Regardless of all the other argument, point and counterpoint, there’s this:
Let’s take a time out for an easy reality check. The United States of America was founded with the Declaration of Independence in July of 1776, and a Constitution to follow later. In 2076, the United States of America will have existed for 300 years.
In 2103, if John McCain’s maybes turn out true, the United States will have kept a prolonged military presence in response to the same threat for one hundred years. Look, just do the math. It’ll be around 30.5% of THE ENTIRE EXISTENCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA that a military presense will remain in Iraq due to the threat of… … … …something?
This doesn’t seem “ok” to me at all. This seems disturbingly wrong. This isn’t an EMBASSY, folks. The only things it seems that can be compared with are, say, the British in India or the New World, or, Spanish in the New World, or Rome, or something. It wouldn’t even compare to Korea, as McCain claims, as this would require a length of time spanning not only Kim Il-Sung and Kim Jong-Il, but also a third dictator (Kim Sul Song? Kim Jong Nam? Kim Jong Chul?) before Korean Unification. We’re not quite at 60 years, yet, folks, and I don’t think Jong-Il will last another 40 with all that smoking and all those luxury goods he enjoys (while everyone else starves). It’d be the propping up of a local government like Korea (more so before than now, where it’s almost purely defensive against an outside aggressor), but how can you prop up someone else’s government for a hundred years?
What do YOU think about spending one third of America’s existence in Iraq? It doesn’t seem “OK” to me at all - it seems very, very wrong.
You know, it’s a sad point in our history when a presidential candidate cannot look back over the course of our history and show admiration for a president who did what he said.
A knowledge and respect for history is perhaps the most important grounding in the world.
Building a stable, working, dependable and fast computer used to be a piece of cake. However, these days more and more hardware is just not up to par - and that from companies with somewhat decent track records on reliability. My old Asus boards were some of my best, but the P5K Deluxe Wifi-AP, I must say, is the worst motherboard I’ve ever had the (dis)pleasure of working with. I’m done with the Intel P35 chipset.
Those of you who think the P35 is anything near acceptable should attempt to remember the 440BX and 440GX. I haven’t had this many problems since the Via Apollo Pro 133A days (the dual-processor capable Abit BP6 and MSI 694D Pro were the two flavors I employed at various times).
Back then, we had to watch out for conflicts between the various components that we placed inside a system (RAID controllers, sound devices) and most importantly exploding hard drives (the IBM 75GXP, the hard drive that took down IBM’s storage unit, bought by Hitachi).
Intel ICH9R’s iastor.sys and Asus P5K wifi/AP’s RTL8187 wireless adapter conflict with each other
Low RAID0 performance
ASUS CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD-Rom connected to ICH9R automatically closes when opened
So, disabled in BIOS, installed Netgear WG311T
NOW,
“”display driver stopped responding and has recovered”"
It is always very annoying when Presidents concerned with their legacy, having done not much of that which they originally intended to do, decide to tackle the Middle East “Peace Process” in the last year and a half of their terms. Whew! Thank goodness those American leaders are finally taking notice in the area and trying to cut deals to help end the decades of violence and tension with their great experience mediating and making deals. Go, Go Dr. Rice!
I at least give President Bush credit for taking an actual interest in Africa towards the start of his term (which is the OTHER legacy project lately). But this is the same guy that decided to not seriously pursue a leadership role when he came into office (just like he didn’t take the issue of Al-Qaeda seriously).
The current Bush Administration initially sought a less prominent role, and Secretary
of State Powell did not appoint a special Middle East envoy. Since the September 11, 2001,
the Administration has focused on the peace process as part of the war on terrorism.
Secretary Rice also has not appointed a special envoy, asserting, “Not every effort has to be
an American effort. It is extremely important that the parties themselves are taking
responsibility.
Why doesn’t anyone ever start trying to prepare for their legacy projects the first day in office? There may be an actual role in negotiating peace, but this is not something that a President of the United States can do in a year and a half. A President would have far more credibility if he or she started six years sooner. It has to play to the region that American Presidents, the hubristic beasts that they are, are also inept and of small intelligence to think they can swoop in and help create progress is a problem decades old and getting more complex by the year. In working in the Middle East, there’s no such thing as making up for lost time. How can the United States expect Middle Eastern leaders to commit to the painful concessions necessary for peace if the Presidents who try to intervene show little interest until the end up their presidencies?
If you ever want to make actual progress in the Middle East, and don’t simply want to score some sympathy points at home but actually want to decrease suffering in the world and create a more prosperous and secure world, start on inauguration day. Otherwise, even the President is an insignificant little thing chirping in a tempest.
