backtop


Print 93 comment(s) - last by kalak.. on Aug 8 at 2:42 PM


Developers told not to panic over new Intel Core 2 Duo steppings

OpenBSD founder Theo de Raadt publicly denounced Intel’s Core 2 processors on the OpenBSD mailing list. Raadt cited 38 pages of processor errata from Intel’s published CPU specifications (PDF).

“These processors are buggy as hell, and some of these bugs don’t just cause development/debugging problems, but will *ASSUREDLY* be exploitable from userland code," Raadt said. "Some of these are things that cannot be fixed in running code, and some are things that every operating system will do until about mid-2008, because that is how the MMU has always been managed on all generations of Intel/AMD/whoeverelse hardware."

Linux coordinator and former Transmeta employee Linus Torvalds, thought otherwise and considers these bugs “totally insignificant.”

Processor errata is nothing new, Torvalds said. Commodity CPUs such as chips based on the Intel Core 2 architecture have a considerably lower bug rate than proprietary boutique CPUs.

“Yeah, x86 errata get more attention," said Torvalds. "But those things are pretty damn well tested. Better than most.”

The errata document specifically mentions the Core 2 Duo E4000, E6000, and X6800 series processors. None of the errata are nearly as insidious or widespread as more infamous problems, like the original Pentium floating-point bug, although some can lead to buffer overflow exploits, claims de Raalt. All of the current errata have patches in the works or can be — and have been — worked around by developers.

In a statement from Intel Global Communications, Nick Knuppfer writes:

“Months ago, we addressed a processor issue by providing a BIOS update for our customers that in no way affects system performance. We publicly documented this as an erratum in April. All processors from all companies have errata, and Intel has a well-known errata communication process to inform our customers and the public. Keep in mind the probability of encountering this issue is extremely low."

“Specification Updates for the affected processors are available at http://developer.intel.com. All errata are thoroughly investigated for issues and vulnerabilities, should they have any we fix them, usually through a microcode update.”


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By RogueSpear on 7/1/2007 10:52:28 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
In 2003 his public criticism of the US-led occupation in Iraq cost OpenBSD a $2m grant from the US Defense Advanced Research Project (DARPA).

There used to be a time when criticizing your government was considered acceptable. Depending on the circumstance, maybe even "patriotic".


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By masher2 (blog) on 7/1/2007 11:15:02 PM , Rating: 5
> "There used to be a time when criticizing your government was considered acceptable. Depending on the circumstance, maybe even "patriotic".

When was this? Criticize the war effort in WW2 or WWI and you'd earn yourself a black eye in any public house in the nation. During the Civil War, Lincoln had newspaper editors rounded up and arrested under treason charges for disagreeing with him, and even attempted to have congressmen who voted against the war hanged for it.

I think we're making pretty good progress actually.


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By Amiga500 on 7/2/07, Rating: 0
RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By ZmaxDP on 7/2/2007 4:57:06 PM , Rating: 2
I think the point should be made that the government wasn't above criticism in this case. He criticized it and suffered no personal consequence as a direct result of that criticism. If this organization he was involved in had no funding dependent upon the government, there would have been no consequence at all.

However, if you're dependent upon anyone for funding, you might take care to criticize too openly, or too forcefully. Any action in this world has consequences, and there are many people who disagree with current politics without facing any funding cuts in their projects because they word their disagreements appropriately. It's like anything else, even like these forums. I can disagree quite vehemently with someone like Masher on the actual efficiency of certain light bulbs (thrilling subject matter, I know), but since I'm not spouting profanity, name calling, finger pointing, or posturing for whatever reason we can both take each other's arguments at face value and neither of us have been kicked off the boards.

I can think of plenty of responses that have resulted in people being kicked off the boards for them making an ass of themselves, and I don't think in any way that doing so is a violation of free speech or any such nonsense.


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By ceefka on 7/2/2007 7:04:43 AM , Rating: 3
And critisizing the Nazi government in a local bar in Munchen in 1935-1945 would definately get you shot/hanged/one way ticket to"something else very cruel that kills you". But it would be patriotic.


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By Spivonious on 7/2/2007 9:56:27 AM , Rating: 2
This reminded me of a movie I saw recently: Sophie Scholl. It's a good one.


