
The status of the prisoners. Which is a flame war by itself.
The status of the prisoners isn't in violation of international treaties. If they want different treatment there are certain criteria that must be met to receive special POW status under international law. Now you can call this a loophole and I won't disagree with you, but it is also a loophole that Al-Qaeda and the Taliban could close if they so chose. They have not bothered to so I don't disagree with the way the US handled it.
As for landmines, the US still hasn't signed the Ottawa treaty banning anti-personel landmines. From what I gather.
Yes, I believe I already said that. I also pointed out that the reason the US hasn't signed it is because the DMZ in Korea is still mined and a state of war still exists there. For everywhere outside of Korea, the US policy is to abide by the treaty. It even stopped employing mines that are not banned by the treaty.
As for what MP mentionned, these aren't 100%. Not using landmines is 100% sure a kid won't lose a leg on it (which is almost has good as the pregnant woman losing two legs on a mine example).
True, but the US isn't planting more mines around the world. The mines are already out there and have been for some time. In fact, the US participates in demining projects to get rid of minefields that are already there.
I can't think of anyone else that puts more effort into this than the US.
And our enemies certainly don't.
*shrug*
Like I said above, the technology is not 100%, money is still pumped to get mines that will not fail. So the US landmines can still kill and main civilians.
But that is the beauty of electronic landmines. You don't have to rely on the self-destruct mechanism working. After a set period of time the battery dies and the mine ceases to function. The mine can "fail" and still be effectively neutralized.
And the US still has a stock pile of 1,2 million persistent mines.
A stockpile that is not being used. That makes it pretty irrelevant. It hasn't used persistent AP landmines since 1991. It also has not exported any since 1992. The numbers for the US stockpile also include claymore mines, which I think is a little misleading (note, none of the information I have mentioned so far includes claymore mines). The reason is that claymore mines are used in low density, not in mass minefields, and while they are persistent in the sense that they don't self-destruct, they are set up for command initiation (so they only function when someone chooses to fire them), and as a result they are not left behind when a unit moves on (and even if one was somehow missed, someone won't just step on it and get blown up).
Fun fact, the only two countries to employ landmines in 2008 and 2009 were Myanmar and Russia (plus insurgent/terrorist groups).
If the USA is the world leader, why can't it lead this dossier?
Again, Korea. Besides, everyone likes to criticize the US, but we're the ones people look at first when **** hits the fan (look how awesome NATO is doing in Libya since the US decided to back off to a support role). Therefore, it makes sense that even if we only employ them as a last resort that we keep our options open just in case.
Dear Valued Customer,
On March 30th, we were informed by Epsilon, a company we use to send emails to our customers, that files containing the email addresses of some Walgreens customers were accessed without authorization.
We have been assured by Epsilon that the only information that was obtained was your email address. No other personally identifiable information was at risk because such data is not contained in Epsilon's email system.
For your security, we encourage you to be aware of common email scams that ask for personal or sensitive information. Walgreens will not send you emails asking for your credit card number, social security number or other personally identifiable information. If ever asked for this information, you can be confident it is not from Walgreens.
We realize you previously unsubscribed from promotional emails from Walgreens, and that will continue, but we feel an obligation to make you aware of this incident. We regret this has taken place and any inconvenience this may have caused you. If you have any questions regarding this issue, please contact us at 1-855-814-0010. We take your privacy very seriously, and we will continue to work diligently to protect your personal information.
Sincerely,
Walgreens Customer Service Team
Anyway, this was a little too close for comfort as far as complete strangers reading my medical history. Not that I hide it here or am ashamed of it but still, not good.
Well at least it's not as bad as when the VA lost an entire database full of people's personal information.
Yeah... I got a letter about that years ago.
I think the internet is the most jury-rigged outdated piece of electronic crap currently out there and it's very likely that the amount of cyber-crime there is a result of that.
Yes... which is why we should update it's nature to something that doesn't require that (or at least not as much), while giving us the same kind of features.
Good luck with that... Besides, it pretty much ceases being the internet at that point. There is just no feasible way (at this time) to "consolodate" the internet.
Only thing left now is to wait until it crashes and burns completely and then hopefully our society will survive to build a new version. Or it won't. Shouldn't be much longer now
Re:Land mines in Vietnam: It's fairly difficult to remove land mines once the conflict is over if the enemy is shooting at you until the last one of you leaves the country.
That started with your arrogance to pretent to have THE system and be able to solve every problem. Lol!
