[geeks] FYI: CompUSA is offering OS X 10.5 for $99 (after rebate)

[Shannon Hendrix]

On Oct 30, 2007, at 1:16 PM, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 10:41:29AM -0500, Jonathan C. Patschke wrote:
>
>> Possibly because Paul proposes the unpopular notion that the US  
>> military
>> should actually defend the US's interests[0], instead of being an
>> extension of the IDF and the UN.  How horrible of him/us!
>
> That's a fair descritption, but not very true. The UN has been used
> by the U.S. to control things it did not want to get out of hand,
> for example both Gulf Wars, Grenada, Kosovo etc have been under the
> UN flag, but were actually U.s. foreign policy.

I see the exact opposite of what you see: the UN dragging us into  
things we don't need to be involved in, plus we pay for most of it.

> The U.S. has been a throttle on the IDF forcing them to stop the
> pacification of Lebanon and the P.A. If Israel had been left alone
> last summer we would not have had to endure the 1,000 missles and  
> rockets
> that rained down on us, Hizbollah would not be in control of Lebanon,
> and Hamas would be long gone.

The problem from our point of view is that Israel wants to "pacify"  
everyone around them, which means fairly large scale warfare, and you  
want the US military to help you do it.

The world already hates that we support Israel at all and our support  
of Israel is one of the most common criticisms leveled against us by  
Europe.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I am not sure the IDF has the  
right idea.

You make it sound simple, but I think the reality would be quite messy.

> If the U.S. had not supported Arafat, the PA would have become an
> idependant country with a democratic government and decent schools,
> hospitals and a real economy.

It *might* have.  We'll never know.

There is all kinds of second guessing that can be done.

> However, the U.S. continues to support the House of Saud, who are
> a despotic monarchy who funded Bin Laden, and still continue to
> fund terrorists.

If the current ruling family falls, Saudi Arabia will turn severely  
hostile toward Israel, which will complicate your situation a bit.

Yes, it sucks that we tolerate them, but Israel's situation is one of  
the primary reasons we do it.

I don't agree with it myself, but I do recognize that there is a  
price to pay if we stop.

Is Israel ready for the aftermath of Saudi Arabia doing a 180?

> However they also give you oil, so they are protected. I guess that
> makes it in the U.S.'s interest to keep them happy.

..and Europe, and Japan, and China, and Russia, and UK, and  
ironically, Israel too.

*EVERYONE* with an industrial economy is currently dependent on that  
area, Saudi Arabia included, either directly or indirectly.

There are alternatives but *NO ONE* has yet been willing to pursue  
them seriously, and there are serious consequences to upsetting the  
status quo.

Personally, I say we go for it and make them unimportant.

However, I don't think that will stop terrorism, lest anyone agree  
for that reason.

But it would make things less complicated in our dealings with them  
for sure.

Of course, this mistake started a long time ago, and is very well  
entrenched.

-- 
"Where some they sell their dreams for small desires."