By therealnickdanger on 7/2/2007 12:15:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When was this?


Remember the Whisky Rebellion? Well, I don't either, it was before my time, however, there was a time when we could use more than just speech to influence the government's power... back when the "right to bear arms" actually held its meaning.


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By Polynikes on 7/2/2007 3:45:21 PM , Rating: 2
RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By FITCamaro on 7/2/2007 7:45:03 AM , Rating: 3
Criticizing the government is fine. Denouncing them as evil is another thing.

And last I checked, we're not there to occupy Iraq. Have and will we be there for a while? Yes. Until the job is done. But we're not the ones blowing up cars, slitting people's throats, or trying to kill civilians.


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By hesido on 7/2/2007 9:04:53 AM , Rating: 5
Oh yes, you were there for the WMD's.


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By chick0n on 7/2/07, Rating: -1
RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/2/2007 10:12:56 AM , Rating: 5
You need to think for yourself and stop listening to the media period. War is hell. Civilians die. Deal with it. The allies killed over 50,000 people in one day in WW2 and nobody even blinked. That's what happens when you put military installations and soldiers in a civilian city.

There seems to be this misconception that war can be waged without civilian casualties. This would only be true in an ideal world where both militaries faught on open empty ground. Realistically militaries especially in the middle east, put their installations, munition dumps, and soldiers right next to schools, hospitals, religious shrines, and in densely packed civilian neighborhoods.

If you want to put a munitions dump in a crowded neighborhood, don't scream when I drop a 500lb bomb on that sucker and turn three blocks into a flaming pile of rubble.

I don't really want to call them terrorists because while they are, so technically are we during war times. We use the "Shock and Awe" form of terror which is typically quite effective. Terror is a very effective weapon when wielded properly. I will instead call them Guerillas. These guerillas are masters of controlling the media, they put their installations and bases of operations intentionally near civilian targets knowing full well if we attempt to take them out, civilians will be killed in the process. They did this knowing what would happen, they did it so they can get a news story published on CNN, or BBC, or (Insert your favorite news agency here) that says U.S. Air Strike kills 15 civilians.

This sort of thing is rampant.
World War 1- 9 Million Civilians Dead
World War 2- 47 Million Civilians Dead
Vietnam War- Estimated 4 Million Killed
Korean War- 850,000 Civilians Dead

US Military Casualties
World War 1- 116,708 Killed
World War 2- 407,300 Killed
Vietnam War- 38,218 Killed
Korean War- 33,686 Killed

Take a good hard look at those numbers. Iraq is childs play next to the previous wars we fought.


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By bamacre on 7/2/2007 12:04:54 PM , Rating: 5
I would hope whoever coined the phrase, "war is hell," did not mean it to be apologetic.


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By MeTaedet on 7/3/2007 2:10:22 AM , Rating: 3
Indeed. The mere fact that we have gone to war in the past and that those wars have been far uglier than this current Iraq war by no means justifies this war or this administration's laughably and grossly spurious pretexts for it.

If the war were truly necessary and serving a purpose other than that of making a handful of people very rich, then the casualties caused by U.S. soldiers would perhaps be acceptable, but since this war is nothing more than perfect squandering of money, resources, human life, peace, and happiness, these casualties, serving no high or great purpose, are completely unjustified and criminal; in light of this, the patriotic (I absolutely HATE this word!) thing to do is to protest this war and to speak out against those who have made it their emprise to make money through it - such as Bush, Cheney, many others in the white house, leaders of oil companies, leaders of weapon and armour manufacturing companies, etc...


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By nah on 7/3/2007 9:18:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Iraq is childs play next to the previous wars we fought.


this may be true, but many people still regard WW II as the last 'good' war-==none of these wars were actually started by America

As for criticism--people have criticised the government many times--just watch Vietnam War vets burning their medals or throwing them away--just because they thought that the war was unjust---whenever a bill is vetoed---either by the House/Senate/President--it's in efefct a critique of the government's proposed actions---these criticisms made its way into the constitution way back in 1791 through the Bill of Rights---which is in effect a critique of the powers of the government


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By kalak on 7/3/07, Rating: 0
RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By Black Rainbow on 7/4/2007 6:33:59 AM , Rating: 2
Also, you should not forget that actually attacking civilian targets on purpose has great effect when trying to force a nation to the things you want them to do. Just think about the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki: they were civilian targets too, but it did put an end to WW2 by forcing Japan to capitulate.


