We were debating your original statement which was that "too much blood has been spilt for silly reasons here" (referring to America) and that because of that you'd rather live in Europe.

You've proceeded to try to wriggle out of the statement by saying that you were only talking about Europe since 1776, and then that you wanted to count deaths caused by Americans everywhere, and then that you didn't want to count World War I and World War II or Stalin's purges (all events that saw more blood spilled in Europe than have ever been spilled in the US).

More blood has been spilled for reasons both silly and stupid on European soil than on American. Period. I'm unsure why such an objectively true fact is so difficult for you to accept. I can only assume you have an anti-American agenda just as stupid as pro-American agendas.

I'm done with this.

--matt

RE: Stilton

Spanish American war - Hostilities initiated by cuban revolutionaries.

Actions in the Phillipines - Hostilities initiated by Filipino revolutionaries.

Korea - North Korean People's Army initiates hostilities with a surprise invasion of the Republic of Korea.

Vietnam - Ho Chi Minh declared independance of Vietnam, then a French territory, later leading to hostilities when negotiations break down.

Iran - (ca. 1941) Pre-Shah government strong axis ally, invaded accordingly. (ca. 1953) western countries back coup d'etat staged by General Fazlollah Zahedi(sp?).

Grenada - General Hudson Austin launches coup, killing prime minister Maurice Bishop, giving the US a valid legal pretext for military engagement.

Iraq - hostilities initiated by Iraq by surprise invasion of Kuwait.

Afghanistan - Open government support of terrorist organizations gives US valid legal pretext for military actions.

Irrelevant. See second requirement in the definition of war of aggression.

JilesDM:
So Cuban revolutionaries initiate hostilities and the US responds by declaring war on Spain, including a Pacific conflict? That's an awful stretch to justify.

Just to make sure I have this right:

The US occupies their territory, declaring it US owned.
Revolutionaries attack the US occupation forces.
The US is justified in repressing them because hostilities were initiatied by the Filipinos.

Is that your position?

I haven't argued this one

That's a gross oversimplification- are you aware of the previous (FDR era policy) before the post-war US leaders started to change it around? Nevertheless, I didn't give it as an example specifically because it's so complicated.

I'll have to read the UN document again to see its opinion on invading a country when its internal political process starts to fall apart.

I didn't say anything about Iraq, particularly part 1.

Never mind the fact that the US was the group that gave those gentlemen their education in the resistance/terror business, or the fact that a link to their government wasn't actually proven for the attacks the US used as an excuse to invade them.

Stilton

The US's involvement was rather minor, mainly protecting US citizens located in Cuba at the time of the revolution.  The sinking of the USS Maine drew the US into full combat.  Wether or not Spain was responsible for the sinking is still controversial I suppose, but it is the event that triggered the war response from US citizens.

Isn't "Western civilization" comprised of both the USA and Europe? If so, isn't it pointless trying to decide which one is bloodier or stupider when both have the same cultural roots? I mean, really, it's rather like arguing which colour is the superior blue, "cerulean" or "azure". Anyone read this thread and think of that old Trek episode, "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield"?

Your probably right, I still would rather live in Europe. Why? Because America is getting too large and powerful, becoming more of an Empire then a country. When this happens you get over-confident, then you die. I don't want to die young like billy the kid. Anyone read Billy's Blues? Good short book by C RIPS MELTZER I just finished.

Re: Stilton

Straw man. I did not state that it was justified, only the reasons that it does not constitute a war of aggression. The US had strong political sympathies with Cuba, and armed conflict had been taking place between Cuban revolutionaries and Spain, therefore the conflict was already in progress. The explosion of the Maine, which was in port to ensure the protection of US citizens in Cuba, is what drew the US into the war. As Tavish noted, whether or not Spain actually was responsible for the incident is still a matter of scholarly debate. In either case, the US could not have waged a war of aggression, as aggressions had already been ongoing for some time when the US began its involvement.

Another straw man, and grossly inaccurate to boot. The Philippines, previously a Spanish territory, was ceded to the United States as a result of the treaty of Paris that ended the Spanish American War. Again, not a war of aggression.

[snip off-topic rambling].

In the future, I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from attempting to put words into my mouth. I stated that, prior to Iraq, the US had never waged a war of aggression. Period. Objections that past US military actions were not justified are irrelevant with respect to debating the truth of that statement.

Okay right off the back to settle a point from way back... Libya does not chair the UN Commission on Human Rights.  In fact they aren't even ON the commission!  

Since you all followed the link to the UN website, you may as well discover for yourself a little bit about

As for Idi Amin... I thought I heard he died a year ago, but regardless, he misdoubt he was in Riaad as the Saudi government restricts him to Mecca

The US declared war on the British, not just to start off the War of Independance (which doesn't count because we weren't a 'nation' at that point) but also to kick off the War of 1812, sometimes called ' and occasionally 'Mr Madison's War'.  Largely however it was a war of imperialism, revealing US designs on both Florida (then held by Spain) and Canada.

