GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
View Poll Results: Consider this as a poll and vote with sincerity;
Yes: We achieved our goal and itís time to leave
Yes: We failed to achieve our goal and itís time to leave
No: We need to stay till Iraqiís take responsibility
No: We need to stay till we achieve all of our goals in the region
I registered with a new nick-name for not influencing your choice, and to be free in your decision
So you've been a member here before and yet you still can't figure out a) the correct forum to post in and b) that a thread like this will probably end up closed and c) it's against the rules to have multiple nicks.
We replaced a largely secular government with one run by religious zealots. And to top it off that's exactly what everyone said would happen if we created a power vacuum in the region. It's like self-fulfilling prophecy or something. Doesn't matter if you rub the Jesus freaks' noses in it, they're going to keep on listening and obeying till the day Armageddon comes. Even if they have to create Armageddon themselves, that is.
I'd have to vote for none of the above. The world is considerably worse off when more religious fanatics are in power, regardless of which country we're talking about. So I'd say we've failed, can't leave now (might as well just give Iran the whole country) and we'll likely never achieve our goals in the region. It's the lose-lose quagmire everyone predicted.
We replaced a largely secular government with one run by religious zealots. And to top it off that's exactly what everyone said would happen if we created a power vacuum in the region.
The house of cards collapsed. I find it dumb that G. Bush Jr. is fueling the war with a "total victory" speech and we don't know what it means to him. From family pride to oil, it's a shame. What do americans expect from it ? This is for real. It's not a movie. I do believe that in the federal govt there's a bunch of christian extremists wanting to bring the Armageddon. Call it "Free doom, final part", if you like.
As we created this situation, we are ethically and morally obligated to work toward a situation which will be better than what it replaced. Throughout the process, we must ask ourselves:
1) If we leave at this point, will the situation be better than what we observed at the time of our intervention?
2) At this point, does it seem reasonable to expect that our continued efforts can improve the situation?
If things are worse, and we believe continued effort will improve the situation, we are obligated to try.
If at some point 1) can be answered in the affirmative, we can bring our intervention to a close. If 1) can't be achieved, and 2) is answered in the negative, we failed, we caused harm, but we can justify departure.
As most people seem to think things are worse for the people there now, I guess the crux of the question is 2). It could be asked whether our continued intervention is in our (US) interest. I think most people would respond in the negative. I suppose I am restating the essence of the poll options.
Distribution: Microsoft Windows XP Professional SP2; Slackware Linux 10.2
I must ask all of you, why is it so obvious to some that Bush is a lying war pig, and yet Saddam Hussein never could have lied about such a thing as WMD's? This man was a murderer and wouldn't have hesitated for a second to blow the world to bits. Documents show him to be mentally unstable. With all of the other countries against us, you think it would have been good to have another one? Another one, not only threatening us, but Europe and the rest of the world? If he didn't have WMD's when we searched for them, what makes you people think there's no way he wouldn't have gotten them in the future? What makes him any more trustworthy than somebody like Kaczynski or Bin Laden?
The poll is strongly biased. There should be options like:
'We should have never invade Iraq'
'We have not achieved any goals because there were not such goals (other than stealing oil)'
'We should leave right now'