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By stromgald on 7/2/2007 12:02:06 PM , Rating: 3
Care to stop spewing FUD and cite some legitimate sources for your claims?

Terrorists groups have killed many more civilians during the occupation. The only numbers that show high civilian deaths by Allied forces include the initial invasion/war. And with such a swift thrust to the capital and bombing of suspected Iraqi military installations, the civilian death toll must've been high. However, as others have pointed out, it's less than what past wars have caused.


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By bhieb on 7/2/2007 12:44:29 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah cheap oil is the reason, because gas sure has gotten cheaper since we went in. Oh wait no it is higher now than before. I don't buy into the "humanitarian" reasons either, but our being there will NOT reduce the cost of oil. If anything it will tick the other muslim oil countries off enought to keep the prices hight.


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/2/2007 1:07:33 PM , Rating: 4
Actually, check Iraq on the map. It is right in the middle of the Middle East more or less. Having American bases there, much like we did in Germany and Poland during the Cold War, better enabled us to respond to problems in the region.

If you want the real reason(s) we went to Iraq, I will give it to you cut and dry.

-Saddam has been jerking the U.S.'s chain for 20 some odd years. We didn't like him, and he was a thorn in our side. We cut him out.

-The cold war is over, conflict torn regions are the Korean peninsula (We have lots of bases in the region) and the Middle East (We do not have much in this region). We now have a sizable amount of military hardware and personnel in Iraq, which sits next to Iran (Another pain in the U.S.'s Ass) and Iraq is within striking distance of several other constant Middle Eastern warzones (Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, etc...) Do you have any idea how effective military deterant is during diplomatic negotiations? If we tell you to stop doing something, you can ignore us, its just talk right. But what if we have 50 thousand troops right next door and enough aircraft and bombs to level a sizeable portion of your countries infrastructure? Yea it carries a shitload more weight than just asking nicely. Because our ability to hit you without notice from that distance is outstanding. By the time you saw us coming we would be on the way out from leveling a lot of shit.

-Field testing. We haven't field tested U.S. Military hardware that we have spend billions in R&D on. Drone aircraft, new F-22's, Abrams Tanks with upgraded tech since the last gulf war, new bombs and guidance methods on aircraft, new sattelite technology, etc.... We need to test our military to make sure we aren't barking up the wrong tree. Notice how badly the Hum-V's seem to be doing? Yes, we overestimated their usefullness in a combat zone, and we are taking steps to replace it with more armored vehicles that are better able to handle the problems.

We also found out that our philosophy of not needing a large military, that high tech was good enough, has been proving not to be as correct as originally thought. We still need lots of soldiers, with the high tech equipment to effectively wage war.

Oil, etc.... are just BS arguments for people looking to complain.


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By mindless1 on 7/2/07, Rating: 0
RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By bryanW1995 on 7/3/2007 2:34:52 AM , Rating: 2
I would say that I was having an affair with Hillary Clinton. Crazy? Maybe, but it might get enough dirt smeared on her to get somebody else elected...


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By skaaman on 7/2/07, Rating: 0
RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By Ringold on 7/2/2007 5:10:16 PM , Rating: 2
Or perhaps the Bush Administration and high oil prices are merely the culmination of a clear trend that started before George Bush was born? Nah. That wouldn't make for a good conspiracy theory. Extremely clear cut-and-dry analysis showing one of the simplest cases economics can showcase as demand outstripping supply wouldn't be grounds for impeachment.

Oh, and windfall? Please. A propaganda term if ever there was one. I demand we impose a windfall profits tax on Apple. The liberal in me says the iPhone is a wasteful plaything of the clearly ultra-rich and nobody has the right to be so successful or clever businessmen and Apple therefore needs to "contribute" (at the point of the governments guns) to the rest of society. What does Steve Jobs thinks this damn country is, capitalist?!


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By skaaman on 7/2/2007 6:00:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Or perhaps the Bush Administration and high oil prices are merely the culmination of a clear trend that started before George Bush was born? Nah. That wouldn't make for a good conspiracy theory. Extremely clear cut-and-dry analysis showing one of the simplest cases economics can showcase as demand outstripping supply wouldn't be grounds for impeachment.