It started when we saved Europe twice in the World Wars and then emerged as one of the two big dogs on the world stage. People got used to looking at us for help since we were (and still are) much more powerful than they are.
Like in Rwanda or Darfour? When the US did nothing? Maybe. But Rwanda and Darfour didn't have any oil.
Libya doesn't have any oil of consequence for us. They supply something like 1% or less of the oil we use. The oil we get from them is NOT worth the headache of a war, however minor.
I'm all for leaving other countries to fend for themselves and spending our money on our citizens.
I'll believe it if you'd stop attacking and invading countris like Iraq.
Every military target in Iraq should just have been bombed into oblivion each and every time it fired on planes enforcing the U.N. mandated no fly zone. We didn't need to invade it again, you are correct.
At the risk of starting a flame war, BN, the US really decides when it respects international treaties. Guantanamo anyone?
That's not 100% true. Usually we do abide by the letter of the agreement, but we will take advantage of every loophole in them that our armies of lawyers can find.
There is not much difference between what you are saying and what I said.
The US do respect treaties, as long as they fits it's needs. And alot of treatires are just not signed. Like the ban on land mines treaty.
That's what I said, we won't sign it but we'll (generally) abide by it. And we're not the only ones who search for loopholes, and some other countries are much worse when it comes to blatantly violating them, they just don't get as much media attention.
On the note of Guantanamo, what specifically are you addressing? There's nothing inherently wrong with the detention center itself. The waterboarding was an issue, but a stop was put to that some time ago.
And FYI the reason the US didn't sign the landmine treaty was Korea since the DMZ is still mined and probably will be for as long as a state of war exists. Everywhere else, the US voluntarily abided by it and even went a step further than what was required while other countries like Italy continued to manufacture and export landmines for a while (that eventually stopped when its citizens finally realized what their government was doing and got pissed off).
And FYI the reason the US didn't sign the landmine treaty was Korea since the DMZ is still mined and probably will be for as long as a state of war exists. Everywhere else, the US voluntarily abided by it and even went a step further than what was required while other countries like Italy continued to manufacture and export landmines for a while (that eventually stopped when its citizens finally realized what their government was doing and got pissed off).
And let's not forget the fact that we keep very detailed records about where we mine so we can dig them up when the war is over. We even have new high tech mines that can be remote detonated, or programmed to detonate after an elapsed time, for easy cleanup (they showed it on the History Channel).
As for what MP mentionned, these aren't 100%. Not using landmines is 100% sure a kid won't lose a leg on it (which is almost has good as the pregnant woman losing two legs on a mine example).
Nothing is 100% as long as people are involved anywhere in the process, so I don't use 100% as my yardstick for something being good enough. Mines are too effective a tool of war to be abandoned (unless you care to give the DoD a replacement technology that is equally effective), so responsible use is the only real possibility remaining.
As for what MP mentionned, these aren't 100%. Not using landmines is 100% sure a kid won't lose a leg on it (which is almost has good as the pregnant woman losing two legs on a mine example).
Nothing is 100% as long as people are involved anywhere in the process, so I don't use 100% as my yardstick for something being good enough. Mines are too effective a tool of war to be abandoned (unless you care to give the DoD a replacement technology that is equally effective), so responsible use is the only real possibility remaining.
Yet 156 countries have said, no to landmines. Only 39 have said yes.
I won't say the rest of the stuff I was going to type. I am a new model poster now.
The number of countries agreeing to the treaty are rather unimportant to the discussion that land mines remain an effective tool of war. Also noteworthy is that many of the countries that are signatories to the treaty are island nations or countries whose conflicts are mostly internal (e.g. civil wars).
We should use them around prisons.
Prisons? Around houses you mean. It is my right to protect my house, family and belongings from criminals and terrorists. Suburbs LandminesTM are the way ot the future. Yeah Proposition 148!
Do not doubt for a second that I would approve hypothetical Proposition 148. If the law puts you somewhere, stay there, if the law bans you from somewhere, stay the **** out. A realistic chance of explodyness reinforces that idea quite well I think. Ohh! Border crossings. Another place begging for landmines.
The number of countries agreeing to the treaty are rather unimportant to the discussion that land mines remain an effective tool of war. Also noteworthy is that many of the countries that are signatories to the treaty are island nations or countries whose conflicts are mostly internal (e.g. civil wars).
