1) What does history has to do with it? Its about power, and how its being used. Its irrelevant to bring back history. Its not about what happened, its about what's going to happen, during and specially AFTER the supposed "war".
2) they are where... they have something to gain. The problem isnt that, is the lack of consideration for others involved. Sometimes is next to null.
I can understand that there , it looks and feels like something righteous, but it doesnt mean it really is.
3) BS... according to you, not according to historians. So, i'm sticking with historians.
> Disinformation, revisionism are real and are often used
Agreed. But doubles for what you read/hear. Doesnt invalidade what i wrote. I wasnt there to verify, and neither was you. So i have to base myself on the data i have availiable, and take my own conclusions. Simple as that. And said that, you can complaint all you want
.
> And was in fact the correct decision
Thats your opinion, i have mine.I dont really agree what Truman did , but in the end it about points of view.
About the rest... i have noticed you failed to see the points made by the rest that answered.
Changing a regime without the people of the country supporting it, and having cultural beliefs that can get behind whats being done, is rowing against the current. You'll just piss them off, and every other country that thinks it shouldnt be this way. Specially the neighbour ones, who are still not confortable with the US supporting Isreal, let alone alot of military there. Not to mention having a excepcionally strong US presence in the Middle East is inviting every extremist network with bullseyes. But hey, if you guys are willing... and going anyway, i cant do much about that. We'll just have to wait and see.
> He has the support from the majority because oil isn't > the real issue
He's using the terrorism thing, the point is area control. If he control Iraq, he can control the oil production to an extent. Same has de French and British did 12 years ago. Who do you think has large oil quotas there?
Point two is the large drop of the economy (heck, its all over the world) that is being clouded by the sense of fear constantly kept high. Its a know tactic. Worked before, a good example was during the cold war, in both sides.
Besides, saddam is old, filthy rich, and wants to be left alone to rule his country. I dont agree on the "how" he does that, but he's not a threat to the world. If the people need a change, let them have a revolution. It would feel right because they were the ones who did it, not "invaders" (its what they think of US) who impose themselfs.
It comes down to mentalitys. Not "we know whats good for them".
PS :
> Disinformation, revisionism are real and are often used
By your own words.
But hey, thats just me.
ONTopic: (Yay).
>Not sure about the DDR II but I'm interested in seeing
>the card with 256 meg of memory. I'm going to wait
>until seeing that, and perhaps the NV35 to boot.
The problem with 256mb card is that it will be more expensive, and probably 0.1% of games will use the extra 128mb. So, i really doubt that you'll see one soon. Althou i would like to see one in testing, but i can make a safe assumption that to a 128mb card, with the same memories (access time) it would do the same.
Take the 8x vs 4x example, you gain 1% if that much. Or even SATA looses to a decent Western Digital IDE drive (see anandtech i think). Currently there isnt an real gain in those technology/specs. Maybe next year. So, its a bit of wasted money.
Oh, and for what i read, DDR-II will start to be used by the end of the year, or early 2004 , with a fair amout of luck
.
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/20...1205017630.htm
DDR II ? I really want to see that
.