Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
---I'm afraid that is *not* a declaration of war.
Hi Alan,Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org> wrote in message news:<sWXhd.2612$op3.111181@news.xtra.co.nz>...
snip
My experience with ATE has been that pc-in-the-loop data acquisition is
a great way to create ground loops, thereby preventing reliable
operation. Isolate everything....
I intend to .... now the question is - Is it more cost effective and
or accurate to use ....
isolating amps/buffers ($20 a channel) to PC measurement device or
ADC with opto isolated digital interface or
roll your own PWM circuit with opto isolated output (like a 1 bit ADC)
or
using a USB measurment device (Is it isolated from the PC, I guess not
seing as it's cheap solution.)
I shall be working through these options over the following weeks...
Regards
Alan
I said before that I am ashamed that we helped him. The answer is stillRatch wrote:
[...]
And isn't it a valid question to ask whether taking out an asshole of
his magnitude justifies taking out tens of thousands of civilians,
Yes, it is and the answer is yes. How many civilians did Saddam kill
within his own country and the war with Iran?
Lots. As long as he was targeting Iran this doesn't seem to have
worried the US administration much, in fact it rather seems that that's
what they actually wanted him to do, as he received substantial help
from the US. The overriding political calculation apparently was to
prevent the islamic revolution in Iran from spreading.
Hard to agree on this one. I believe he and his inner circle werehoodwinking the own population,
I refuted that before. Mistakenly or not, should have known better
or
not, stupid or not, he did what he did for the
reason he said he did it. Hoodwinking requires intent, which I do not
believe was present at the time.
We differ here. You may even be right regarding Bush personally, but
taking the entire administration I'm convinced that the disinformation
was intentional.
violating international law,
What law? Saddam was a law unto himself. He shamelessly violated UN
resolutions because he realized they were a corrupt
pushover organization.
The UN has as much power as its member nations choose to give it, in
particular the five nations with veto power in the security council.
Israel has violated a long string of UN resolutions without suffering
nearly as much from it as Iraq. I surely needn't point out why?
The behavior of the US is one of the foremost reasons for the
ineffectiveness of the UN. If the US are blaming the UN for this, I
would call that cheeky.
Well, when the US withheld funding a while back, that was an attempt toThat doesn't mean I think the UN are ok as they
are. They aren't. But I have yet to see a credible attempt to reform them.
No law prevents a nation from going to war if it has a valid reason toAnd when I mentioned international law, I also meant the Geneva
conventions, which have little to do with the UN. The US have signed
them just like many other states, and are equally bound by them. Again,
it seems that adherence to these rules is seen as optional by the US
government, to be adhered to when convenient, and to be ignored when the
going gets rough.
It's a destabilation of Saddam, which was good. More states should havedestabilizing a world region,
Saddam attacked Kuwait. Wasn't that destabilation?
It was. That's why the coalition for the 1991 gulf war included a lot
more states, amongst them also some neighbor states in the region. This
time is different. This time the destabilization comes from the US/UK
attack, and this is the reason why other states have refrained from
joining in.
Reality.sacrificing the life of more than a
thousand US troops so far, and alienating a sizeable number of
international allies?
Worth every life for what they accomplished. Hardly any war is
without
fatalities. Out of a nation of over 250 million,
what is 1000+. Compared with the number we kill with abortions, it
hardly
registers.
Frightening.
The UN had their chance and failed. They are a weak splinteredIn the aftermath of the second world war everyone seemed to agree that a
system of international law enforcement was needed to deal with the
assholes of our world. The UN was created to that end. Now the Bush
government seems to believe that they don't need any such law as long as
they're playing sheriff. And to my utter frustration, a majority of the
US population appears to support this.
Perhaps I was wrong in including Germany as being involved with thatWe need it, but the corruptness of the UN prevents it from
happening.
I refer to the Food for Peace Program which
Saddam used to corrupt high officials the the UN, France, Germany, and
Russia by giving kickbacks for looking the other way.
That is still under investigation. The US, at present, will never
submit
control of its options to such an organization,
including the World Court. So far the UN is a toothless debating
society of
marginal use.