No. It wouldn't. As I noted, many other things around the globe are contributing to rising profits. But if that tight supply is perceived threatened, then volatile markets do the job that calmer market forces don't do. Drive prices higher.

quote:
Oh, and windfall? Please. A propaganda term if ever there was one. I demand we impose a windfall profits tax on Apple. The liberal in me says the iPhone is a wasteful plaything of the clearly ultra-rich and nobody has the right to be so successful or clever businessmen and Apple therefore needs to "contribute" (at the point of the governments guns) to the rest of society. What does Steve Jobs thinks this damn country is, capitalist?!


Uh... I actually just used the word. I wasn't going there... :-)


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By Ringold on 7/2/2007 5:13:48 PM , Rating: 3
Oh, and Sudan does have large oil reserves drawing significant foreign investment. Pop goes that theory. Maybe we would for huminitarian reasons, but as is typically the case, when America is busy holding down the fort elsewhere, Europe/UN/non-US NATO would rather see the slaughter continue than dare lose a Canadian or Dutch soldier doing a strong countries work.


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By darkpuppet on 7/5/2007 8:09:07 AM , Rating: 2
yeah, that's why Canada is still in Afghanistan... you know, home of the Taliban, the people who harboured Osama, who planned the attacks on the US.

There's nothing in Afghanistan for Canada, except to try and stabilize the region... to try and defend from the Taliban's return.

Not saying that the US didn't do good by capturing Sadam (so far, WAAAAAY before they've caught Osama), but the motives are suspect, and the region is in worse shape than when they started.

Now I'm not going to speculate on the motives for being in Iraq, but I'm going to say that you should finish the job you started.

And unfortunately, history may show this whole middle east effort as repeating the mistake of the past.. There have been some huge lapses in strategy that eerily echo the strategic mistakes made by the japanese in WWII (prematurely attacking the US), the nazis (opening up a second front in the war), vietnam(underestimating guerilla warfare), and so on...

Unfortunately, there's no easy answer to the war in Iraq (or Afghanistan -- if you've forgotten about that one)... but a rethinking of strategy may be in order...


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By stromgald on 7/2/2007 5:13:58 PM , Rating: 4
Well, to my knowledge, Sudan never used chemical and biological weapons like Saddam did. There weren't partnered with Iran and other nations in developing nuclear technology (whether for weapons or just power generation is up for debate). So overall, I think taking out Saddam had alot more political and strategic motivation than just oil.

The oil argument never holds up once you look at the facts. Simply put, Iraq is not that oil rich and does not supply all that much oil. Kuwait has as much oil in it's ground than all of Iraq. The first Gulf War was clearly about protecting our oil assets, the second Gulf War had several other motivating factors. Iraq's production accounted for less than 4% of the top 14 oil exporting countries in the world, and only 3.3% of overall production. If Iraq refused to export to the US, then prices would rise, but it certainly wouldn't be enough to justify the cost of a war.

Sources: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922041.html
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_wmds


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By skaaman on 7/2/2007 6:13:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The oil argument never holds up once you look at the facts. Simply put, Iraq is not that oil rich and does not supply all that much oil. Kuwait has as much oil in it's ground than all of Iraq. The first Gulf War was clearly about protecting our oil assets, the second Gulf War had several other motivating factors. Iraq's production accounted for less than 4% of the top 14 oil exporting countries in the world, and only 3.3% of overall production. If Iraq refused to export to the US, then prices would rise, but it certainly wouldn't be enough to justify the cost of a war.


It has nothing to do with what they have. Every increment in the pulse rate of the middle east drives the price per barrel up. Sustained tension keeps it there.

Lets say for argument sake the whole thing resolved itself tomorrow. Sunnis love shiite love kurds. Everyones happy. Hezbollah says sorry Israel, you have a right to exist. In that instance, are you shorting that barrel of oil or going long?


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By stromgald on 7/2/2007 7:00:59 PM , Rating: 2
Political tension and investor worries have secondary, short-term effects on prices. Supply and demand are the over-arching drivers in almost any commodity market. Think about this, even if tension is high, if there's a flood of oil coming out, people/countries would simply stock pile some (short term increase), then start using whatever comes out (back to low prices).

