Vapymid

No mention of location requirements... You might want to rethink yourself. Number of things here. I think I would reply both to BTGBullseye and ThePest179 in one post as the subjects are really intertwined: 1) Iraq is mostly flat as a pancake - no caves there, except in the North and the North East but that's Iraqi Kurdistan and Iranian border. Saddam would never have voluntarily allowed any militia activities there. Also well known to everyone (expect to George W and Rumsfeld) that Saddam's Iraq was a no-go area for Al Qaeda. 2) Terrorism. Please review the definition you quoted. *Political* gains. Terrorists cannot achieve political gains in America by blowing themselves up in Iraq - they have to do it in America. In Iraq they can only attack American occupying force (and so qualify as partisans, le resistance or simply freedom fighters, i.e. not terrorists) or behead an occasional American tourist: political effect = 0. There was no point for Saddam to attempt to influence American policy by terrorism on the US soil and indeed it seems well established now that he did not try to do it. However, if there is evidence to the contrary - let's discuss. 3) Afgan - yes, there are caves there. Yes, they were used for militia and terrorist training (initially largely courtesy of CIA, sponsoring anti-Soviet guerrillas but it is not the point). There was a limited justification for a punitive operation against them after 9/11, although most of the motivation was down to simple revenge, which is never a good reason to do anything. Taliban was stupid in thinking they could cosy up to Al Qaeda but it often happens, the more insignificant a bunch of people is, the more they are willing to try to play big games with big guys. However, it was really really very stupid of the US to stay in Afganistan after the initial strikes - result? Just like Persians, Indians, Arabs, the British, Russians/Soviets before them they now have to run. Taliban is coming back. Achievement = 0 4) Back to Iraq. I am no great fan of Saddam. However, he played a role in the order established by the crumbling (with the helpful assistance of the US) British and Turkish Empires in the early-mid XXth Century. Iraq is not a natural or a stable country. It is basically made up of 3 regions - Shia Arabs in the South (with their natural allegiance to Iran), Sunni Arabs in the West, Kurds in the North. Saddam established the minority Sunni as the ruling elite, suppressing and oppressing Shia and Kurds. The regime was vile. However, without that kind of coercion, there is very little that can be done to hold these people together. Arguably, it would have happened anyway as Saddam's kids would not have been tolerated for long after succession and the US intervention probably just sped up the process, but Iraq is now steadily moving towards a break up. 5) Current terrorism in Iraq. This is mainly a response to ThePest179. You think that by continuing to stay in Iraq the US could have gradually eliminate the continuing sectarian violence. I don't think so, here's why: - the US presence was an occupying force. They were considered invaders, outsiders by the locals of every ethnicity in Iraq. As such, the US would just stir up constant resentment and would be the cause of a lot of attacks, rather than be a pacifying factor. - The violence is now a part of the political process in the country. Roughly speaking, when the MPs from different regions cannot agree on something they go back to their towns and start sending bombs to each other to prove who has the strongest force or who is the most tolerant to losses. Having that point established, they meet again in a civilised environment and resume negotiations until the next disagreement. No occupying force would be able to fix it until the people themselves have sorted out their differences (or a new dictator appears)... Regards

You probably only counting casualties for the period until the "mission accomplished" blunder by Bush. Wiki has a page showing different estimates done by different agencies. The spread is very wide but none of the reports shows less than 100,000 fatalities. Regards

I did and I don't see it happening, which kind of was my point, what is yours? Regards

But what will replace it? Regards

The war was lost before it has started. It is impossible to win a war without an objective. It is also impossible to win a war against an entire population of a country - so a double impossibility. History is littered with examples of it and yet the US blundered into not one but two impossible wars at the same time. Very clever. And how do you see that idea of stopping the terrorists? Which terrorists? Definition of terrorism requires them to operate on the home soil of the target country. I have not heard of many Iraqis or Afganis having been caught trying to commit an act of terror in the US. But even if they are there, how do you envisage stopping them though military intervention in their home countries? Do you think they may be supported, directed and funded by the governments of Iraq and Afganistan? Regards

*only* 4700 dead soldiers? Tell it to their families. Also, are the lives of US soldiers the only ones that count? What about the 100s of thousands of civilians killed, injured and otherwise affected by the disorder caused by the US invasion? Or are they just "injuns" not worthy of consideration? Regards

I think you are overdramatising the situation. Regards

Why would US need a "buffer" state in the Middle East? If anything it is a "stick-in-a-beehive" or "red-cloth-to-a-bull" sate in the Middle East. Also, it IS real and is Israel... Regards

I can't stop being amazed by the [quiet] development of robotics. pp89tTDxXuI Regards

1zcS_RzNQm8 Regards

Well, that's what NASA said. Regards

Update: According to NASA the meteorite was 17m in diameter and had mass of 10,000 tons. Me thinking they used US tons it gives the probable density of the meteorite as about 3.4kg/dm3 and it corresponds to peridotite - one of the most common mineral in stony meteorites. So, nothing overly exciting there, except they calculate the release of energy at 500 kiloton equivalent, which is over 30 times the yield of the Hiroshima bomb! Regards

I think the power of nuclear weapons are somewhat exaggerated. To put things in perspective (according to wikipedia): 2.1E17 J - yield of the Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear weapon ever tested (50 megatons) 5.0E19 J - energy released in 1-day by an average hurricane in producing rain (that's 200 50-megaton nukes per day) 5.0E23 J - approximate energy released in the formation of the Chicxulub Crater in the Yucatán Peninsula (that's 2,000,000 50-megaton nukes in one go). Clearly, to stop something possessing such energy outright needs a comparable energy release. Taking into account that a nuclear detonation in space against an asteroid body will waste most of the energy, because most of the blast will dissipate into empty space there needs to be something more clever than just banging away with explosives (as much as I would like to see a space fireworks like that!). Regarding the 100m being an acceptable size for an impactor - I don't think so. The Cheliabinsk meteorite last week is estimated to have had the mass of about 9 - 10 tonnes, yet it has done a lot of damage just by flying by at high altitude. How big was it? If it was solid Fe-Ni, then maybe the size of a car, if it was a stone one - maybe a bus? A 100 m rock will wipe out a major city. Regards

KBjBxylLDQ0 Magnificent... Regards

I'm afraid, nukes won't anywhere near do it if the rock is big enough... Regards

Cheer up, mate! Regards

Well, with you being full of self-pity like that - they won't, will they? Regards

It's maybe a bit busy or being DDoSed... If you can't get it to work here is the screencap: Regards

Looks like we have received our second warning this morning. http://lenta.ru/articles/2013/02/15/meteorite/ (ignore the Russian text, just watch the videos) If nature sticks to the "3 strikes - you're out" policy, the next one will likely be for real. So, will our politicians finally take the threat of space impactors seriously or is it going to be ignored yet again? I wonder... Regards

There's plenty more where the last one came from etc etc... Regards

Do a tracert 216.81.59.173 and wait until it completes... Regards

I don't mind the background. I even think it created an interesting shallow DOF effect, making the picture more striking. Regards

@The Scoutman re: Dream Theater tribute That was good. I was intrigued by the keyboards on the thumbnail and they did not fail to deliver. Another one from roughly the same period (not metal though): nNC65gq55H0 Regards

Really nice! Regards

Happiness... that was back when The grass was greener The light was brighter The taste was sweeter The nights of wonder With friends surrounded The dawn mist glowing The water flowing The endless river Regards