I suppose you mean the Oil-for-Food program. I'm aware of a list of
companies that had been unveiled early this year detailing beneficiaries
of Saddam's so-called oil-vouchers. There were Russian and French
companies on there, amongst companies/individuals from a lot more
states, including from the USA and the UK, but AFAIK none from Germany -
do you know more?
Where there is smoke, there is probably fire. It seems that there wasI researched a little on the internet and found that
the so-called Al-Mada list was published on January 25th in Iraq.
Subsequently, a British MP, Galloway, who was on the list, sued an
american newspaper over allegiations that he had received money from
Saddam and won. So far it is not clear to me how substantial the whole
thing is.
And Saddam had plenty of money to build his palaces, military, andJust for another perspective: I mentioned earlier that I had the
opportunity to speak to Mr. Sponeck just before the outbreak of the war
last year. He had just published a book, which I bought. It is in
interview style. In it he writes the following about oil smuggling in
Iraq (this was one year before the list mentioned above was published,
and 15 months before the UN and US started the corruption investigations
you are presumably referring to. Translation from German is mine):
Question: That the government in Baghdad violates the sanctions, was
time and again through the years one of the most concrete accusations
Washington put forward to Baghdad. Can you confirm this from your
observation?
Sponeck: The government in Baghdad had no other choice. They had to
break the sanctions. Under the existing sanction regime, the government
doesn't receive a single Dollar in cash for covering ongoing expenses.
[...] But how shall [they] pay the wages of their civil servants, how
keep up public infrastructure, operate hospitals, repair bridges,
without cash? Noone in Iraq pays any taxes at the moment. So the
government had to obtain money from somewhere. And that happened through
illegal oil exports across the borders or through surcharges collected
from international oil dealers. [...] They shared the money like in
carpet production. The one who supplies the wool gets something, the one
who knits the carpet, and the one who sells it. It was exacly like this
with the oil trafficking across the border to Turkey. The Turkish
government also had an advantage from the deal: They could collect
taxes. This worked perfectly and to the satisfaction of everybody. Until
the USA started to exert pressure to curb Baghdads income.
I hope the US Administration was not involved in something like that.Question: Why didn't the USA - if they were accusing Baghdad of
breaching the sanctions - demand from Turkey that the trafficking be cut
off entirely?
Sponeck: That was clearly pragmatic power politics of the Americans.
Turkey wasn't willing to provide their important air-force base Incirlic
to the USA for free. They were bargaining like on a bazaar. And one of
the prizes was that the USA turn a blind eye to the trafficking.
Maybe you start to understand that the issue is not quite as one-sided
as you seem to believe. There may well have been a substantial amount of
bribery, trafficking, kickbacks and all that involved on all sides. The
question is who is to blame for what. It looks to me as if the
trafficking with all its facets is to a large part an unavoidable
consequence of the way the sanctions have been imposed. And the US was
the major driving force behind that.
You were correct and the inteligence services of 5 major countries wereBut, as you write, the investigations are still running. I'm sure we
will hear more of this. Just don't jump to conclusions too early.
In hindsight they were correct, or were they? Some people think
they
were sent to Syria or elsewhere before the war
started. Anyway, he had the wherewithal to make WMDs at a later time.
Bush
could not take a chance on that now or later, and it's good
he attacked when he did. The UN tried 19 times with resolutions to
make
Saddam behave.
Hindsight for everyone who didn't take them seriously back then. For
those who wanted to know, no hindsight was needed.
Easy to say after the fact. With Saddam's record, it was not so
easy
to believe otherwise at the time.
It was fairly easy for me and I'm no specialist. It sufficed to detach
my mind from the US propaganda, take their political agenda into
consideration, and look for independent sources of information.
I agree that there are no functional WMDs forthcoming now. I just saidAnd the theory that the weapons could have been sent to Syria is just
ridiculous. Syria would have been mad to let this happen. If we're
dealing with a significant amount of weapons such a move can not
possibly remain secret. With such a lot of US and allied troops
practically surrounding Syria it would have been suicidal for the syrian
state. They may be staunchly anti-american, but they're not stupid.