Who else needs to be debunked?  Oh yes... lest we forget - Delerak.  No, I'm not going to lambast you with the fallacy of your argument, others have done that sufficiently already.  Instead I'm going to berate you for failing to rise to the challenge of your country.

Right now, before anyone convinces themselves that I am in favor of the war in Iraq, or imperialism in any guise (including that of technology manufacturer), let me state wholeheartedly and for the record that I am not.  If President Bush recieves any more than one single vote next year, I will consider it a personal failure.  It is my goal to expose the evil bastard so completely that even his wife is afraid to vote for him.

Now that said, it is also important to know that I very much love my country... it is the government that I fear.  As a citizen of the US, it is my duty to call attention to the flaws in the system.  To work to enact, elect and support the programs or people that work for me.  Also to reject the programs and people that work towards ideals I do not support.  

I believe that Bush, in furtherance of a long standing US policy, has sparked the war that my children will fight for us, and my grand children may well die from.  I have frequently considered emigrating to a nation where I might cower in safety for a generation or two.

I must however reject this notion in favor of standing up for what is right - what must happen if we are to salvage some kind of freedom for our grand children.  The way of results in nothing but global slavery, the roll back of all the advancements of civilization that democracy purports to have created.  Imperialism ultimately failed the Romans and the Egyptians, but not until thousands of years of slavery and excess finally collapsed against the force of outside pressures.

So, Delerak, for gods sake quit simpering in your beer about how scary the world is out there and DO something to affect it.  Refusing to stand against oppression is to support and perpetuate oppression.  

Silrathi

Just to add a bit more discusses our motives and goals in wars of the past.

Sil

Ok, everyone settle down :P

Actually this thread started with a warning about tcpa, and even has a link to a website for the ones opposing it ().

Having spent some time looking at the webpage, it strikes me as odd that wasn't used instead. It's better at getting the point across.

Welcor

Thanks, welcor. That was actually the 2nd page I pulled up after I'd gotten to the original home page, but it's definitely more direct.

Btw, I think we can all agree that don't nobody like Bush. As for the rest of it...I spent 10 months in locations 2000 miles apart from each other, and I've heard a LOT of differing opinions here. Combine that with an inability to quote history without going crosseyed, and I think we've gone off topic and off coherence. Back to tcpa....KILL! BILLY FOUR-EYES MUST DIE! A lot more than Bush, btw.

-Visko

JilesDM:
Conceded- you did not state that the US role in starting/continuing the war were justifiable.

You can't give away what you don't own- I believe that the Filipinos had (and have) the same rights that residents of the US did circa 1776: self-determination.

Conceded.

If you agree that the US has previously engaged in UNJUSTIFIED military actions for her own political/economic gain but are arguing solely that the US is probably clear on the formal UN definitions of "war of aggression" , I don't care to argue (though certain conflicts, like my examples and the War of 1812, are certainly skirting the edge at least).

Such agreement would, however, seem to cut the legs out from under your original point, which seemed (to me, anyway) to be a statement that this was the first time the US had ever marched off to war without just cause. If I have misunderstood your point, I apologize, but I doubt I was alone.

Stilton

Whoever thinks that the great 'ole USA has never started a war of aggression prior to iraq is wrooooooong.
Here are just a few off the top of my head, Jiles.

China (1945-49)
USA intervened in a civil war, on side of Chiang Kai-Shek, against Mao's liberation struggle. USA defeated japanese soldiers to fight against the chinese people.

Greece (1947-49)
USA military supports Greek neo-fascists, against the major Greek left-wing parties who were fighting for independance. The neo-fascists won and set up a brutal regime, with the help of the American CIA.

Phillipines (1945-53)
US fought the left-wing Huks forces, while the Huks were still fighting the Japanese invaders. Huks were defeated and the US installed puppet governments, culminating in the dictatorship of Fernando Marcos.

South Korea (1945-53)
US military suppresses popular independance movement in favor of a corrupt, reactionary and brutal regime whose leaders had collaborated with the Japanese fascists.

Iran (1953)
Progressive and popular Prime Minister Mossadegh nationalised the British oil company which controlled Iran's oil. A US and British backed coup against him re-installed the brutal Shah of Iran. He privatised Iran's oil, British and American oil companies both getting equal shares.

Guatemala (1953)
A CIA organized coup ousted a progressive, democratically-elected government which had nationalised the US United Fruit Company. So began 40 years of death-squads, torture, dissapearances and mass executions, killing over 100,000 civilians.

and those are just a few off the top of my head that I know. I can name at least 20 more, Jiles. You think Iraq was the only one? How about the ones above? And if that doesn't quench your belief here are some more.

Vietnam, Cambodia, Congo, Brazil, Dominican Republic, Indonesia, Chile, East Timor, Nicaragua, Grenada, Libya, Panama, Afghanistan... and there are more I am sure, if I looked them up I would find more.

-Delerak

Could someone move this? The thread was about something I find important for action; at the moment, we have nitpicking in a scholarly debate with a bunch of children who can't decide which page to trust from their last google search.

I was trying to get the word out about a serious threat to the computer world as you all know it, and now I get USA-flaming. Frankly, I agree with a lot of what both sides have to say, but THIS IS NOT THE THREAD FOR IT.

Move somewhere else.

-Visko

Funny thing that as far off topic as this thread has gotten, they way the different subjects are address is remarkable similar.

That or a few right off of .  For future reference if you want to look for information on the history and goals of the US in wartime I would suggest not turning to a communist parties' webpage.

As for the tcpa doomsday prophets, tcpa can be an extremely valuable tool in today's world.  The problem is that most people including Ross Anderson like to lump DRM and TCPA all together, it is much easier to frighten everyone that way.  You may want to check out IBM's rebuttal to the various "FAQs" that are out there and then make your descion based on who you believe most.

Agreed. Looking back at my original post, I realize that I probably should have pointed out this distinction explicitly.

Re: Delerak.

Go back, reread the definition of a war of aggression. Notice how your concept of a war of aggression is obviously different from mine (and the UNs). There's nothing to debate.

Re: Tavish.

That's true. A TCP, as an abstract concept, is simply a way for a aremote user to build a secure chain of trust on a machine that should (in principle) be impervious to compromise. This is great for distributed/grid WANs such as SETI@home, and will probably allow for a proliferation of cooperative networks (e.g., public distributed compile farms, which would otherwise be subject to attacks by member nodes with cracked clients).

It is, however, a double-edged sword, and I'm not convinced that it's necessary or even desirable for home boxes.

I'm not going to start an arguement on communism. There is nothing wrong with communism. It is a good system but looking to the past you can see that no leader has gotten it right, and most of them were tyrants anyways. Still, people die everyday in America just like in any communist country, so maybe you should question it - question everything.

-Delerak

Yes, question everything, including your questioning of everything and it's content/results. It's fun!

Thanks for the link, Tavish. I went and read up...

The arguments rebutting the initial demonizing of TCPA seem to be legitimate, but the concerns raised by the current TCPA demagogues are still valid; just how far is the Fritz chip going to go, if not in the next 2 years, then in the next 10? If I can be assured of complete control over my system(s) for the rest of my life, I'll shut up and let the technology come; in its current form, it seems benign enough.

However, if I can't even decide what comes in and out of my computer sitting at the console, I won't put up with the technology involved. Making expendable RSA keys on the fly is all well and good; but I'm not interested in having those be created for me and used to allow or block information I was not aware of.

The issue is still dangerous, in my mind. But with the information gained from Tavish's link, and a recent announcement at the IDF that Grantsdale, the TCPA-standard chip, will be an optional component to new microprocessors and chipsets, has me less worried. Still, I would urge people in this community to keep tabs on the debate; we don't want "well-intentioned" fools creating an intolerable situation for us behind our backs.

-Visko

I agree completely with you Visko and people should absolutely keep up on this issue.  It is just unfortunate that TCPA was lumped in with the DRM.  I have already sent several letters to the local politicians about my many concerns over Palladium and the restrictions it will place on users.  I'm glad you did look over the IBM link, much like you stated "we don't want "well-intentioned" fools creating an intolerable situation for us behind our backs."  we also dont want "well-intentioned" fools spreading FUD behind our backs.

I'm sure everyone appreciates this, we have enough off-topic tangents backed by BS as it is.  The only reason I even mentioned communism is because the points you had brought up "off the top of your head" were the exact same as those listed at the cpa.org site (and no that's not cpa as in accounting).  If that is just a bizarre coincidence then by all means disregard my point, if not then that is an extremely biased place to look for information.
If you would like I can give you other reasons for each of those occurances that has little to do with the evil capitalist ways of the US.  I'm guessing by now that most people could really care less about this debate so I'll save them the reading.
Exactly my point.  If you have information about TCPA and it comes from a site called againsttcpa I wouldn't rely on it as being unbiased.  If you have information about US war dealings and it comes from the Communist Party of Australia I would certainly question their interpretations.

Having studied the links Tavish presented, I've come up with a question:

Shouldn't this thread be about fighting the DRM and Palladium instead ?

After all, if you look at the points brought forth on both sides it seems this is what's really the problem; Microsoft (et al.) trying to make a computer system that can only run certified products. Which would be a significant threat to OSS and the mudding community (as well as the rest of the world...).

Yes, and I raised that issue and except for what appears to be most people being misinformed, they're mainly against:
* Being forced to have something in their computer
* Palladium (now called NGSCB, but that's just such a mouthful)
* DRM

Me? I'm 110% for Palladium. Why? Because it completely screws microsoft over. It'll be microsoft's downfall. Most people will move over to alternatives without DRM built into it (Mac, Linux)

The association between DRM and a TCP is, in my opinion, justified. The latter is essential to the effective implementation of the former. Though they are orthogonal concepts, when the one arrives, the other will inevitably follow. Microsoft simply made the mistake of trying to turn that fact into a selling point for their particular implementation of a TCP.