The fact that 156 countries have decided to sign the treaty is important. It means that most countries are willing to wadge war differently. Of course to an American this might be a foreign language. Massacre is the word right? Iraq's death ratio for Iraqies and Americans is the same then Vietnam after all.
There is no international government and therefore no global majority rule. Each nation is free to do as it likes with regard to ratifying treaties or not. I'd also be more inclined to take the opinions of other countries seriously if they didn't expect us to solve their problems.
Libya begs for our intevention, then whines that it's not to their liking. Mabe we should have just stayed out of it and let Ghadafi slaughter them all. Or maybe Europe should have grown some sack and handled it themselves. France pushed for the resolution. And Europe is just across the street from Libya (geographically speaking).
It's high time we started telling other nations to settle their own affairs. Then we wouldn't have runaway military spending and could actually get a better handle on our deficit.
I am sorry, but the majority of the country who signed aren't island countries and aren't engage in civil war. There isn't 39 countries who aren't islands or engage in a civil war in the world right now. You have better counter arguments then this.
I never said majority. that was your word. I said many. Of the island nations there are: Ireland, the U.K., Australia, Japan, Morroco, New Zealand, the Phillipines, Iceland, Jamaica, Malta, Trinidad and Tobago, Solomon Islands, Sao Tome and Principe, Samoa, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Lucia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Papua New Guinea, Palau, Madagascar, and possibly others. I don't care to go into all the warring african states and other nations with internal military conflicts because I have no desire to waste my time doing research for someone who likely doesn't care what the results of that research are. The list of signatory nations is here if you feel like doing the work for yourself.
... meaningless rant ...
So much for this:
I am a new model poster now.
And next time you drop the race card, make sure you do it on someone that will actually be baited by it.
Neither did MP. That was just a cited example.
Neither did MP. That was just a cited example.
Thanks for the backup. It's nice to see there are other people who realize that citing one example doesn't mean you think it's the only example.
Neither did MP. That was just a cited example.
He is the one who specifically mentionned Africans. He could have just said other warring countries.
Racism is a incidious little devil.
He said African states and other nations. You're really not that bad at reading, are you? If so, just let us know so we can use shorter sentences and simpler words. Or if you truly equate the mentioning of a continent and the events going on there with racism, let us know that as well.
Oh, and news flash for you. There are other ethnicities and races besides "blacks" that live in Africa.
After a war, the US will spend a ****load of money demining the areas it mined.
I believe land mines are a legitimate, legal, and effective form of warfare.
*shrug*
U_S is a race baiter from way back...
try not to pay attention to it...
Okay, and how many of thoes 156 countries had access to easily findable and/or self disposing land mines or have historically shown an inclination to remove their own landmines after armed conflict ceases?
Not the US it would seem, but it didn't sign such a treaty.
Sooo, mabey answer the question then?
If the USA is the world leader, why can't it lead this dossier?
We're not the world leader. Everyone just expects us to be because we're the most successful family on the block.
If the USA is the world leader, why can't it lead this dossier?
We're not the world leader. Everyone just expects us to be because we're the most successful family on the block.
Say that to your politicians and your fellow citizens who keep calling the US a leader.
We are A leader. We're just not THE leader. The major countries of the world are like a board of directors at a company, only there's no CEO to provide the necessary individual leadership because there's no global President/PM.
Of course, if Canada (or almost any other nation) wants to recognize us as THE leader I'd be glad to help you petition Congress for statehood.
Statehood gets us all that sweet, sweet tax money.
Not only that, you'd get to legally vote for the US president and have representation in the U.S. Congress.
Edit: Specifically, you'd have 53 members in the house of reps and either 2, 20, or 26 senators (depending on whether canada comes in as one state or each province is an individual state; and whether the territories count as states)
The status of the prisoners. Which is a flame war by itself.
The status of the prisoners isn't in violation of international treaties. If they want different treatment there are certain criteria that must be met to receive special POW status under international law. Now you can call this a loophole and I won't disagree with you, but it is also a loophole that Al-Qaeda and the Taliban could close if they so chose. They have not bothered to so I don't disagree with the way the US handled it.
As for landmines, the US still hasn't signed the Ottawa treaty banning anti-personel landmines. From what I gather.
Yes, I believe I already said that. I also pointed out that the reason the US hasn't signed it is because the DMZ in Korea is still mined and a state of war still exists there. For everywhere outside of Korea, the US policy is to abide by the treaty. It even stopped employing mines that are not banned by the treaty.