There was plenty of time before the country was to seized, to at
least
send some of the important equipment, records
and critical materials to Syria or Iran. Or destroy or hide it so well
that it still has not been found. It took time
to lock down the country so that could not happen. And there was
plenty of
warning that an invasion was imminent.
Gosh, the Bush government themselves have by now acknowledged that there
are no WMDs, and they would be the last to admit it! The straw you're
clinging to has disintegrated, open your eyes please!
I don't pretend to know the full extent of why Turkey did not help usNo, the WMDs didn't exist, and it is a relief that the US government
acknowledged it after all.
They had to.
Good to know that even the US government eventually has to admit to the
truth. It was about time.
I agree that passing UN resolutions isn't enough to make rogues behave.
However there was every reason to believe that the pressure that was put
on Iraq, first and foremost the pressure from the US, actually worked.
So if the threat of war worked, why do you need the war? I don't want to
defend the UN in this case, as it has a very bad track record itself.
But I do want to stress that by the time the war started, the alleged
threat wasn't real any more.
I don't think it was working. Especially with the help he was
getting
from the Food for Peace leak. He could have
been a chancre for a long time. I'm glad he's out.
I'm also glad he's out. But the universally acknowledged fact that there
are no WMDs is the best proof there could be that the threats worked.
They weren't enough to get rid of Saddam, that's true, but they were
effective in removing the danger for the neighboring states.
Just one more argument: If there had been any threat from WMDs, it would
have been the neighbors of Iraq that were most endangered, right? Turkey
is one of them. Turkey is also a NATO member for a long time, and a
natural US ally. If they had perceived Iraq as a threat, do you believe
they would have denied US troops the opportunity to operate from their
country? Yet that is precisely what they did in March last year, causing
considerable anger in the US government.
They don't always work in their best long term interest. And there
were other factors such as their hatred of the
Kurds that complicated that arrangement.
Are you sure the USA always work in their best long term interest? Or do
you want to imply that the US government knows the Turkish long term
interest better than the Turks themselves? That would be just the hybris
the rest of the world has learned to loathe in the current US government.
And if anything, the Kurd problem would have added to the reasons why
Turkey would have joined in the war, as it would have provided an
opportunity to extend control over the Kurdish resistance who was
operating across the border.
Respect is not a factor when a leader or country preceives it will loseThe truth is that the Bush government tried to use all their weight to
bully other countries into a war coalition (Rumsfeld's darned cheek
still rings in my ear) that was supposed to attack a largely defunct
middle-east state that was hardly a threat to its neighbor states let
alone to the USA. The fact that Saddam is gone is about the only
positive aspect in the whole mess, and this was neither officially nor
(presumably) clandestinely the main purpose of the war. If this isn't
a
failure, I don't know what is. If Bush himself lied or not is
irrelevant
here. Either he or his surroundings did.
There is strength in numbers. If everyone pulled together on this,
it
would have gone a lot better. One thing to
remember is that most of the governments in that area are not
democracies.
They would just as soon see the US fail to
establish a democratic form of government in Iraq. That might threaten
the
power elite in the surrounding countries.
You can only expect someone to support you when you treat him with
respect, and if you can convince him that it is in his best interest to
help you. This help has been denied by both democratic and undemocratic
states, which is a strong sign that you have to search elsewhere for an
explanation.
A life is more important than convenience. That's relativism, not[...]
Another thing I cannot understand, is how someone here can be
charged
with killing two persons if he kills a pregnant
woman and the fetus. But if the woman does it, it's OK.
I can't either.
The moment of conception looks like the defining moment for the
formation of a new human being. It certainly has the advantage of being
a well defined moment. Yet I think it is not appropriate to speak of a
human being from this moment on, hence it isn't appropriate to speak of
killing it either.
Sure it is. It is an undeveloped human being. Its all it can ever
be
and all it will ever be at the moment of
conception. Afterwards, it just needs to grow up.
Miscarriages in early phase of a pregnancy are quite
frequent and often not even recognized as such by the mother. It looks
to me as if nature itself doesn't take it all to seriously at this
stage, so why should we?
The human is very fragile at that time, and accidents do happen.
That
does not give anyone the moral right to
deliberately kill the new human life.