The main reason prices have been going up is because OPEC has not been increasing their production (i.e. the supply) at a rate that matches the increases in world demand (which is skyrocketing with China and 3rd world nations becoming more industrial).

In addition, whether or not everything gets resolved, I would go long on oil, because I expect its price to go up over time. Selling short just allows you to cash in when it goes down, and it acts as a way for the economy to 'dampen' the price drop from a surge of oil onto the market.


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By sviola on 7/4/2007 2:24:05 PM , Rating: 2
Well, you couldn't be more wrong. Here are the reasons:

1 - Iraq was an enemy of Iran. Iraq and Iran fought an 11 year war when the Islamic Revolution took place in 1979. The US economically and military helped Iraq. So, don't come with this Saddam was partnering with Iran, as this only shows you lack in history education.

2 - Iraq had one of the biggest armies in the region and was the only country that kept Iran in check. now that doesn't exist, Iran is the only military powerful country that is muslin.

3 - Iraq's previous oil production account was around 3.3% of the overall because the US put an embargo on Iraq after the Gulf War in 1991.

4 - Iraq has the biggest oil reserves in the world, accounting for almost 40% of the know oil capacity in the world.

5 - Halliburton (Cheney and Bush have stocks and worked there) has been the greatest beneficiary of the war, winning the most expensive Iraq reconstruction auctions and access to a great share of the oil in Iraq.

6 - Halliburton is under investigation for bribing and illegal activities on Iraq reconstruction and oil field auctions. Btw, vice Cheney is also under investigation.

7 - If it were humanity interests that drove the US, they would get out of Afganisthan so quick, and leave the country to few NATO soldiers, the taliban, drug dealers and Al-Qaeda to fight for it. (The US has less than 10k soldiers there)

8 - This war prevented the US from entering a recession: 150k soldiers in war are people with jobs, Weapon industry is manufacturing as never before, and oil, construction, telecommunications and engineering companies are making a big profit in Iraq (Fox News also, but for other reasons).

No, the US had only economic reasons for going to war. The two biggest consequences: increase of the internal deficit and Iran now has power in the middle-east it never did before (Iraq will probably become a Shi‘ite country after the US gets out, as the majority of the country follows that arm of Islam).


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By Clienthes on 7/3/2007 12:04:35 AM , Rating: 2
We went to war with Iraq because they challenged our political will. Oil had little to do with it. The US won't even recoup the expense of this war with whatever oil subsides we negotiate.

You can't let a country like Iraq refuse to bend to your political will in the very public way that they did. It gives all the other third world dictators ideas. Political power is far more valuable than oil. The entire reason the UN didn't back the war is because several other member nations were violating the very UN embargoes they had voted for just a few years prior, and to cover their own rears they decided to challenge the US political will as well. Luckily for them, the media is more inclined to make you fear and mistrust the US government than anyone else, so the crooked politicians from other countries are largely off the hook. They also managed to marginalize the UN as a political entity while saving their own hides (by demonstrating that the UN can be "bought" with some favorable trading with key nations to ensure that UN threats are never carried out, and that if you country is strong enough, UN "mandates" are mere suggestions).

You are right about one thing, if oil were not important we wouldn't be there. The reason we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait was because oil. If that hadn't happened, Saddam wouldn't have had any UN mandates to fail to comply with, and this war wouldn't have been necessary.

Ancillary benefits: A foot-hold in the Middle East. Sure, there's Kuwait and Egypt, but Iraq is an opportunity to have a very good position for our forces against countries that share a border with the host nation, so no negotiating to use airspace for countries in-between. Also, as someone mentioned, we get to test our new equipment.

The windfall in the oil industry that you're talking about has little to do with Iraq, and more to do with the lack of refining capacity in the US. You want gas prices to go down? Convince your neighbors to let a refinery to go up in your town.


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/3/2007 10:56:35 AM , Rating: 2
You pretty much nailed it.

People don't seem to understand that under Clinton the U.S. Foreign policy was weak at best. Foreign powers walked all over us, or flipped us the bird and we didn't do much about it.

On the flip side I remember Clinton taking crap from the NY Times for not doing something about Iraq every time they violated the terms of the treaty (Shot at our aircraft, etc...). Bush rolls in, things go downhill quick (9/11) we rolled into Afghanistan, which surprises a great many countries in the middle east who thought we were pansies.