As for what MP mentionned, these aren't 100%. Not using landmines is 100% sure a kid won't lose a leg on it (which is almost has good as the pregnant woman losing two legs on a mine example).
True, but the US isn't planting more mines around the world. The mines are already out there and have been for some time. In fact, the US participates in demining projects to get rid of minefields that are already there.
I can't think of anyone else that puts more effort into this than the US.
And our enemies certainly don't.
*shrug*
Like I said above, the technology is not 100%, money is still pumped to get mines that will not fail. So the US landmines can still kill and main civilians.
But that is the beauty of electronic landmines. You don't have to rely on the self-destruct mechanism working. After a set period of time the battery dies and the mine ceases to function. The mine can "fail" and still be effectively neutralized.
And the US still has a stock pile of 1,2 million persistent mines.
A stockpile that is not being used. That makes it pretty irrelevant. It hasn't used persistent AP landmines since 1991. It also has not exported any since 1992. The numbers for the US stockpile also include claymore mines, which I think is a little misleading (note, none of the information I have mentioned so far includes claymore mines). The reason is that claymore mines are used in low density, not in mass minefields, and while they are persistent in the sense that they don't self-destruct, they are set up for command initiation (so they only function when someone chooses to fire them), and as a result they are not left behind when a unit moves on (and even if one was somehow missed, someone won't just step on it and get blown up).
Fun fact, the only two countries to employ landmines in 2008 and 2009 were Myanmar and Russia (plus insurgent/terrorist groups).
If the USA is the world leader, why can't it lead this dossier?
Again, Korea. Besides, everyone likes to criticize the US, but we're the ones people look at first when **** hits the fan (look how awesome NATO is doing in Libya since the US decided to back off to a support role). Therefore, it makes sense that even if we only employ them as a last resort that we keep our options open just in case.
Dear Valued Customer,
On March 30th, we were informed by Epsilon, a company we use to send emails to our customers, that files containing the email addresses of some Walgreens customers were accessed without authorization.
We have been assured by Epsilon that the only information that was obtained was your email address. No other personally identifiable information was at risk because such data is not contained in Epsilon's email system.
For your security, we encourage you to be aware of common email scams that ask for personal or sensitive information. Walgreens will not send you emails asking for your credit card number, social security number or other personally identifiable information. If ever asked for this information, you can be confident it is not from Walgreens.
We realize you previously unsubscribed from promotional emails from Walgreens, and that will continue, but we feel an obligation to make you aware of this incident. We regret this has taken place and any inconvenience this may have caused you. If you have any questions regarding this issue, please contact us at 1-855-814-0010. We take your privacy very seriously, and we will continue to work diligently to protect your personal information.
Sincerely,
Walgreens Customer Service Team
Anyway, this was a little too close for comfort as far as complete strangers reading my medical history. Not that I hide it here or am ashamed of it but still, not good.
Well at least it's not as bad as when the VA lost an entire database full of people's personal information.
Yeah... I got a letter about that years ago.
I think the internet is the most jury-rigged outdated piece of electronic crap currently out there and it's very likely that the amount of cyber-crime there is a result of that.
Yes... which is why we should update it's nature to something that doesn't require that (or at least not as much), while giving us the same kind of features.
Good luck with that... Besides, it pretty much ceases being the internet at that point. There is just no feasible way (at this time) to "consolodate" the internet.
Only thing left now is to wait until it crashes and burns completely and then hopefully our society will survive to build a new version. Or it won't. Shouldn't be much longer now
Re:Land mines in Vietnam: It's fairly difficult to remove land mines once the conflict is over if the enemy is shooting at you until the last one of you leaves the country.
That started with your arrogance to pretent to have THE system and be able to solve every problem. Lol!
It started when we saved Europe twice in the World Wars and then emerged as one of the two big dogs on the world stage. People got used to looking at us for help since we were (and still are) much more powerful than they are.
Like in Rwanda or Darfour? When the US did nothing? Maybe. But Rwanda and Darfour didn't have any oil.
Libya doesn't have any oil of consequence for us. They supply something like 1% or less of the oil we use. The oil we get from them is NOT worth the headache of a war, however minor.
I'm all for leaving other countries to fend for themselves and spending our money on our citizens.
I'll believe it if you'd stop attacking and invading countris like Iraq.
Every military target in Iraq should just have been bombed into oblivion each and every time it fired on planes enforcing the U.N. mandated no fly zone. We didn't need to invade it again, you are correct.