We're dealing with a potential human being, not
an actual one.
Absolutely wrong! We are dealing with an undeveloped human being.
In the course of pregnancy, the potential child turns
into an actual one.
The human being develops. It contains everything it needs to guide
its
development.
That's a gradual process with no defining moment
that could serve as a watershed.
Development is a gradual process. The defining moment was
conception.
The duty therefore is to lay down rules
with a limit that leaves enough of a time margin before you can speak of
an actual human being. That's what I advocate with the 12-16 weeks rule.
It is somewhat arbitrary, I know, but I know no better. Putting it at
zero would throw out the kid with the bath water, because there are
other things at stake than just the life of a kid.
Putting it at the moment of conception and giving it the same
inportance as other human life is the right thing to do.
I think you are fixed on one moral principle and declare it as an
absolute. You ignore that the fetus is not the only thing that needs
protection. A moral absolute borders to a perversion in my opinion. When
I look at history I see misery whenever people were hell-bent on
imposing "clear" moral rules.
I can't imagine that outright banning of abortions is a viable option
in
the US. Even with a sizeable part of the population advocating this,
the
attempt to legislate this could lead to large scale outrage. That
doesn't mean that the law shouldn't or can't be changed, but I think
if
there's any change, its magnitude will be far smaller than what
warrants
the high profile the issue had in the election.
Getting a law outlawing abortion is going to be a hard slog. But
it's
the right thing to do.
Even if it means civil war, I would still say "bring it on".
Are you serious? Only a few posts back I thought you were a reasonable
man in general. I take that back. If your opinion is typical for a large
part of the US population, and you are as serious about it as you sound,
I fear that the US is heading into much deeper troubles that what we see
now. This is unveiled fundamentalism.
What is wrong with fundamentalism if it is for the the right
principle.
Not deliberating killing innocent humans if
it can be prevented is fundamental to my thinking. I make no apology
for
that.
The proverbial "Right Principle (TM)"! What makes you so absolutely sure
that you possess it? It is this arrogance that is wrong with
fundamentalism. This, and a disposition to go over dead bodies to impose
it.
If you don't struggle to combat evil, it will get worse.You are prepared to evoke hell to get heaven. You'll get hell instead.
Having said that, I think that the number of abortions in USA is quite
high in comparison. I don't know the newest data, but I seem to
remember
numbers suggesting that there are significantly fewer abortions per
population in Europe than what you said for the US. I can only guess
why. Are contraceptiva not as widely available? Is there a problem
with
sexual education?
Sooner or later an unwanted pregancy will occur.
And regarding the economy: Surely it will recover. The question is
rather whether it had to be run down, and what for.
The US was and still is fighting a war against terrorism and the
aftereffects 9/11. We did what we had to do.
The economy will have to suffer along with everyone and everything
else.
You did what you had better not done. The economy and everyone and
everything else are suffering needlessly. We'll live to see the damage
unfold further during the coming years.
A lot of folks think otherwise. Ratch
--
Cheers
Stefan
---I bet you can see light at the end of the Iraqi tunnel.
---"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht
news:vgo4p0teb3pn32f09v5467g6pm414l693b@4ax.com...
---
In retrospect, you should probably thank us for being able to thank
us.
--
Oh, that old tune again eh? Can't you find something more
recent to be thankful for?
Credit doesn't last forever.
And if they are real psychos you call them 'elite'.HIV infected, low IQ, recruits are exactly what's wanted for the army. Life
expectancy is already reduced. For the good of the population as a whole
that's the best place for them.
No sensible government puts the best of the country's young manhood into the
front line. But governments don't advertize the fact - it's bad for
national morale!
Just guerillas moving about for the next round.On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:15:53 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
dirk@neopax.com> wrote:
I bet you can see light at the end of the Iraqi tunnel.
---
I hope it's not a train...
Only in the nation that freaked when it saw Janet Jacksons tit does this matter.John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:<61e4p0l4r60ka0scmegnf70090avdc5n03@4ax.com>...
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:24:57 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote:
Squeezing jello in Iraq
By Scott Ritter
---
Scott Ritter is a traitorous son of a bitch who should be shot.