I encourage you guys to pull out the history on what Saddam would do publically to the U.S. since the end of the first gulf war. He constantly ignored us and publically defied us. It was only a matter of time before a president came along that wasn't going to tolerate it anymore, Bush or whoever comes after him, and took Saddam out of the picture.

In retrospect, Bush Sr had the first crack at Saddam, but congress only gave him approval to defend and expel the Iraqi's from Kuwait, and not counter attack into Iraq. Clinton had ample opportunities to do something about Saddam, but we ended up with some cruise missile barraging on one occasion, but no real lasting solution. Bush Jr ignored Saddam for a while, but then decided to go with a more long term solution. Had Bush Jr not done something about Saddam, you can bet the next president would have had to do something to put that nutcase back in check, eventually some president would have to deal with Saddam.

Or we end up with the Castro problem, just waiting for him to die of old age or illness. Fidel Castro has been a thorn in the side of every president since JFK.


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By sviola on 7/4/2007 2:29:22 PM , Rating: 1
So, if a foreign government does not agree with you, the solution is to invade it? Well, hope the US has a lot more soldiers, as it'll need to invade Venezuela, Iran, Syria, North Korea, China, Russia. Oh, sorry, the last two are out of league...The US doesn't have the military power to wage war agaisnt them.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/6/2007 10:46:54 AM , Rating: 2
Invasion is not always necessary. China does not have the military power to beat the U.S. but at the same time the U.S. does not have the number of troops necessary to take over all of China. You need to stop thinking about military power in terms of numbers. U.S. soldiers score of a 20-1 Kill/Death ratio at a minimum in modern conflicts. With the value of our air dominance, long range missiles, cluster bombs, and A-10's and Gunships, you can bet that isnt going to change in the near future.


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By nah on 7/3/2007 11:14:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
-Saddam has been jerking the U.S.'s chain for 20 some odd years.


Incorrect--the US/Britain/France all supplied him with billions of USD worth of arms during the Iran/Iraq war. Saddam was their poster boy in the middle east. Even the chemical bombing of Kurds in 1988 did little to stop this cozy relationship
the same goes with bin Laden---when he was fighting the USSR the US gave the Taleban millions of USD worth of arms

To misquote Nietzsche--'Create not monsters lest you become a monster, and if ye gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes into you'


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By stromgald on 7/3/2007 11:37:16 AM , Rating: 2
Not exactly. 20 years would put the time frame from 1987-Present. Although the US initially funded Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war because of the radical religious rule in Iran (which was a threat to Iraqi stability), Iraq began refusing to listen to the US towards the end of the war.

The US condemned the genocidal tactics of Saddam, but did little to stop it at the time, since we were mostly concerned with the USSR in the late 80s. Meanwhile Saddam become more and more bold and eventually invaded Kuwait. Saddam didn't all of a sudden think that he could take Kuwait without our retaliation. He had refuted the US for years leading up to the first Gulf War and got away with it. Therefore, he thought he could get Kuwait's oil and relieve some of his war debt with the US without us lifting a finger.


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By kalak on 7/3/2007 4:13:13 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If you want the real reason(s) we went to Iraq, I will give it to you cut and dry.


I will give you THE reason:

- The USA needs to make use of your belical industry.


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By kalak on 7/3/2007 5:56:39 PM , Rating: 2
Rate me down, USA Fanboys....


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By Hawkido on 7/5/2007 3:09:57 PM , Rating: 2
Fanboys...
How many things in the room you are in have a USA Patent on them? Where would you be if it were not for the US technological revolution our form of government allows? A FanBoy buys into the idea lock stock and barrel of his idol. I already know the answer to the first question, so you must be a USA fanboy, you buy all of our products you can. The best that most any other country can come up with is a thin watered down patent with their own local patent office, or pirated technology (Go your country for stealing!). Remember most all forms of electrical appliances and generators(AC and DC) were patented in the US, most all forms of telecommunications were patented in the US, most all forms of manufacturing were developed and/or patented in the US.