Only a degenerate like Bloggs could rely on the words of another degenerate.
Scott Ritter - Traitor - Was Arrested Soliciting Sex from Teenage Girl
By: Capital News 9 web staff
According to newspaper reports this weekend, former UN weapons
inspector and Delmar native Scott Ritter was arrested for a Class B
misdemeanor.
---Only in the nation that freaked when it saw Janet Jacksons tit does this matter.
---John Fields wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:15:53 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
dirk@neopax.com> wrote:
I bet you can see light at the end of the Iraqi tunnel.
---
I hope it's not a train...
Just guerillas moving about for the next round.
ROTFLMAO!Paul Burridge wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 04:49:20 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
null@example.net> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 20:42:03 +0100, Frithiof Andreas Jensen wrote:
"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:418D5DA1.1010609@nospam.com...
Apparently this is still practiced:
"However, a small number of Orthodox rabbis advocate an ancient
practice in which the circumciser sucks
And I thought the Catholic Church had problems ;-))
Nah, they only drink the blood and eat the flesh of some dead guy, who
also happens to be their main icon.
God Forbid they should ever accidentally get their mouth near the
mutilated penis of a helpless baby!
They're not *still* engaging in this odious 'practice' are they? I
thought we'd agreed to ban it. Why hasn't our edict outlawing this
Satanic abuse been observed?
Makes the term 'cocksucking Jew' quite accurate in some cases eh?
Stands right besides 'Xian bugger'.
So, the US population just took her nipple in their stride eh, just likeOn Wed, 10 Nov 2004 20:40:23 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
dirk@neopax.com> wrote:
Only in the nation that freaked when it saw Janet Jacksons tit does this matter.
---
LOL... You watch too much TV, I think!
The US has not got much of a record for staying the course in guerilla wars.On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 20:36:34 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
dirk@neopax.com> wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:15:53 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
dirk@neopax.com> wrote:
I bet you can see light at the end of the Iraqi tunnel.
---
I hope it's not a train...
Just guerillas moving about for the next round.
---
And we'll be happy to fire it into them!
Well, Islam seems to have got it partially correct.Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
Paul Burridge wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 04:49:20 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
null@example.net> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 20:42:03 +0100, Frithiof Andreas Jensen wrote:
"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:418D5DA1.1010609@nospam.com...
Apparently this is still practiced:
"However, a small number of Orthodox rabbis advocate an ancient
practice in which the circumciser sucks
And I thought the Catholic Church had problems ;-))
Nah, they only drink the blood and eat the flesh of some dead guy, who
also happens to be their main icon.
God Forbid they should ever accidentally get their mouth near the
mutilated penis of a helpless baby!
They're not *still* engaging in this odious 'practice' are they? I
thought we'd agreed to ban it. Why hasn't our edict outlawing this
Satanic abuse been observed?
Makes the term 'cocksucking Jew' quite accurate in some cases eh?
Stands right besides 'Xian bugger'.
ROTFLMAO!
The Catholic church might be a better place if one of the commandments
had read "Thou shalt not rape little boys"
---The US has not got much of a record for staying the course in guerilla wars.
Correction. It's not a War. It's a one-sided massacre.At war?
---
---John Fields wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 20:40:23 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
dirk@neopax.com> wrote:
Only in the nation that freaked when it saw Janet Jacksons tit does this matter.
---
LOL... You watch too much TV, I think!
So, the US population just took her nipple in their stride eh, just like
Europeans would have done?
I think not! LOL!
That's the spirit - go back 200 years to find a counter example.On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 21:44:39 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
dirk@neopax.com> wrote:
The US has not got much of a record for staying the course in guerilla wars.
---
Shirley, you jest!
How do you think we won the Revolutionary War? Standing in one place?
---John Fields wrote:
You watch too much US TV, which made a big brouhaha out of a little
thing. No one I know thought it was more than a cheap gimmick,
although the FCC seems to have taken a dim view of it...
Whereas if it had happened in Europe it would not have made the news at all,
except maybe at the tail end as a laugh.
Don't know and don't care.Now, who has been fined half a million dollars per nipple?