All those who say "USA sux, they should go away" always have to throw an "*" in there which in the fine print reads "But, we get to keep their stuff!" LOL Kill the Goose that lays the Golden Eggs. I assure you the world will be a far worse place if the USA dissappears. Look at Africa. That will be Europe and Asia if the USA goes away. Capitalist Societies (like US, UK, Japan) are the only ones that can survive peace time (China is trying to become capitalist, but can't get there under a communist government. Either their government will change or they will go on a rampage, we'll see). All others have to continually conquer or extort resources to survive. All of the poor countries are empires that the USA will not allow to prey on their neighbors for resources. That is why you (and others from economically challenged countries) hate America. You want to steal from your neighbor so you can live high on the hog for a few weeks then it is off to the next neighbor. Look at history (France, Spain, Great Brittan, Germany, USSR, Japan, Rome, Greece), all of the great empires collapsed once they reached a point that they could no longer get to someone to loot, so they looted their own people till they emploded in revolution or dissolution. The USA consumes a large amount of resources, true, but we pay for them at the sellers requested price, and we produce more for the world than we consume. Our people are well fed (maybe too well) and we go on to feed a hugh percentage of the world (sometimes for free, which I think is wrong, let the lazy starve, only the workers should survive (law of the first American colony))

USA Fanboy indeed. Look at your own country with that same microscope on the same settings. You will see that since the USA was founded it has done more for the world than any other country and continues to do so to date. The End. Your fairy tale is over. Go post on a foreign web site.


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By kalak on 8/8/2007 2:42:19 PM , Rating: 1
ARE YOU NERVOUS ?

YOU ARE REALLY "Totally Insignificant"....

FANBOY MOTHERFUCKER !

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By Black Rainbow on 7/4/2007 6:39:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oil, etc.... are just BS arguments for people looking to complain.
I strongly disagree with that statement. The reason that America wanted Saddam and his government gone, is that they can afterwards institute a government that will protect their oil interests at all costs.


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By Acid Rain on 7/8/2007 10:21:25 AM , Rating: 1
" If we tell you to stop doing something, you can ignore us, its just talk right. But what if we have 50 thousand troops right next door and enough aircraft and bombs to level a sizeable portion of your countries infrastructure? Yea it carries a shitload more weight than just asking nicely"

Haha... yeah like those 50 thousand troops in Iraq really threaten someone when they drop like flies every week and administration support rating drooping with it. if anything, Iraq totally parallelized the US governments ability to deal with REAL issues (ie Iran).

btw FYI - the US can strike anywhere in the world with massive force without having land bases. the Parisian sea has a massive US strike force in it at any given moment.
And you have bases in turkey and Saudi-Arabia as far as I remember.

"Field testing. We haven't field tested U.S. Military hardware that we have spend billions in R&D on. Drone aircraft, new F-22's, Abrams Tanks with upgraded tech since the last gulf war, new bombs and guidance methods on aircraft, new sattelite technology, etc.... We need to test our military to make sure we aren't barking up the wrong tree"

If thats true (and I doubt it) guess what
TEST FAILED!
at the concept level.

"We also found out that our philosophy of not needing a large military, that high tech was good enough, has been proving not to be as correct as originally thought. We still need lots of soldiers, with the high tech equipment to effectively wage war."

how did you come to that?
you didn't fail operating against large forces - taking Iraq went smoothly - US army fails to deal with small groups of terrorists (we all fail). I can't see how you can win this by being even bigger and having lots more soldiers.

solutions are in :
a. concept of use of military force.
b. technology.
c. training.

but basically, theres not going to be another Iraq. and I don't see US forces occupying another country. this is the main lesson that will be learned.


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By Black Rainbow on 7/4/2007 6:29:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But we're not the ones blowing up cars, slitting people's throats, or trying to kill civilians.
I agree on the first two, but about the last I'm not so sure. Do you seriously think that no civilians were killed by American soldiers? Also, I seriously doubt America's motives for being in Iraq. I believe that all that talk about "bringing democracy" and stuff is just a big load of crap, and I don't believe it one little bit.


RE: De Raadt or the nut?
By Clienthes on 7/3/2007 12:17:02 AM , Rating: 2
Son: "Dad, there's something I'd like to say to you here in front of all the neighbors. You're an idiot. You are evil and incompetent." *whispers aside* "Can I have my allowance now?"

Dad: *boggle* "No."

Criticizing the government, totally cool.
Criticizing the government loudly in public, then asking it for money...not smart.


"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki