Intel neuters Montvale, Itanic screams in alarm
dav...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
The Inquirer's latest take on the future of Itanium
"Soon after that, it is in such miserable shape, no one cares if you pull the
plug. That is what Intel is doing to Itanium. There is nothing on the roadmap
now that would make it competitive vs Power, or even x86.
Montevale's neutering is just the tip of the iceberg.
"
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23725
David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
JF Mezei
Woopty doo ! No big surprise there. All according to plan. Intel will
succeed compared to Alpha because it will pull the plug because people
will be begging it to put IA64 out of its misery and focus on one
platform with an assured future.
IA64 is now a liability to VMS and HP-UX. VMS needs and asset on which
it can run.
b...@instantwhip.com
"it's your baby, if your want it, you support it" ...
so now HP is still indirectly in the processor
manufacturing business by having to supply the
money to intel to continue to try to prove that
itanium (in HPs mind) is superior ... if only they
would admit it isn't and start up alpha again and
port everything to alpha! But it is hard to cure
companies with NIH (not invented here) syndrome ...
JF Mezei
> I think intel has had enough of HP and told them
> "it's your baby, if your want it, you support it" ...
My take is that as of mid-late 2003, the plan to phase out IA64 was
agreed upon by HP and Intel. 8086 is where HP is going. Big question is
whether HP-UX will go 8086 (can it ?) or not.
When you think about it, HP could now offer Linux for mid range servers,
and VMS / NSK at the high end for the really serious stuff and Linux
can't handle (yet).
> so now HP is still indirectly in the processor
> manufacturing business by having to supply the
> money to intel to continue to try to prove that
> itanium (in HPs mind) is superior ...
At this point in time, it is just PR to save face for both Intel and HP.
> if only they
> would admit it isn't and start up alpha again and
> port everything to alpha!
While that would be really nice, I doubt it will happen. Carly/Curly's
policies of going with industry standard commodity CPU is not flawed.
Look at Apple. And look at what AMD forced Intel to do: allow the 8086
to scale to the same heights as IA64 by 2007. Carly/Curly's philosophies
were not flawed, but the timing of their annoucnement was. Had they
waited a couple of years until mid-end 2003, they would have then gone
to the 8086 right away. But in 2001, Intel was still really hoping IA64
would work and really hopin it could keep the 8086 below mid-range
servers to give IA64 breathing space, so the 8086 wasn't an option for
VMS in 2001.
Bob Koehler
>
> My take is that as of mid-late 2003, the plan to phase out IA64 was
> agreed upon by HP and Intel. 8086 is where HP is going. Big question is
> whether HP-UX will go 8086 (can it ?) or not.
HP-UX on x86 has the same problem as MacOS: endian change.
OBTW I've seen nothing from Apple on which Intel processor it's going
to. What makes you think thier not going to use IA64 in big-endian
mode? Which chip did they use for this week's demo?
Or is Intel going to byte off a bi-endian x86?
Patrick MOREAU, CENA Athis, Tel: 01.69.57.68.40
They'll first switch to Intel for laptops, so no IA64 for sure ... Rumors are
about some Pentium M dual core and 64 bits extended ... Pentium M is much less
power hungry than Prescott (last declinaison of PIV).
For desktop and serveurs, I dont know. Dual core Opterons ? Or Dual core
Pentiums ?
IA64 will stay into the niche (and Apple is already a niche market ...).
Patrick
--
===============================================================================
pmo...@ath.cena.fr ______ ___ _ (Patrick MOREAU)
DSNA/DTI/SDER (ex CENA) / / / / /| /|
Athis-Mons France / /___/ / / | / | __ __ __ __
BP 205 / / / / |/ | | | |__| |__ |__| | |
94542 ORLY AEROGARE CEDEX / / :: / / | |__| | \ |__ | | |__|
http://www.ath.cena.fr/~pmoreau/ http://membres.lycos.fr/pmoreau/
===============================================================================
JF Mezei
> OBTW I've seen nothing from Apple on which Intel processor it's going
> to. What makes you think thier not going to use IA64 in big-endian
> mode? Which chip did they use for this week's demo?
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/universal_binary/universal_binary.pdf
Go to the chapter/section on endianness. It is well spelled out. 8086
based, and little endian.
Consider that Apple is primarily a desktop and laptop company. If
Apple's volumes weren't high enough for IBM to produce a laptop version
of its Power chip, then Apple's volumes certaintly won't be big enough
to get Intel to produce a laptop version of the bloated IA64 thing.
Look IA64 is dead. Face it.
Keith A. Lewis
Somebody posted a link to a screengrab from Jobs' WWDC keynote address to
comp.sys.mac.hardware.misc. It showed clearly that he was doing the
presentation on a Pentium 4 machine running OS X.
That doesn't abolutely rule out Itanic, but since they've got it running on
a cheaper processor which already fulfills Apple's 3GHz promise, at this
point I'd conclude it's going to be x86.
--Keith Lewis klewis {at} mitre.org
The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.
GreyCloud
Plus the fact that OS X has been secretly running on a
Pentium for 5 years now.
But the pentium series chips lack any vector processing
capabilities. Don't know if the new Pentium D series has
this or not. The Opteron does have them.
JF Mezei
> But the pentium series chips lack any vector processing
> capabilities. Don't know if the new Pentium D series has
> this or not. The Opteron does have them.
Between now and 2007, the 8086 is poised to get got a big boost in
features. If AMD has vector processing, then Intel will soon follow.
Apple is an independant business with no ties to Intel or Microsoft, so
when it decided to go with Intel, it is because it had assurances that
the 8086 would fit the bill.
Curly killed Alpha to secure an already existing relationship with Intel
and ensure Compaq had good prices on the 8086. Apple doesn't have such
ties to taint business decisions. Curly wasn't betting his business with
the Jun 25 murder of Alpha, he was focusing on his business and getting
rid of what he didn't want. Apple's move affects its core business and
it wouldn't jeoperdize it to please Intel.
Bob Koehler
>
> https://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/universal_binary/universal_binary.pdf
>
That's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.
b...@instantwhip.com
Bob Kaplow
> so if ia64 is done for, what is vms going to run on?
Antiques.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"
>>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf
www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
This is a country which stands tallest in troubled times, a country
that clings to fundamental principles, cherishes its constitutional
heritage, and rejects simple solutions that compromise the values
that lie at the roots of our democratic system. -- Supreme Court
Justice Thurgood Marshall, 1972
JF Mezei
The 8086. It is the logical progression, and it is the one platform that
fits the original intent to have VMS on a commodity low cost CPU that
spans from laptop to data centre.
And the 8086 is available from at least 2 competing sources, so it isn't
proprietary like IA64.
Dave Froble
Ha! Four years later he gets a clue of what so many were/are upset
about! Ya gotta look a bit further than the end of your nose, Bob.
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. Fax: 724-529-0596
DFE Ultralights, Inc. E-Mail: da...@tsoft-inc.com
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
Jack Peacock
news:1118337869.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> so if ia64 is done for, what is vms going to run on?
>
to x64 64 bit, and then run VMS as a virtual machine alongside Windows,
Linux, OS X and whatever else comes along.
AMD is putting in place the hardware changes to efficiently run virtual
machines, and Intel is (as usual) about a year behind. The Apple defection
does nothing to bolster Itanium, but along with Sun boosting AMD does add
impetus to a VMS port, especially if Dell gives up and takes on AMD64
processors too. "Industry Standard X86-64" will de facto be the processor
to use for commercial systems.
That's the ideal world. Real world, I wonder if there's enough future VMS
business left for HP to bother funding a port to x86. It would be a shame,
because I have several customers who would jump at the chance to retire
their Alphas and run VMS as a virtual machine on one big x86 server. Not
one of them will even consider buying an Itanium.
Jack Peacock
JF Mezei
> machines, and Intel is (as usual) about a year behind. The Apple defection
> does nothing to bolster Itanium, but along with Sun boosting AMD does add
> impetus to a VMS port, especially if Dell gives up and takes on AMD64
> processors too. "Industry Standard X86-64" will de facto be the processor
> to use for commercial systems.
Apple, within 2 years, will have completed its transition to the 8086
and stop selling PPC systems. 4 years into the transition to IA64, VMS
has barely begun to sell commercially.
The VMS engineers better have initial work already done to port to the
8086. And if the 8086 does lack hardware features needed to make VMS run
fully on the 8086, then HP better tell AMD and Intel about it ASAP so
that by 2007, the 8086s that are being sold will have those features.
VMS can't afford another 4 year gap between announcement and commercial
availability. I don't care if the engineers have to work secretely in
ZKO's basement, or sent on "vacation" to a secured and undisclosed
location in florida to do the work there. IT really must be done.
> Real world, I wonder if there's enough future VMS
> business left for HP to bother funding a port to x86.
With VMS on the 8086, I'd say yes. HP could then allow VMS to scale from
desktop to datacentre once again, heck, even laptops could be running
VMS. This would be a huge improvement over the IA64 that is targetted
only at "big iron" and allow VMS to recapture many of the customers it
lost when Palmer decided to restrict Alpha and VMS to big systems only
in onrder to allow Windows to breathe.
> Not
> one of them will even consider buying an Itanium.
And I would hope that all VMS customers would send a loud and clear
message to Hurd that IA64 is a liability to HP, not an asset. It is
limiting sales.
Main, Kerry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: b...@instantwhip.com [mailto:b...@instantwhip.com]
> Sent: June 9, 2005 1:24 PM
> To: Info...@Mvb.Saic.Com
> Subject: Re: Intel neuters Montvale, Itanic screams in alarm
>
> so if ia64 is done for, what is vms going to run on?
>
Bob, JF is entitled to his Itanium opinions like everyone else on the
group.
Some share his negative view, others do not. Time will tell.
However, other vendors that have also made recent positive announcements
wrt to Itanium's future potential-
- SGI Announces new Itanium Workstation: April, 2005
http://news.com.com/SGI+to+release+Itanium+workstation/2100-1010_3-56840
47.html?tag=nefd.top
- Fujitsu to launch new PrimeQuest Itanium servers - March, 2005
http://www.itworld.com/Comp/1361/050317fujitsu/
"The PrimeQuest products will be Fujitsu's first high-end Itanium
servers. The company currently sells Primergy servers with as many as
four Itanium processors, but will expand its product line to include
servers with between eight and 64 Itanium processors with the launch of
PrimeQuest."
- Microsoft, Itanium and Longhorn - April, 2005
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/erp/article.php/3496866
""In the 'Longhorn'-server timeframe, there are more opportunities to
consolidate target workloads onto Windows- and Itanium-based systems,"
Muglia said as part of a Microsoft-sponsored interview. "We're working
with our partners to deploy more than 1,000 Itanium 2-based systems in
our labs for 'Longhorn'-server test and development."
- SAP promotes charms of Intel Itanium - May, 2005
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23567
And in case, anyone thinks Intel is hurting right now which might make
them change any strategies they have currently in place, their business
update today certainly indicates otherwise:
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050609corp.htm
"SANTA CLARA, Calif., June 9, 2005 -- Intel Corporation expects revenue
for the second quarter to be between $9.1 billion and $9.3 billion, as
compared to the previous range of $8.6 billion to $9.2 billion,
primarily driven by ongoing strong demand for notebook products."
[even if growth was due to notebooks, "growth" is all most shareholders
see]
Regards
Kerry Main
Senior Consultant
HP Services Canada
Voice: 613-592-4660
Fax: 613-591-4477
kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom
(remove the DOT's and AT)
OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works.
Regards
Kerry Main
Senior Consultant
HP Services Canada
Voice: 613-592-4660
Fax: 613-591-4477
kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom
(remove the DOT's and AT)
OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works.
JF Mezei
> Some share his negative view, others do not. Time will tell.
Actually, I am quite positive. Intel continues to send out the signals
that by 2007, the 8086 will be able to replace IA64 completely, and that
a port of vMS to the 8086 is inevitable.
Once you accept the fact that Alpha is dead, then moving the the
popuopar platform with enough volume to ensure its future is a positive thing.
It is pointless to prolong IA64's pain. Let it Itanic sink ASAP and let
the 8086 take over. VMS can't grow on a dying chip. It has been on a
dying chip (Alpha) between 2001 and 2005, and between now and the day it
is available on 8086, it is on a dying chip.
> However, other vendors that have also made recent positive announcements
> wrt to Itanium's future potential-
Yeah, like Digital claiming it was the fastest growing PC manufacturer
when it went from shipping 0 units to a few 1000 units.
It isn't so important to look at chips produced, but rather revenus
generated. When a company such as HP, SGI or Fujitsu donates large
number of systems to some research organisation in ecchange for bragging
rights, this doesn't generate revenus. It generates marketing.
> Muglia said as part of a Microsoft-sponsored interview. "We're working
> with our partners to deploy more than 1,000 Itanium 2-based systems in
> our labs for 'Longhorn'-server test and development."
PR gobbledeegook. They are thinking about talking to partners about
deploying IA64 boxes. Not the same as "We've deployed 1000 IA64 boxes in
our labs".
> And in case, anyone thinks Intel is hurting right now which might make
> them change any strategies they have currently in place, their business
> update today certainly indicates otherwise:
Their IA64 strategy became quite clear in early 2004. You are right,
they have no need to change that strategy because it is to phase out
IA64 by 2007 when the 8086 will be just as capable as IA64.
> [even if growth was due to notebooks, "growth" is all most shareholders
> see]
But the day the numbers aren't perfect, shareholders will demand Intel
stop wasting money on unprofitabl;e low volume products that consume
enourmous money.
Also, with Intel now behind AMD in terms of performanmce and features,
there will be pressure for Intel to deploy more resources on the 8086 to
have it catch up to AMD. And that might mean redeploying resources from
IA64 to the 8086, especially the remaining Alpha designers who knwo
quite a bit about the 8086 since the 8086 integrated so much of Alpha's features.
Main, Kerry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei...@teksavvy.com]
> Sent: June 9, 2005 6:47 PM
> To: Info...@Mvb.Saic.Com
> Subject: Re: Intel neuters Montvale, Itanic screams in alarm
>
> > Some share his negative view, others do not. Time will tell.
>
> Actually, I am quite positive. Intel continues to send out the signals
> that by 2007, the 8086 will be able to replace IA64
> completely, and that
> a port of vMS to the 8086 is inevitable.
>
Huh? Where in the world did you pull both of those little gems from?
Please tell the rest of us where you saw:
1. Where Intel has said 8086 will be able to replace IA64 and,
2. Where Intel or HP or anyone (besides yourself) in any type of
official position that has stated a port of OpenVMS to the 8086 is
inevitable.
> Once you accept the fact that Alpha is dead, then moving the the
> popuopar platform with enough volume to ensure its future is
> a positive thing.
>
> It is pointless to prolong IA64's pain. Let it Itanic sink
> ASAP and let
> the 8086 take over. VMS can't grow on a dying chip. It has been on a
> dying chip (Alpha) between 2001 and 2005, and between now and
> the day it
> is available on 8086, it is on a dying chip.
>
>
> > However, other vendors that have also made recent positive
> announcements
> > wrt to Itanium's future potential-
>
> Yeah, like Digital claiming it was the fastest growing PC manufacturer
> when it went from shipping 0 units to a few 1000 units.
>
> It isn't so important to look at chips produced, but rather revenus
> generated. When a company such as HP, SGI or Fujitsu donates large
> number of systems to some research organisation in ecchange
> for bragging
> rights, this doesn't generate revenus. It generates marketing.
>
Hey, the game is only just getting started and you want to throw in the
towel after only the second or third round?
If AMD had this attitude about 4 years ago (when Intel was kicking their
butt in the Mhz race), they would have simply given up and said "whats
the use?"
:-)
> > Muglia said as part of a Microsoft-sponsored interview.
> "We're working
> > with our partners to deploy more than 1,000 Itanium 2-based
> systems in
> > our labs for 'Longhorn'-server test and development."
>
> PR gobbledeegook. They are thinking about talking to partners about
> deploying IA64 boxes. Not the same as "We've deployed 1000
> IA64 boxes in
> our labs".
Nope. Re-read the statement they made.
>
> > And in case, anyone thinks Intel is hurting right now which
> might make
> > them change any strategies they have currently in place,
> their business
> > update today certainly indicates otherwise:
>
> Their IA64 strategy became quite clear in early 2004. You are right,
> they have no need to change that strategy because it is to phase out
> IA64 by 2007 when the 8086 will be just as capable as IA64.
>
Everything official that comes out of Intel states otherwise, but you
are free to speculate on all of the black helicopter theories you like,
because this is a newsgroup and that goes with the territory.
:-)
[snip..]
Bill Todd
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei...@teksavvy.com]
>>Sent: June 9, 2005 6:47 PM
>>To: Info...@Mvb.Saic.Com
>>Subject: Re: Intel neuters Montvale, Itanic screams in alarm
>>
>>"Main, Kerry" wrote:
>>
>>>Some share his negative view, others do not. Time will tell.
>>
>>Actually, I am quite positive. Intel continues to send out the signals
>>that by 2007, the 8086 will be able to replace IA64
>>completely, and that
>>a port of vMS to the 8086 is inevitable.
>>
>
>
> Huh? Where in the world did you pull both of those little gems from?
>
> Please tell the rest of us where you saw:
>
> 1. Where Intel has said 8086 will be able to replace IA64
Intel is developing a common system infrastructure which will support
both Itanic and IA32(extended) in the same socket (finally getting the
on-chip routing and memory-controller facilities that POWER4/4+/5, EV7,
AMD64, and even SPARC have enjoyed for years already) and using the same
chipsets. It's looking more and more like Itanic may get to that party
kind of late, but IA32 should be there in 2007.
This means that whatever advantage Itanic may have enjoyed due to the
lack of credible high-end x86 systems will tend to vanish by that point,
though in fact with IBM's currently-shipping Hurricane Xeon chipset
(which is hot on the heels of the top-of-the-line Itanic TPC-C score at
4 processors and has just edged ahead of it at 8 processors - it
supports up to 32 sockets, but they are apparently working their way up
the benchmark slowly) and the imminent appearance of the Horus Opteron
chipset (also up to 32 sockets), plus whatever larger Opteron facilities
Sun has in its back pocket that Andy B. has been working on for years,
one might suggest that any such advantage is being seriously eroded
starting right now.
and,
> 2. Where Intel or HP or anyone (besides yourself) in any type of
> official position that has stated a port of OpenVMS to the 8086 is
> inevitable.
That's certainly a more justifiable challenge. It's probably as likely
that HP will just let VMS sink with Itanic as it is that they'll port it
again, and of course there's also the possibility that Itanic will
wallow along for years yet.
...
> If AMD had this attitude about 4 years ago (when Intel was kicking their
> butt in the Mhz race), they would have simply given up and said "whats
> the use?"
I think you may be a bit confused about where AMD was about 4 years ago:
they were sitting pretty with performance that Pentium could only
dream about (and had been pretty much since Athlon debuted in 1999 and
started pulling away from PIII).
Pentium 4 had just appeared (at 1.5 GHz, vs. Athlon's 1.2 GHz, IIRC) and
while it offered a few more MHz than Athlon the performance was just not
there (and remained not there throughout P4's 180 nm. life, where it
topped out at just 2 GHz).
...
>>Their IA64 strategy became quite clear in early 2004. You are right,
>>they have no need to change that strategy because it is to phase out
>>IA64 by 2007 when the 8086 will be just as capable as IA64.
>>
>
>
> Everything official that comes out of Intel states otherwise
Perhaps it would be instructive for you to contemplate the similarities
with everything official that came out of Compaq about Alpha prior to
June 25, 2001 - and the foreshadowing that all those 'official'
pronouncements were clearly aimed at getting people to ignore.
- bill
Rob Young
> "Main, Kerry" wrote:
>> Some share his negative view, others do not. Time will tell.
>
> Actually, I am quite positive. Intel continues to send out the signals
> that by 2007, the 8086 will be able to replace IA64 completely, and that
> a port of vMS to the 8086 is inevitable.
Of course not. No more than the port of HP/UX and NSK to
8086 is inevitable. Enterprise architectures aren't switched
out whimsically - it costs way too much money and your
customer base gets antsy.
> Once you accept the fact that Alpha is dead, then moving the the
> popuopar platform with enough volume to ensure its future is a positive thing.
I thought Alpha was murdered and VMS is dead? Which is it?
Rob
JF Mezei
> Of course not. No more than the port of HP/UX and NSK to
> 8086 is inevitable. Enterprise architectures aren't switched
> out whimsically - it costs way too much money and your
> customer base gets antsy.
I agree. Point is that for the last couple of years, HP and Intel have
been sending consistant signals that IA64 was not a long term solution
and that its market potential was shrinking and that the 8086 was the
long term solution with an expanding market into 64 bit enterprise
computing. Neither HP nor Intel have tried very hard to negate the
rumours sent out by the press about IA64.
The high costs of continued development of IA64 are not worth the low
volume revenus, especially when you consider that the 8086 is quickly
closing the gap.
HP and Intel can't pull out of IA64 just like that. For one thing, the
8086 isn't ready yet, and HP has learned it lesson not to commit to an
architecture until it is ready. But the signals are that by 2007, the
8086 will be scalable to very large machines, the same as IA64.
For HP, all of the reasons used to move all its OS's to IA64 can be used
to justify moving them to the 8086 from IA64.
-reduce number of platforms to support
-use commodity industry standard chips
-user open architecture with competition that drives performance up and
prices down.
In terms of the costs of multiple ports, consider NSK. Pfeiffer stopped
the port of NSK to IA64 and directed a port to Alpha. Then Curly canned
that and that re-instated the port to IA64. So, the short term lifetime
of HP-UX, NSK and VMS on IA64 won't be a precedent.
Mr Main seemed worried about my talking about an obvious port of VMS to
the 8086: Do not worry, my statements are simply derived from hints that
are very public and I am not privy to any NDA information, nor have I
ever visited the secret basement of ZKO where the secret port to the
8086 is underway :-) If a port of VMS to the 8086 isn't underway or
being considered, it should.
Whenever a vendor has to make some promises that a product won't be
killed in the next few years, it means that there are credible rumours
that the product is not viable.
Nobody is questioning Intel's true intentions with the 8086. It doesn't
need to promise that the 8086 will survive beyond its current technical
roadmap because nobody is questioning the chip's commercial success.
Such is not the case for IA64.
However, I think that if you were to poll VMS customers about a port to
the 8086, you'd probably find very strong support and this would really
make it much easier to grow VMS big time.
Karsten Nyblad
> In article <42A8C6E7...@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei...@teksavvy.com> writes:
> No more than the port of HP/UX and NSK to
> 8086 is inevitable. Enterprise architectures aren't switched
> out whimsically - it costs way too much money and your
> customer base gets antsy.
True. However, how many companies do you think has a strategy of
betting their business on Itanic? It would be lightheaded to have such
a strategy before Itanic has demonstrated that it can generate more
profit to Intel than what it costs in ongoing development, marketing,
etc. Thus HP can move away from Itanic now, but the longer they wait
the more customers will be angry.
Karsten Nyblad
> 1. Where Intel has said 8086 will be able to replace IA64 and,
>
> are free to speculate on all of the black helicopter theories you like,
> because this is a newsgroup and that goes with the territory.
Hmm. Every month has its The Inquirer story about how Intel and HP kill
their Itanic projects, while moving their talented chip designers to
x86. As Bill Todd has already pointed out, it has already announced
that x86 and IA64 will be capable of using the same chip sets and
perhaps even be plug compatible. Further, both AMD and Intel are
working hard to put more cores on each chip. Itanic might be capable of
keeping up to the competition on a core per core basis, but do you
really think one Itanic chip with e.g. 2 cores will be capable of
beating one Xeon or Opteron chip with with 4 cores?
I really think it is you who should tell us why you think that Itanic
will stay faster on big machines than x86.
Galen
Karsten Nyblad wrote:
> Main, Kerry wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> Hmm. Every month has its The Inquirer story about how Intel and HP kill
> their Itanic projects, while moving their talented chip designers to
> x86.
Wow. If HP is able to move their talented chip designers to Intel every
month, then HP must itself have a pretty steady influx of talented chip
designers!
:-)
Dr. Dweeb
Not that I have been following too closely, but does HP have any left ?
Dr. Dweeb
Gorazd Kikelj
> chip. Itanic might be capable of keeping up to the competition on a core
> per core basis, but do you really think one Itanic chip with e.g. 2 cores
> will be capable of beating one Xeon or Opteron chip with with 4 cores?
>
> I really think it is you who should tell us why you think that Itanic will
> stay faster on big machines than x86.
Funs about more cores on x86 and chips, that follow common cache line
strategies, can be found here:
http://www.daemonology.net/papers/htt.pdf
http://www.daemonology.net/hyperthreading-considered-harmful/
Best, Gorazd
John Reagan
Chip designers? Yes. There are more chips besides CPUs...
--
John Reagan
HP Pascal/{A|I}MACRO for OpenVMS Project Leader
Hewlett-Packard Company
David Mathog
> However, other vendors that have also made recent positive announcements
> wrt to Itanium's future potential-
>
> - SGI Announces new Itanium Workstation: April, 2005
Now there's a vendor known for making wise business decisions!
<SNIP>
> And in case, anyone thinks Intel is hurting right now which might make
> them change any strategies they have currently in place, their business
> update today certainly indicates otherwise:
> http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050609corp.htm
> "SANTA CLARA, Calif., June 9, 2005 -- Intel Corporation expects revenue
> for the second quarter to be between $9.1 billion and $9.3 billion, as
> compared to the previous range of $8.6 billion to $9.2 billion,
> primarily driven by ongoing strong demand for notebook products."
Even so, Itanium is a money pit and Intel knows it. AMD
called Intel's Itanium bluff and Intel is in the process of throwing
in those cards. It's clear to all but the true believers that
there finally is an "industry standard" architecture and it's x86. Apple
migrating to x86 just further confirms it. (That doesn't mean that
Intel is the industry standard though, other than by marketing clout,
since there are also x86 processors from AMD and VIA.) HP will probably
keep its head firmly in the sand and erase the remaining VMS, HPUX, and
even Tandem markets. Maybe someday somebody at HP will ask: what from
the CUSTOMER'S perspective is the advantage of running on Itanium over
x86?
Regards,
David Mathog
mat...@caltech.edu
Bob Kaplow
Last week or next week?
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"
>>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf
www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in
the several States, that the purposes of society do not require
a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors; that
there are certain portions of right not necessary to enable them
to carry on an effective government, and which experience has
nevertheless proved they will be constantly encroaching on, if
submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which
experience has proved peculiarly efficacious against wrong, and
rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have
ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first
kind, for instance, is freedom of religion; of the second, trial
by jury, habeas corpus laws, free presses. -- Thomas Jefferson
Main, Kerry
> From: David Mathog [mailto:mat...@caltech.edu]
> Sent: June 10, 2005 11:49 AM
> To: Info...@Mvb.Saic.Com
> Subject: Re: Intel neuters Montvale, Itanic screams in alarm
>
As I said earlier, the game has only just begun.
Competition is a good thing and AMD is doing a great job in some areas
right now. However, as the financial analysts and press has highlighted
recently, their overall financials need to improve rather quickly.
Imho, Itanium is a way for Intel to both break out of the x86 back and
forth race with AMD and to firmly position their future offerings over
Powerx.
Will they be able to do it?
Time will tell.
JF Mezei
> Imho, Itanium is a way for Intel to both break out of the x86 back and
> forth race with AMD and to firmly position their future offerings over
> Powerx.
The problem is that the race between AMD and Intel for 8086 supremacy is
moving the 8086 up faster than IA64 can move. And the quickened pace of
advances (no longer just clock speed bumps) requires that Intel put in
more resources onto the 8086 to keep up with AMD.
The price parity that the HP apologists used to talk about in 2007 is
probably Intel dumping IA64s at same price as 8086 , after it has
announced the phasing out of IA64 and during the transition period from
IA64 to 8086 for HP and SGI.
Rob Young
Paul DeMone has a good read on IPF , few dispute his projections
as they aren't wildly optimistic. Here is a recent read of
his:
In 2004 over 150k I2s shipped in around 30k systems worth about $1.5B.
[snip]]
By HP's predictions within two years it will be shipping roughly three times as
much IPF gear or roughly 75k systems worth over $3B a year. In two years it is
quite credible that SGI could be selling 10k to 15k systems worth over $1B a
year. So HP and SGI alone could bring IPF to about 25% RISC market share by
2007.
What is harder to predict is how well the rest of the IPF OEMs will do. The
best prospects are NEC, Fujitsu, Hitachi, Bull, and Unisys. Dell is a bit of a
dark horse. Montecito will make its 8870 based systems a lot more competitive
but it isn't apparent that either potential IPF customers want to buy from Dell
or that Dell really wants to sell IPF gear to them. A best case scenario IMO is
that within 2 years the rest of the IPF pack would be selling about 20k systems
a year worth about $1B.
For the sake of argument let's say these various scenarios pan out and in 2007
IPF has exceeded 110k systems worth $5B a year in sales. That is roughly the
space peviously occupied by PA-RISC, Alpha, and MIPS combined. For Intel this
scenario translates to sales of over 500k IPF MPUs worth about $1.0-1.2B and
profits of over $0.5B ($1.0B - $400m in R&D cost - $60m silicon cost).
---
By Paul's estimation (see another RWT thread) Itanium has reached
break-even. We'll see how well it does profit-wise other the next
few years. But the PA-RISC , Alpha and MIPS lifeboats have been
burned - Itanium has a pretty lucrative captive market so it should
do more than ok.
Rob
Dave Froble
> By Paul's estimation (see another RWT thread) Itanium has reached
> break-even. We'll see how well it does profit-wise other the next
> few years. But the PA-RISC , Alpha and MIPS lifeboats have been
> burned - Itanium has a pretty lucrative captive market so it should
> do more than ok.
Gotta tell you Rob, in my experience, everytime someone thinks they have
a 'captive market', the market in time fades away. DEC thought it had a
captive market. VMS thought it had a captive market.
Then there's the piece of shit called EPIC.
Dave Froble
The itanic isn't competition for Power, except in the same way x86 and
such were competition for VAX and Alpha. There will always be the many
that can get along with 'good enough', and then there will be the
serious people who will demand more than 'good enough'.
IBM has got to be very pleased with Intel. One of the serious
competitors to Power was Alpha. Intel has managed to reduce the
competition to Power.
'More than good enough' will never be a large segment of the computing
world, but it will persist, and IBM seems to be the only player
interested in such business.
I do enjoy your classification of AMD. Good way of saying that they are
only lucky and won't remain so. Yeah, right.
Technically, AMD is kicking Intel's ass, and with products that will run
the world's choice of software. They have a lead, and unless they give
it up, or Intel comes up with something new and unexpected, they will
continue to eat into Intel's business. Not overnight, but slowly. With
enough time, if they continue to excel, Intel's financials won't look as
well as they do now.
Bill Todd
...
> Paul DeMone has a good read on IPF , few dispute his projections
> as they aren't wildly optimistic.
Horseshit, Rob: anyone at all familiar with RWT interchanges knows that
people (far more than just me) dispute Paul's ridiculously biased
projections about Itanic's future market acceptance on a very regular basis.
I recently had the occasion to remind him of one of his more laughable
ones (
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.arch/browse_thread/thread/bdcaced0c6f62efd/c18ab6223ffba9c2?q=mckinley+sales+author:demone#c18ab6223ffba9c2
- about 1/3 of the way down the page dated Jun 3, 2002, 7:51 A.M.):
"I think the odds are better than even that within a year of commercial
release (probably later this month) McKinley will drive IA64 unit share
to second place behind SPARC in the 64 bit high end MPU market place."
Well, McKinley didn't quite manage that during its commercial year-long
reign as Supreme Itanic Overlord (or is that 'overload'?). And Madison
didn't quite manage it either over the course of well over an additional
year in that capacity. And Madison II hasn't come anywhere near doing
it, either.
You may crow, "But just wait for Montecito!" (just as you crowed "Just
wait for McKinley!" and "Just wait for Madison!"), but even in the
highly unlikely event that Montecito *did* manage to fulfill Paul's
market-penetration projection he would still have been off by a rather
significant factor ('within a year' becoming 'after 4+ years') and hence
could hardly be held up as a paragon of objectivity and conservatism.
- bill
Bill Todd
this far more recent howler:
Rob Young wrote (quoting Paul):
...
> For the sake of argument let's say these various scenarios pan out and in 2007
> IPF has exceeded 110k systems worth $5B a year in sales. That is roughly the
> space peviously occupied by PA-RISC, Alpha, and MIPS combined.
Well, perhaps for sufficiently coarse values of 'roughly'...
Prior to the Alphacide, we have it direct from Compaq (and for the VMS
part also direct from the mouth of Rich Marcello) that VMS, Tru64, and
Tandem systems brought in respectively $4 billion, $3 billion, and $2
billion annually, for a total of $9 billion within Compaq systems alone.
My vague recollection is that HP-UX was about 3x the size of Tru64 in
sales back then, so figure something like another $9 billion there. And
of course there was MPE on PA-RISC (not entirely insignificant back
then) and SGI's MIPS products, but I'm guessing that we don't really
need to throw them into the pot to make it clear just how far off Paul's
statement was - even if you discount close to half that total as likely
being service revenue rather than sales per se.
- bill
Karsten Nyblad
Futures, futures, futures. You have been selling futures as long as I
have known. Besides, it might be that those building the machines make
money, but my argument was that Intel is selling so few chips, that I
doubt their profit can pay for developing future versions of Itanic.
> What is harder to predict is how well the rest of the IPF OEMs will do. The
> best prospects are NEC, Fujitsu, Hitachi, Bull, and Unisys. Dell is a bit of a
> dark horse. Montecito will make its 8870 based systems a lot more competitive
> but it isn't apparent that either potential IPF customers want to buy from Dell
> or that Dell really wants to sell IPF gear to them. A best case scenario IMO is
> that within 2 years the rest of the IPF pack would be selling about 20k systems
> a year worth about $1B.
>
> For the sake of argument let's say these various scenarios pan out and in 2007
> IPF has exceeded 110k systems worth $5B a year in sales. That is roughly the
> space peviously occupied by PA-RISC, Alpha, and MIPS combined. For Intel this
> scenario translates to sales of over 500k IPF MPUs worth about $1.0-1.2B and
> profits of over $0.5B ($1.0B - $400m in R&D cost - $60m silicon cost).
>
> ---
>
> By Paul's estimation (see another RWT thread) Itanium has reached
> break-even. We'll see how well it does profit-wise other the next
> few years. But the PA-RISC , Alpha and MIPS lifeboats have been
> burned - Itanium has a pretty lucrative captive market so it should
> do more than ok.
A sizable fraction of the market you are describing is in Windows and
Linux. In fact, I have a hunch that that fraction is more than half of
the sale. That sale will be gone in a heartbeat should x86 start to
scale beyond 4 processor systems. Do you remember how fast Windows NT
for Alpha disappeared when Pentium III came to market, and Alpha did not
have any performance advantage to x86 any more? Captive market? Yes,
sure...
Main, Kerry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Froble [mailto:da...@tsoft-inc.com]
> Sent: June 11, 2005 2:21 AM
> To: Info...@Mvb.Saic.Com
> Subject: Re: Intel neuters Montvale, Itanic screams in alarm
>
[snip ..]
[snip ..]
Luck has nothing to do with it. They have made some good advances in
specific area's and one has to give them credit.
On the other hand, there is the practical reality of making profits from
an overall company perspective (what shareholders and analysts look at).
Reference:
April 13, 2005
http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=160702478
"AMD posts loss in Q1, blames flash-memory business"
January 18, 2005
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=20783
"AMD turns in $30 million loss"
Tom Linden
Here's another reference
http://www.eet.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=164302189
AMD bets future on 64-bit processor
Spencer Chin
Page 1 of 2
EE Times
(06/10/2005 1:52 PM EDT)
MANHASSET, N.Y. — AMD Inc. told analysts Friday (June 10) the
microprocessor maker's future success hinges primarily on improving the
power handling and processing capabilities of its 64-bit x86 platform
while seeking to leverage the platform for a wider range of computing
applications.
At an analysts' conference in New York largely devoid of controversy, AMD
President and CEO Hector Ruiz emphasized the company was sharpening its
focus on the microprocessor market. "We are committed to one platform —
the x86," Ruiz told analysts. "Our purpose is to reinvent the dynamics of
the microprocessor industry."
...
Neil Rieck
"Bill Todd" <bill...@metrocast.net> wrote in message
news:0bednXc-RaQ...@metrocastcablevision.com...
[...snip...]
>
> This means that whatever advantage Itanic may have enjoyed due to the lack
> of credible high-end x86 systems will tend to vanish by that point, though
> in fact with IBM's currently-shipping Hurricane Xeon chipset (which is hot
> on the heels of the top-of-the-line Itanic TPC-C score at 4 processors and
> has just edged ahead of it at 8 processors - it supports up to 32 sockets,
> but they are apparently working their way up the benchmark slowly) and the
> imminent appearance of the Horus Opteron chipset (also up to 32 sockets),
> plus whatever larger Opteron facilities Sun has in its back pocket that
> Andy B. has been working on for years, one might suggest that any such
> advantage is being seriously eroded starting right now.
>
I don't think x86 (high-end or otherwise) will ever vanish. I saw an article
the other day at Technology Review that told how Intel has plans to replace
copper interconnects with silicon-based laser diodes.
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/07/issue/feature_intel.asp?trk=nl
Couple this with the fact that Intel (as well as other vendors) intend to
"comply" with Moore's law by doubling the core count every two years or so,
and you're going to have some very powerful computing technology in the
hands of the common consumer.
If I was running things at HP, I'd start a skunk works to begin porting
OpenVMS to extended x86 technology.
* * * * *
On a related note, when Compaq decided to kill Alpha, I don't think they
gave any thought to how this action would affect Cray (who depended on Alpha
as their primary CPU technology). Like wise, if Intel decides that Intel
shareholders would like to see Itanium die, they won't give any though to
how this will affect HP.
Neil Rieck
Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,
Ontario, Canada.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/
Rob Young
>
> On a related note, when Compaq decided to kill Alpha, I don't think they
> gave any thought to how this action would affect Cray (who depended on Alpha
> as their primary CPU technology). Like wise, if Intel decides that Intel
> shareholders would like to see Itanium die, they won't give any though to
> how this will affect HP.
>
Or SGI, or NEC, or Fujitsu or Hitachi or Bull or Unisys, etc.
But let's suppose HP has drank the kool-aid. Okay. To counter
the incessent FUD , let's focus on Fujitsu. Fujitsu is a company
that has arrived of late to the high-end of Itanium. They announced
in March 2005 (shipping this month) their Itanium PrimeQuest line.
Couple of supporting lift quotes prior to the point:
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2005/0317fujittola.html
Still, Fujitsu remains comfortable with its decision to invest in Itanium,
Rodriguez said. "Nobody questions that the Itanium processor has excellent
performance if you have 64-bit applications," he said. "We still think there is
a value and performance proposition in creating an Itanium system."
http://www.computerworld.com/hardwaretopics/hardware/server/story/0,10801,100887,00.html
Though Itanium has failed to live up to initial expectations, it has been
gaining momentum of late. In addition to Fujitsu, Unisys Corp., NEC Corp. and
Hitachi Ltd. have all announced mainframe-class Itanium systems, and sales of
Itanium servers totaled $1.4 billion in 2004, according to research firm IDC.
Regarding servers, Fujitsu hopes to sell 10,000 units in the next three years,
which would generate an income of 2 billion dollars.
---
So you see Fujitsu expects to sell a mainframe based Itanium
server to the tune of $2 billion over the next 3 years. No doubt
these early units are seed units - Itanium is a good thing come
Montecito (RAS and performance).
Think of the repercussions of Intel suddenly souring on Itanium.
You have a major OEM/partner in Fujitsu that is just getting
set to roll-out a whole line of servers based on Itanium - mainframe
class (RAS, etc.) and now suddenly Intel pulls the plug on them
and 6-12 other major OEMs depending on Itanium? Yeah, right.
Do you realize how comical that is to even suggest it happens
(murder of Itanium - hi JF!)? It is a roarer! I mean how absurd!
Rob
Bill Todd
> In article <z2Eqe.20071$_n2.13...@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Neil Rieck" <n.r...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>
>>On a related note, when Compaq decided to kill Alpha, I don't think they
>>gave any thought to how this action would affect Cray (who depended on Alpha
>>as their primary CPU technology). Like wise, if Intel decides that Intel
>>shareholders would like to see Itanium die, they won't give any though to
>>how this will affect HP.
>>
>
>
> Or SGI, or NEC, or Fujitsu or Hitachi or Bull or Unisys, etc.
True enough. Because if Intel decides to pull the plug, it will be
*because* it won't have much affect on its OEMs because they aren't
selling enough product to keep Intel happy (and therefore won't be very
happy themselves, or all that sad to see Itanic sink beneath the waves).
HP and SGI possibly excepted, because they're the only ones stupid
enough to have put all their eggs in the Itanic basket and will
therefore likely feel that anything is better than nothing.
Tough tooties. If they can't keep Intel happy, they'll get precisely
what such stupidity deserves.
...
> Still, Fujitsu remains comfortable with its decision to invest in Itanium,
> Rodriguez said.
And in the immortal words of Mandy Rice Davies, "Well, they would say
that, wouldn't they?"
I mean, now that they've thrown most of their money into the pot up
front, folding their hand without seeing how it will be received would
be kind of silly - as would announcing that they really didn't like the
look of it very much.
When you're committed anyway, best to try to make the best of it even if
the probability of success is pretty low.
...
> Though Itanium has failed to live up to initial expectations,
A pronouncement certainly in the running for understatement of the new
century. The initial expectations were that it would offer 2x - 3x the
performance of its RISC competition, ship in 1997 - 1998, completely
obliterate that competition ("If you think you have a future, you don't"
- Albert Yu, Intel VP & GM), and replace x86 and get rid of the pesky
competition in that market.
Yes, you could say that it has failed to live up to those by just a bit.
it has been
> gaining momentum of late.
When you start at zero, momentum is easy to gain. Thus the only time a
gain is impressive is if you're already moving at a really good clip,
which I fear even you cannot claim is true of Itanic.
...
sales of
> Itanium servers totaled $1.4 billion in 2004, according to research firm IDC.
Most of which came from HP's semi-captive audience of PA-RISC orphans
with nowhere else to go.
...
> Regarding servers, Fujitsu hopes to sell 10,000 units in the next three years,
> which would generate an income of 2 billion dollars.
And I hope to win the lottery, which would generate an income of 7
figures - but not enough to go out and actually buy a ticket.
Unfortunately for Fujitsu, it bought its Itanic tickets when Intel was
touting them as a sure bet, and now it's stuck with 'hopes' rather than
anything more substantial.
...
Itanium is a good thing come
> Montecito (RAS and performance).
Now, now, Rob. You assured us that McKinley was a good thing. You
assured us that Madison was a good thing. Exactly why should anyone pay
any more attention to your predictions about Montecito?
Ever heard the story of the boy who cried "Wolf!"?
>
> Think of the repercussions of Intel suddenly souring on Itanium.
> You have a major OEM/partner in Fujitsu that is just getting
> set to roll-out a whole line of servers based on Itanium - mainframe
> class (RAS, etc.) and now suddenly Intel pulls the plug on them
> and 6-12 other major OEMs depending on Itanium?
When Compaq pulled the plug on Alpha it didn't cut off supplies
immediately, or even development (though of course it did lie about *how
much* additional development would occur). Another rather significant
product release took place, with product available for sale 5 years
after the end-of-life announcement.
Intel is in a considerably better position, since in only 2 years it
will be offering x86 product usable in precisely the same boxes that
will have to be developed to house Itanics.
So if it tells OEMs that they'd better start making plans to transition
to x86, they'll be able to continue on about the same course for the
next two years that they would have even if Itanic were thriving, and
have a couple of years after that point to adjust to a different ISA in
the same boxes.
Pretty much like HP moved its PA-RISC base to Itanic, in fact. Kind of
looks like Intel may have not had its head as deep in the sand as it
seemed, and developed CSI with precisely this possibility in mind.
- bill
Neil Rieck
"Rob Young" <you...@encompasserve.org> wrote in message
news:LBIdqJ...@eisner.encompasserve.org...
> In article <z2Eqe.20071$_n2.13...@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Neil Rieck"
> <n.r...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>
> http://news.softpedia.com/news/Fujitsu-hopes-to-get-2-billion-dollars-from-the-Primequest-servers-1067.shtml
>
> Regarding servers, Fujitsu hopes to sell 10,000 units in the next three
> years,
> which would generate an income of 2 billion dollars.
>
> server to the tune of $2 billion over the next 3 years. No doubt
> these early units are seed units - Itanium is a good thing come
> Montecito (RAS and performance).
>
> Think of the repercussions of Intel suddenly souring on Itanium.
> You have a major OEM/partner in Fujitsu that is just getting
> set to roll-out a whole line of servers based on Itanium - mainframe
> class (RAS, etc.) and now suddenly Intel pulls the plug on them
> and 6-12 other major OEMs depending on Itanium? Yeah, right.
>
> Do you realize how comical that is to even suggest it happens
> (murder of Itanium - hi JF!)? It is a roarer! I mean how absurd!
>
> Rob
>
Yes, almost as absurd as killing off Alpha and yet it happened.
Look, I do not want to see Intel kill off Itanium. That train has gone too
far down the track. But if Intel has a few bad years, someone there is going
to start worrying "more" about Intel shareholders and "less" about Intel
business partners. When this happens, one of the justifications for killing
Itanium (besides saving a huge amount of money) will be the huge base of
existing x86 software that won't run on Itanium. It doesn't matter that the
new chip was meant for server applications because 99% of the people on the
street (including the media) don't understand the difference anyway. The
preservation of existing software will be seen as an advertising opportunity
by the marketing folks at Intel. Meanwhile, killing Itanium could place
OpenVMS engineering in the same position as Cray was when Compaq killed
Alpha: "a one trick pony".
There were many compelling reasons for switching from VAX to Alpha and yet
many balked at that idea (and still do; my employer probably has one VAX
for every Alpha). In 2005, I don't see any compelling reasons for switching
from x86 with 64 bit extensions to Itanium. This may change in future years
but somehow I doubt it. x86 technology will continue to improve in order for
Intel to compete with other desktop CPU companies like AMD. This also means
their x86 business will be competing with their Itanium business, with the
Itanium unit always being smaller and less profitable.
When Intel started Itanium, extended x86 did not yet exist and the need for
an Itanium solution was more apparent. But times changed and x86 became
extended x86 and the need for Itanium went away. Now more than ever, x86
technology is better thought of as Intel's "goose that lays the golden eggs"
and yet Intel continues to focus on Itanium. In the book "In Search of
Stupidity: Over 20 Years of High-Tech Marketing Disasters" the author talks
about a number of companies that went under (or almost went under) by
marketing new products that compete with their own existing products. I
wonder if he will have an "Intel chapter" in a future reprinting.
Larry Kilgallen
> There were many compelling reasons for switching from VAX to Alpha and yet
> many balked at that idea (and still do; my employer probably has one VAX
> for every Alpha).
I don't see that as balking. The fact that a vendor switches to making
a different machine is no reason to discard existing machines.
23 years ago I was consulting at a shop with several 780s. The
beancounters came around and said it was time to sell the oldest
one, since it had reached the end of its depreciation. They were
paying no attention at all to whether the machine was doing useful
work for the company. Thankfully, they lost that battle.
Dave Froble
It would depend upon whether the beancounters were willing to come up
with the money to purchase a replacement. That way the users could get
a faster replacement, and the beancounters would have another asset to
depreciate. In later years it was a very good thing to replace an aging
VAX 6000 series machine with a faster and cheaper system. The savings
on maintenance alone, using the 3-year warranty, often paid for the new
system. The increases in performance were basically a free bonus.
Neil Rieck
"Larry Kilgallen" <Kilg...@SpamCop.net> wrote in message
news:UJAFRC...@eisner.encompasserve.org...
At my employer's company it all depends on how the pitch was made and
whether the ultimate decision makers were technologically savvy. IMHO, as
long as you could get all the software to run on Alpha, there was no reason
to stay with VAX. Lower power requirements and lower air conditioning costs
alone justified the change over (provided these costs weren't hidden in
someone else's budget). In some cases we couldn't install any new computer
systems in certain locations because the UPS was at full capacity. Switching
from VAX to Alpha (or other vendor's older equipment to newer) freed up some
UPS capacity which allowed the installation of newer systems.
But back to my original point from the previous post, there were obvious
reasons for industry to switch over from VAX to Alpha. Right now there are a
lot of people using "x86" and/or "64-bit extended x86" technologies who do
NOT have any obvious reasons to switch over to Itanium. I fear that Itanium
may never be anything more than a niche market which will make it an easy
kill target if Intel falls on hard times.
Neil Rieck
Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,
Ontario, Canada.
Larry Kilgallen
> Larry Kilgallen wrote:
>> In article <uWUqe.2662$yU....@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Neil Rieck" <n.r...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>>
>>
>>>There were many compelling reasons for switching from VAX to Alpha and yet
>>>many balked at that idea (and still do; my employer probably has one VAX
>>>for every Alpha).
>>
>>
>> I don't see that as balking. The fact that a vendor switches to making
>> a different machine is no reason to discard existing machines.
>>
>> 23 years ago I was consulting at a shop with several 780s. The
>> beancounters came around and said it was time to sell the oldest
>> one, since it had reached the end of its depreciation. They were
>> paying no attention at all to whether the machine was doing useful
>> work for the company. Thankfully, they lost that battle.
>
> It would depend upon whether the beancounters were willing to come up
> with the money to purchase a replacement. That way the users could get
> a faster replacement,
At the time of this incident, 780 was the fastest.
John Smith
Interesting numbers from Paul DeMone...... let's review them again only in a
slightly different light...as to how it could have been....
A) Alpha - not murdered...ongoing R&D costs about $150MM annually (per
somebody at HP, post in c.o.v. shortly after Alphacide.
B) Alpha, NSK, HP-UX on Alpha - about 110k systems p.a. in 2007 ( using a
1:1 swap of SGI for NSK instead), then of course there were the customers
lost because of Tru64 murder and VMS sales lost over 4 years because of
Alpha murder - a good portion to Sun/IBM, or others (some kept by HP), so
let's just say +15k systems more p.a. to accomodate those Tru64 and former
VMS customers --> 115 + 15 = 130k systems p.a.
C) HP plays kissy-face with Microsoft and had 64-bit Windows on Alpha.
Additional sales unknown but probably a net benefit to HP.
D) HP sells Alpha chips to SGI and others, maybe.
What did we get instead?
- An HP that pissed away over half a billion profits on the chips annually
(see Paul's numbers above).
- Dislocation, disruption, and unnecessary cost assumed by tens of thousands
of HP customers for porting.
- Huge waste of money and effort by HP in stopping the NSK/Alpha, huge
losses in being forced to port VMS to Itanic (remember all those HP folks
telling us that Intel didn't fort the bill for than, losses of sales in HPC
because Alpha EV8 and beyond were killed.
- Delayed new features in VMS because porting was the work of the day.
HP is going to be the star of a new 'reality' TV show - "How Not To Merge"
(subtitled, "How Not To Serve Your Customers").
--
OpenVMS - The never-advertised operating system with the dwindling ISV
base.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
John Smith
.
<snip>
>
> Yes, almost as absurd as killing off Alpha and yet it happened.
>
> Look, I do not want to see Intel kill off Itanium. That train has
> gone too far down the track. But if Intel has a few bad years,
> someone there is going to start worrying "more" about Intel
> shareholders and "less" about Intel business partners. When this
> happens, one of the justifications for killing Itanium (besides
> saving a huge amount of money) will be the huge base of existing x86
> software that won't run on Itanium. It doesn't matter that the new
> chip was meant for server applications because 99% of the people on
> the street (including the media) don't understand the difference
> anyway. The preservation of existing software will be seen as an
> advertising opportunity by the marketing folks at Intel. Meanwhile,
> killing Itanium could place OpenVMS engineering in the same position
> as Cray was when Compaq killed Alpha: "a one trick pony".
>
> There were many compelling reasons for switching from VAX to Alpha
> and yet many balked at that idea (and still do; my employer probably
> has one VAX for every Alpha). In 2005, I don't see any compelling
> reasons for switching from x86 with 64 bit extensions to Itanium.
> This may change in future years but somehow I doubt it. x86
> technology will continue to improve in order for Intel to compete
> with other desktop CPU companies like AMD. This also means their x86
> business will be competing with their Itanium business, with the
> Itanium unit always being smaller and less profitable.
>
Imagine for a moment that the US dollar gets whacked good by China, or that
over the next 6 months the housing 'bubble' in the US bursts, or that Bush
actually passes his Social 'Security ' bill and the US Treasury finds that
it has to raise rates by 3-4% to get non-US investors to help finance the
$10 Trillion budget deficit shortfall that the Social Security 'plan' alone
is forecast to generate over the first 10 years of the plan, never ming the
deficit from the Iraq debacle or the Bush's tax cut. Hello recession. Signs
are good that at least one of these events will happen.
We're only one reasonable recession away from the point where corporate
computing spending (read IA64) goes down the toilet. x86-64 spending will be
more flexible and robust by comparison. If you were Intel, which horse would
you bet your wad on?
Dan Foster
> Rob Young wrote:
>>
>> Paul DeMone has a good read on IPF , few dispute his projections
>> as they aren't wildly optimistic. Here is a recent read of
>> his:
>>
> http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/index.cfm?action=detail&PostNum=3180&Thr
> ead=78&roomID=11&entryID=47485
>>
>> In 2004 over 150k I2s shipped in around 30k systems worth about
>> $1.5B.
Given Mr. Main's comments about targeting the HPC (high performance
computing) community, one has to wonder if most of the Itanium 2 CPUs
cited were sold in far fewer but large systems?
That would really make it look bad for anything less than a 1024 CPU
system. :-)
(Someone mentioned the possibility that it may be fewer systems with
large number of CPUs due to SuperDome processor migrations for other HP
OS customers, that might account for some or much of this.)
I don't know what affiliation Mr. DeMone has, whom signs his cheques,
etc... but I would say that an healthy respect of how numbers can be
massaged to fit a particular viewpoint is worth keeping in mind.
We do live in interesting times, and I'm still wondering if Itanium will
actually make a comeback or not in the marketplace. It might or it might
not, but much rides on that question. We'll see, eh?
-Dan
JF Mezei
>
> > There were many compelling reasons for switching from VAX to Alpha and yet
> > many balked at that idea (and still do; my employer probably has one VAX
> > for every Alpha).
You need to consider that at the same time customers were asked to
migrate to Alpha, a large part of DEC's software portfolio was being
trashed, cannabalised or sold off. And in at least one case, customers
were asked to buy a totally new package (Mailbox 400) to replace the
Message Router which was not ported to Alpha, with no break in licencing fees.
With this in mind, it is perfectly normal to see customers either stick
with VAX-VMS, or drop VMS alltogether and seek another messaging
platform (eg: Exchange, Lotus Notes or whatever was trendy that week).
Neil Rieck
"John Smith" <a...@nonymous.com> wrote in message
news:42acbfab$1...@spool9-west.superfeed.net...
>
[...snip...]
> Imagine for a moment that the US dollar gets whacked good by China, or
> that
> over the next 6 months the housing 'bubble' in the US bursts, or that Bush
> actually passes his Social 'Security ' bill and the US Treasury finds that
> it has to raise rates by 3-4% to get non-US investors to help finance the
> $10 Trillion budget deficit shortfall that the Social Security 'plan'
> alone
> is forecast to generate over the first 10 years of the plan, never ming
> the
> deficit from the Iraq debacle or the Bush's tax cut. Hello recession.
> Signs
> are good that at least one of these events will happen.
>
> We're only one reasonable recession away from the point where corporate
> computing spending (read IA64) goes down the toilet. x86-64 spending will
> be
> more flexible and robust by comparison. If you were Intel, which horse
> would
> you bet your wad on?
>
>
back room planning for more options. On a related note, we don't exactly yet
know what Apple's relationship will be with Intel, but it looks like they've
been secretly working on a port to Intel something for 5 years now.
Neil Rieck
Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,
Ontario, Canada.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/links/cool_openvms.html
Rob Young
>
> I don't know what affiliation Mr. DeMone has, whom signs his cheques,
> etc... but I would say that an healthy respect of how numbers can be
> massaged to fit a particular viewpoint is worth keeping in mind.
>
> We do live in interesting times, and I'm still wondering if Itanium will
> actually make a comeback or not in the marketplace. It might or it might
> not, but much rides on that question. We'll see, eh?
It has been trending upward as far as I can tell:
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=60404584&tid=13692
Intel's Itanium revenue grew more than 300% from 2003 to 2004, and is being
used in server systems in 40 of the top 100 global companies, according to the
company. There also have been more than 2,800 third-party applications written
to run on Itanium.
---
Look - there is a whole lot to this Itanium thing. Dig around,
you'd be surprised just who and how many have a vested interest
in Itanium.
Rob
pr...@prep.synonet.com
> As I said earlier, the game has only just begun.
about 10 years ago...
> Competition is a good thing and AMD is doing a great job in some
> areas right now. However, as the financial analysts and press has
> highlighted recently, their overall financials need to improve
> rather quickly.
> Imho, Itanium is a way for Intel to both break out of the x86 back
> and forth race with AMD and to firmly position their future
> offerings over Powerx.
Yes, the old `lock the suckers in, then screw...'
> Will they be able to do it?
Only to stupid customers..
> Time will tell.
BTW, intel told us that the itanic would be twice the performance of
the Alpha when it first ships. Has that happened yet?
(...with a sign that says "Beware..." )
--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
pr...@prep.synonet.com
> HP and SGI possibly excepted, because they're the only ones stupid
> enough to have put all their eggs in the Itanic basket and will
> therefore likely feel that anything is better than nothing.
Fair go Bill, it was hp's dumpty in the beginning.
At least now, SGI can claim they where just rehearsing the `Apple
under the windoze steamroller' move :(
IBM and Sun must love it, the 3 top SPEC runners, MIPS, Alpha,
and PA dead, and x86 slowed by the corporate drag of the grate
wite wunder chip.
It is a bit less of a fiasco than the iAPX 432 though.
S
> Intel's Itanium revenue grew more than 300% from 2003 to 2004, and is being
> used in server systems in 40 of the top 100 global companies, according to the
> company. There also have been more than 2,800 third-party applications written
> to run on Itanium.
AMD announced quad-core for 2007, and for the first quarter of 2005 they
claim 27.8% of the 4-way servers market.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1826595,00.asp
(plus some news about their new fabs)
The Inquirer is as usual quite bitter on the Itanium side...
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23748
S
Rob Young
> Rob Young wrote:
>> Intel's Itanium revenue grew more than 300% from 2003 to 2004, and is being
>> used in server systems in 40 of the top 100 global companies, according to the
>> company. There also have been more than 2,800 third-party applications written
>> to run on Itanium.
>
> AMD announced quad-core for 2007, and for the first quarter of 2005 they
> claim 27.8% of the 4-way servers market.
> http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1826595,00.asp
> (plus some news about their new fabs)
>
Of course. As tecate points out, the inq is going beyond
fanboy status:
Name: tecate (tec...@devill.com) 6/15/05
Well we have been over this many times, we all know that the Inquirer is an arm
of the AMD PR machine ;)(that in itself makes you wonder :) an article in
today's inqie is an example of AMD PR at work... the inquie has a piece(hmm bad
word choice maybe) on HP and turion, (sort of like pretend reporting if you
understand my meaning) how many pieces have been written about Intel, HP and
their mobile offerings in a positive light by the inquie? None I'll bet (but
hey I don't read the inq. all that much, why read Inquier AMD PR - I can go to
http://www.amd.com and read their PR there unedited by the personal slant of
the writer at the inquie) another article (PR piece)at the inquie about AMD
their new (possible) fab ... if it were Intel we know a new fab would get a few
jabs from the old inquie about why this would be a bad idea as AMD is going to
kill Intel etc. Best to ignore the inquirer. read Silicon Strategies, CNET,
x86-secrets for fun, EE times, PC stats, channel times, businesweek online,
xbit labs, put all these pubs together and you can a fair idea of what is
happening with gossip thrown in without the Inquirer brand of smarmy, unctous
journalistm :)
> The Inquirer is as usual quite bitter on the Itanium side...
> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23748
No doubt. But this isn't surprising. The pro-AMD , anti-Intel
bias is a direct result of agenda driven reporting. Try a simple
Google search for examples of it:
journalism agenda driven
Here is the first link that matches the above search:
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=10844
Enjoy!
Rob
Bill Todd
...
As tecate points out, the inq is going beyond
> fanboy status:
Then again, since tecate is a confirmed Intel bigot (her husband works
there), what she 'points out' is often a rather twisted version of the
truth.
...
The pro-AMD , anti-Intel
> bias is a direct result of agenda driven reporting. Try a simple
> Google search for examples of it:
>
> journalism agenda driven
>
> Here is the first link that matches the above search:
>
> http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=10844
Wrong as usual, Rob. Probably comes at least in part from your choice
of right-wing-whacko reading material such as the above.
I mean, hasn't 'liberal media' become too blatant an oxymoron for even
people like you to try to pawn off any more? Come to think of it,
considering the whoppers your idols in the administration are still
vomiting up on a regular basis about our audacious experiment in
annexation in Iraq, probably not.
- bill
b...@instantwhip.com
people like you to try to pawn off any more? Come to think of it,
considering the whoppers your idols in the administration are still
vomiting up on a regular basis about our audacious experiment in
annexation in Iraq, probably not. "
wrong as usual Bill ... Iraq is a fight againset terrorism ... where
are all
these terrorists coming from ... some from syria but the majority from
Iran ... we are at war Bill ... didn't 9/11 wake you up yet, or did you
need
to be on the top floor of one of the trade center buildings to open
your
blind liberal eyes ...
Dave Froble
Bill in some manner seems to feel that the US deserved being attacked,
and that instead of going after the bastards we should be thanking them
for showing us the error fo our ways.
That said, there has been plenty of evidence uncovered that point out
that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, and Iraq was a danger only to
some of it's people, and not outsiders. That in no way mitigates the
atrocious activities that happened within Iraq, committed by the Sunnis,
both prior to deposing Saddam, and since. Also note that the leader of
the current atrocities isn't even an Iraqi.
Try to keep the various pieces of the puzzle in their appropriate places.
JF Mezei
> Bill in some manner seems to feel that the US deserved being attacked,
> and that instead of going after the bastards we should be thanking them
> for showing us the error fo our ways.
That is the standard american response to anyone who criticises the
USA's actions since 9-11. What americans do not seem to understand is
that their long standing foreign policy and actions in the middle east
that brought those attacks against american interests. Your regime's
reactions since 9-11 made those policies and actions even worse, thus
raising the real threath level against the USA.
> That said, there has been plenty of evidence uncovered that point out
> that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, and Iraq was a danger only to
> some of it's people, and not outsiders.
So how come nobody is stepping forwards and calling for the current USA
regime to be impeached, ousted and tried for war crimes ? That is the
only honourable way out for the USA at the moment.
And it would go a long way towards healing the huge wound that the Bush
regime has opened in the middle east.
On the other hand, if people don't do anything and let the Bush regime
go unchallenged for another 3 years and continue to give it extra 87
billions every couple of months to feed the invasion force in Iraq, the
USA will turn like the Soviet Union: so broke that it must relinquish
its military power and dramatically reduce military spending for a very
very long time.
leslie
:
: So how come nobody is stepping forwards and calling for the current USA
: regime to be impeached, ousted and tried for war crimes ? That is the
: only honourable way out for the USA at the moment.
Paul Craig Roberts, a former assistant Secretary of the Treasury under
Reagan, has called for impeachment...
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/050516_reputation.htm
VDARE.com: 05/16/05 - British War Memo Evidence Enough To Impeach Bush
"May 16, 2005
British War Memo Evidence Enough To Impeach Bush
By Paul Craig Roberts
George W. Bush and his gang of neocon warmongers have destroyed
America's reputation.
It is likely to stay destroyed, because at this point the only way to
restore America's reputation would be to impeach and convict President
Bush for intentionally deceiving Congress and the American people in
order to start a war of aggression against a country that posed no
threat to the US. America can redeem itself only by holding Bush
accountable.
As intent as Republicans were to impeach President Clinton for lying
about a sexual affair, they have a blind eye for President Bush's far
more serious lies.
Bush's lies have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people,
injured and maimed tens of thousands more, devastated a country,
destroyed America's reputation, caused one billion Muslims to hate
America, ruined our alliances with Europe, created a police state at
home, and squandered $300 billion dollars and counting.
[snip]
This memo is the mother of all smoking guns.
Why isn't Bush in the dock?
Has American democracy failed at home?
Paul Craig Roberts, a former Reagan Administration official, is the
author of The Supply-Side Revolution and, with Lawrence M. Stratton,
of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats
Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Click here for
Peter Brimelow's Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the
recent epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct."
He also writes about the economy and the decline of the U.S.:
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/050603_labor.htm
VDARE.com: 06/03/05 - US Labor Force: One Foot in the Third World
"...Offshore outsourcing is dismantling the ladders of America's fabled
upward mobility. The US labor force already has one foot in the third
world. By 2024 the US will be a has-been country."
--Jerry Leslie
Note: les...@jrlvax.houston.rr.com is invalid for email
b...@instantwhip.com
would be a good thing doesn't have a clue about
anything ...
JF Mezei
Anyone who think you can just walk into a fragile country with your big
bombs and instantly create a heaven is plain stupid and will be broke by
the time he's finished paying for the damages he's caused.
Post 1995, fewer people per year were killed by Hussein than are killed
by americans and resistance since 2003.
And during hussein days, people didn't have to fear walking in the
streets if they were law abiding because hussein was bagging the bad
guys/dissenters. Now, it is the innocent people being killed.
Hussein was no saint. He deserved his day at the war crimes tribunal. At
the time he used the chemical weapons, they were not yet banned by
treaty. But he did use them against a focused ethic group (Kurds) and
that can be considered genocide. In the 1990s however, the Kurds were
given much self governance and their own militia and this worked well in
that region.
With the rest of the world breathing down his throath, Hussein was, in
the 1990s, fairly docile, especially compared to the atrocities
committed by americans. Rumsfeld was bragging about how the US troups
had rounded up "tens of thousands of people" (direct quote) and put them
in jail without charge. The USA is in no position to criticise Hussein
anymore because it has done imilar things. It has invaded another
country illegally, and has tortured mistreated and suspended due legal process.
Americans should be far more affraid of Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney/Wolfowitz
having full access to the full arsenal of weapons of mass destructions
as well as land mines including chemical and biological weapons. Nobody
in the USA ever questioned whether it was their own government sending
Anthrax to mostly "liberal/democrat" targets shortly after 9-11.
It was shown that the anthrax was of USA origin. And it is the USA
government who has stockpiles of anthrax. Questions shoudl have been
asked and heads should have rolled for whoever was responsible for
allowing those spores out of the labs where they are being kept.
Dave Froble
Oh shit! I find I have to agree with boob. Hell must be freezing over.
Bill Todd
...
> Bill in some manner seems to feel that the US deserved being attacked,
Hmmm. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that such sentiments
are confined to small number of people, rather than having been (just to
pick a poll number that I happen to have noticed at the time, about a
year after 9/11) shared by about 70% of Canadians (who are in a better
position to know both the good and the bad things about America than
just about anyone else - and a full 15% of them felt that we had
*primary* responsibility for the attack rather than just shared blame
with those who had executed it).
Large portions of the rest of the world concur, but I don't happen to
have broader specific poll results to quote.
> and that instead of going after the bastards we should be thanking them
> for showing us the error fo our ways.
Not quite (which is the usual problem one has trying to characterize a
position which one really has no clue about). I feel that going after
the *actual* bastards was entirely appropriate, even while believing
that their actions also indeed provided an opportunity (which we
characteristically squandered, in large part due to the knee-jerk
obtuseness of people like you and boob which Dubya and his cohorts in
crime were ready and willing to capitalize upon) for us to open eyes far
too long tightly shut.
>
> That said, there has been plenty of evidence uncovered that point out
> that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, and Iraq was a danger only to
> some of it's people, and not outsiders.
Exactly.
That in no way mitigates the
> atrocious activities that happened within Iraq, committed by the Sunnis,
> both prior to deposing Saddam, and since.
Agreed: it simply makes them absolutely none of our nation's business,
outside of joint actions (which we could certainly take the lead in
advocating if we considered that appropriate) widely agreed upon by the
international community.
- bill
Bob Koehler
> Dave Froble wrote:
>> Bill in some manner seems to feel that the US deserved being attacked,
>> for showing us the error fo our ways.
>
> USA's actions since 9-11.
Get real, both of you. After 9-11 most of the world rallied behind
the US, including many who were not habitually friendly.
During the invasion of Afghanastan, most of the world still supported
the US. Al Queda was clearly the enemy and Al Queda was clearly in
Afghanastan.
It was not until the Bush administration decided to ignore the advice
of most of the US' friends and allies, forget the evidence of bad
"intelligence", and refuse to answer questions so that an invasion of
Iraq could sound justified that the majority of the world turned
against American actions.
Bob Koehler
I've heard and read nobody making that argument.
b...@instantwhip.com
support terrorists ... now we have not only cut off that supply
line but also by establishing a democratic form of government
have changed Lebanon and now is putting pressure on Iran
internally ... we are fighting a war with Iran using democracy as
a weapon ... you again are missing the big picture ...
Dave Froble
> Dave Froble wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> Bill in some manner seems to feel that the US deserved being attacked,
>
>
> Hmmm. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that such sentiments
> are confined to small number of people, rather than having been (just to
> pick a poll number that I happen to have noticed at the time, about a
> year after 9/11) shared by about 70% of Canadians (who are in a better
> position to know both the good and the bad things about America than
> just about anyone else - and a full 15% of them felt that we had
> *primary* responsibility for the attack rather than just shared blame
> with those who had executed it).
This could be as bad as replying to JF, which gives him just another
opportunity to reply with more of the same garbage.
I keep seeing references to US practices that 'earned' this act of
terrorism. I never seem to see any details. For once, could you list
the actions, being very specific, that have earned such an attitude and
action(s)? Names and dates would be appropriate. Lets keep to things
prior to 9-11, since that action has been deemed 'earned' by prior US
actions.
JF Mezei
> It was not until the Bush administration decided to ignore the advice
> of most of the US' friends and allies, forget the evidence of bad
> "intelligence", and refuse to answer questions so that an invasion of
> Iraq could sound justified that the majority of the world turned
> against American actions.
It isn't just that. It is also the USA politicians using USA media to
turn americans against the rest of the world, rename French Fries to
liberty fried, and most importantly went on its ever increasing demands
on the rest of the world that they break their data privacy laws to
please the Bush regime's patriot Act (such as supplying private data
from airline reseravtions made outside the USA to the USA government
which has no data privacy laws.
For instance, the bush regime now wants canadian airlines to provide all
reservatiosn data for domestic canadian flights so that the USA can
monitor our movements and post suspect names and then prevent canadians
from flying domestically within canada because their name is close
enough to the name on their secret no-fly list.
Because we did want to participate in your missile project, Bush
prevented the re-opening of the border for beef. Iraq cost us the
removal of some duties of wood exports. Poland got heaps of subsidies
from USA for supporting its invasion of Iraq. After 9-11, Bush thanked a
few dozen countries , but specifically excluded Canada in his speech,
even though it is Canada that sacrificed the most (we lost 1 airline
within a week or 2 of 9-11) and hosted all the stranded planes and
passengers, sacrificied our our aispace to help you. Not even a thank
you. And now bus wants to zap an international natural reserve in alaska
to drill for oil without consulting Canada even though that reserve
straddles the border and affects the porcupine cariboo herd which
crosses the border each season. He has total disregard for international
agreements which the USA agreed to.
So anyone who doesn't bend opver backwards to support Bush gets
financially punished. How can the rest of the world respect the big bad
bully who abuses his military and economic power ?
Iraq isn't the only reason, although it is the most significant because
it is a war crime.
JF Mezei
> I keep seeing references to US practices that 'earned' this act of
> terrorism. I never seem to see any details.
Big one is the whole USA policy on middle east. Its constant use of VETO
at the security council for any resolution that wants to
punish/criticise Israel for its bad things, while always supporting
resolutions that criticise Palestine for its bad things. From the middle
east point of view, this makes the USA a clear supporter of Israel and
an enemy of the middle east.
Consider how so many americans hate canada, france and all the other
countries that didn't bend over to lick Bush' ass in Iraq. Consider how
your policicians try to isult France at every opportunity becayuse it is
protrayed as the enemy of the USA even though its done nothing to get
that reputation.
Now, puit yourself into middle east shoes, and see how decades of
viewing the USA as the enemy gets peoople there to notice every action
the USA takes against middle east nations as yet another demostration of
USA imperialism etc etc.
This isn't somethint you can solve overnight. Just like the hatred
between palestinians and israelites won't dissipate overnight. It may
take a generation or two before kids are no longer brainwahsed/taught
that the other side is reallty bad. And to erase that hatred, you need
to have consistent and neutral foreign policy.
Consider the current Bush verbal attacks on Iran. Iran doesn't have the
bomb. Never had. It allows UN inspectors, it wanst to build a electrical
power production and by law, it is allowed to. The USA is AFFRAID that
Iran might cheat and wants to prevent Iran to have its legal nuclear
facilities because the USA is AFFRAID it might be able to do other stuff
under the table. Iran has signe the nuclear non prolifertation treaty.
Meanwhile, Israel has had the bomb for a very long time, refuses to
admit it, refuses to sign the nuclear non proliferation treaty, refuses
to let UN inspectors in.
If the USA really wanted to prevent any middle east country from having
the bomb, it would start in its own backyard and force Isreal to ditch
its bomb and sign the treaty. Then the USA could go around and tell
other nations to forget about the bomb. But as it stands, the USA is
being extremely hypocrit by supporting Israel's continued illegal hiding
of its bombs while accusing nations who doN,t have the bomb of having it.
Then there are the cultural issues of USA multinational corporations
nudging their way into those different cultures (think Coke, McDonalds,
hollywood movies etc). The corporations themselves have no evil motives,
and the young people in those countries readily adopt their goods. But
it erodes their culture and the older people see this as imperialism.
Consider what had happened in Iran during the 1979s leading to the
backlash against american influence in 1978/1979 with the iranian
revolution. Countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia have sizeable
portion of population who are extremely sensitive to cultural
imperialism from the west (dominated by USA) and their governments have
to carefuly toe the thin line between maintaining culture and
independant and helping the USA otherwise they risk a revolution.
You mentioned democracy in Palestine. This isn't something that Bush's
policy did. Even under arafat there were elections. This process began
in the 1990s. And while Bush obviously will find any reason to
criticise Iran, today Iran held elections with more candidates than the
USA has for its presidents. And when you consider the election fiasco of
2000 where it became evident that USA election laws were inadequate, the
USA isn't in a very good position to criticise other countries' election
process.
And you'll note that the USA approved candidates in Iraq, and didn't
release their names until the day of elections because it coudln't
garantee their safety. Fair election ? Did you know that many teachers
in Iraq were not allowed back into univeristies because they had been
member of the bath party ? That is like saying that someone can't teach
at Harvard because he is a member of the democratic party in the USA.
Like it or not, Iraq had elections prior to the USA coming in. Their
constitution had the full election process clearly defined. (and yes,
there was an issue with Hussein only approving candidates that supported
him, but the actual election process worked fine, the USA didn't need to
rip up the Iraqi constitution.
Just because Hussein was a bad guy and many of top ranks were really bad
guys doesn't mean that all members of the party were bad guys. When the
sovient union fell apart, did they ban all teachers who were member of
the communist party ? It was basically a required formality to be part
fo the party in order to get the jobs you wanted.
Carl Karcher
->So how come nobody is stepping forwards and calling for the current USA
->regime to be impeached, ousted and tried for war crimes ? That is the
->only honourable way out for the USA at the moment.
They are - lots of them - you just don't hear about it in the US media.
Seven states have resolutions that call for impeachment proceedings
against 3 of the criminals: Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.
<http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/local/index.php?ntid=43364&nt_adsect=edit>
Yesterday, a letter with signatures of 122 members of congress and
560,000 citizens was delivered to the white house asking for answers on
the downing street memo. You'd be hard pressed to find that in any
US media outlet. Here's one:
<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/politics/17downing.html>
Yeah, it's really off-topic but it's really important.
--
-- Carl Karcher, karcher.n...@waisman.wisc.edu
--
Dr. Dweeb
> b...@instantwhip.com wrote:
>>
>> anybody who thinks that leaving Hussein in power
>> would be a good thing doesn't have a clue about
>> anything ...
>
> Anyone who think you can just walk into a fragile country with your
> big
> bombs and instantly create a heaven is plain stupid and will be broke
> by
> the time he's finished paying for the damages he's caused.
>
> Post 1995, fewer people per year were killed by Hussein than are
> killed
> by americans and resistance since 2003.
>
Reference please.
> And during hussein days, people didn't have to fear walking in the
> streets if they were law abiding because hussein was bagging the bad
> guys/dissenters. Now, it is the innocent people being killed.
>
> Hussein was no saint. He deserved his day at the war crimes tribunal.
> At
> the time he used the chemical weapons, they were not yet banned by
> treaty. But he did use them against a focused ethic group (Kurds) and
> that can be considered genocide. In the 1990s however, the Kurds were
> given much self governance and their own militia and this worked well
> in
> that region.
>
Not according to the Kurds I know (who obviously left the place).
> With the rest of the world breathing down his throath, Hussein was, in
> the 1990s, fairly docile, especially compared to the atrocities
> committed by americans. Rumsfeld was bragging about how the US troups
> had rounded up "tens of thousands of people" (direct quote) and put
> them
> in jail without charge. The USA is in no position to criticise Hussein
> anymore because it has done imilar things. It has invaded another
> country illegally, and has tortured mistreated and suspended due
> legal process.
>
> Americans should be far more affraid of Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney/Wolfowitz
> having full access to the full arsenal of weapons of mass destructions
> as well as land mines including chemical and biological weapons.
> Nobody
> in the USA ever questioned whether it was their own government sending
> Anthrax to mostly "liberal/democrat" targets shortly after 9-11.
> It was shown that the anthrax was of USA origin. And it is the USA
> government who has stockpiles of anthrax. Questions shoudl have been
> asked and heads should have rolled for whoever was responsible for
> allowing those spores out of the labs where they are being kept.
I can hear the black helicopters now - chop chop chop ...
Dr. Dweeb
Well, there is considerable disagreement - both intellectual and political -
as to whether the USA has a "moral obligation" to step up to the plate when
no one else has the balls or military power to do so in cases of large scale
human rights abuses/genocide/wanton crimes against humanity and similar.
Historically in the 20C, the USA has stepped up to the plate (no discussions
about how (un)timely these actions were please).
Not everyone subscribes to the new liberal idea that the only legitimate
actions are those sanctioned by the UN.
Dr. Dweeb.
> - bill
Dr. Dweeb
> Dave Froble wrote:
>> I keep seeing references to US practices that 'earned' this act of
>> terrorism. I never seem to see any details.
>
>
> Big one is the whole USA policy on middle east. Its constant use of
> VETO at the security council for any resolution that wants to
> punish/criticise Israel for its bad things, while always supporting
> resolutions that criticise Palestine for its bad things. From the
> middle east point of view, this makes the USA a clear supporter of
> Israel and an enemy of the middle east.
>
Yes, they support the only democracy in the middle east. Dictatorships do
not like democracies.
> Consider how so many americans hate canada, france and all the other
> countries that didn't bend over to lick Bush' ass in Iraq. Consider
> how your policicians try to isult France at every opportunity
> becayuse it is protrayed as the enemy of the USA even though its done
> nothing to get that reputation.
>
The US has been sticking it to France in small ways for a couple of hundred
years now - no change there.
France deserves a lot of the stick that it gets. Come live in Europe and
listen to the drivel they go on with and you will get the picture. France's
active diplomatic efforts trying to derail the US initiatives seem to be
sufficient cause for the US to be somewhat aggrieved.
> Now, puit yourself into middle east shoes, and see how decades of
> viewing the USA as the enemy gets peoople there to notice every action
> the USA takes against middle east nations as yet another demostration
> of USA imperialism etc etc.
>
That the arabs are too uninformed to see how patently ridiculous this
position is, is their own doing. They could just stop viewing the infidels
as unworthy to share the earth, and lots of problems would go away.
> This isn't somethint you can solve overnight. Just like the hatred
> between palestinians and israelites won't dissipate overnight. It may
> take a generation or two before kids are no longer brainwahsed/taught
> that the other side is reallty bad. And to erase that hatred, you need
> to have consistent and neutral foreign policy.
>
> Consider the current Bush verbal attacks on Iran. Iran doesn't have
> the bomb. Never had. It allows UN inspectors, it wanst to build a
> electrical power production and by law, it is allowed to. The USA is
> AFFRAID that Iran might cheat and wants to prevent Iran to have its
> legal nuclear facilities because the USA is AFFRAID it might be able
> to do other stuff under the table. Iran has signe the nuclear non
> prolifertation treaty.
>
Read some history JF. Iraq never had the bomb either, they just had a
nuclear power plant (built by the French?) which just happened to be
producing the right stuff for bombs. Post GWI and GWII confirms active
plans to build a bomb. This was denied at the time by SH. Luckily those
"nasty israelis" blew the shit out of his power plant and that ended it all
for all intents and purposes. People like you probably denounced the Israeli
action - personally I applauded it.
The situation is the same with Iran. If you think otherwise, then you are a
fool.
> Meanwhile, Israel has had the bomb for a very long time, refuses to
> admit it, refuses to sign the nuclear non proliferation treaty,
> refuses to let UN inspectors in.
>
I think that a lot of nations have not signed the treaty (bad thing).
Israel has the highest density of scientists in the world - building a bomb
is childs play for them. And so what? One could argue convincingly I
think, that the fact that the arabs convinced Israel has the bomb has kept
them somewhat in line. Israel did not declare war with all the arabs, the
arabs did - all the arabs have to do is get used to the idea or Israel being
there and lots of problems will go away. Of course that probably would
require arab democracies (which are pretty thin on the ground) - not coming
anytime soon (except maybe in Iraq).
> If the USA really wanted to prevent any middle east country from
> having the bomb, it would start in its own backyard and force Isreal
> to ditch its bomb and sign the treaty. Then the USA could go around
> and tell other nations to forget about the bomb. But as it stands,
> the USA is being extremely hypocrit by supporting Israel's continued
> illegal hiding of its bombs while accusing nations who doN,t have the
> bomb of having it.
>
Beware, ad hominum attack:
You are an idiot. You need to read more history and less conspiracy theory.
Curiously, since they Israeli's did not sign the nuclear prolif. treaty -
what makes it illegal for the Israelis not to disclose there weaponary ?
> Then there are the cultural issues of USA multinational corporations
> nudging their way into those different cultures (think Coke,
> McDonalds, hollywood movies etc). The corporations themselves have no
> evil motives, and the young people in those countries readily adopt
> their goods. But it erodes their culture and the older people see
> this as imperialism.
>
Welcome to the world of capital. Get over it or join the communist
revolution.
> Consider what had happened in Iran during the 1979s leading to the
> backlash against american influence in 1978/1979 with the iranian
> revolution. Countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia have sizeable
> portion of population who are extremely sensitive to cultural
> imperialism from the west (dominated by USA) and their governments
> have to carefuly toe the thin line between maintaining culture and
> independant and helping the USA otherwise they risk a revolution.
>
A revolution that would perhaps result in democracy? Hooray, I vote for
revolution !
>
> You mentioned democracy in Palestine. This isn't something that Bush's
> policy did. Even under arafat there were elections. This process began
> in the 1990s. And while Bush obviously will find any reason to
> criticise Iran, today Iran held elections with more candidates than
> the USA has for its presidents. And when you consider the election
> fiasco of 2000 where it became evident that USA election laws were
> inadequate, the USA isn't in a very good position to criticise other
> countries' election process.
>
The number of candidates (as long as it is greater than 1, obviously) is not
by itself a determinate indicator of how democratic a given nation is.
You statement is childish, as is your continuous harping on about the
purported electoral problems for GWBs first election win 4+ years ago.
>
> And you'll note that the USA approved candidates in Iraq, and didn't
> release their names until the day of elections because it coudln't
> garantee their safety. Fair election ? Did you know that many teachers
> in Iraq were not allowed back into univeristies because they had been
> member of the bath party ? That is like saying that someone can't
> teach at Harvard because he is a member of the democratic party in
> the USA. Like it or not, Iraq had elections prior to the USA coming
> in. Their constitution had the full election process clearly defined.
> (and yes, there was an issue with Hussein only approving candidates
> that supported him, but the actual election process worked fine, the
> USA didn't need to rip up the Iraqi constitution.
>
The entire eastern bloc, including the USSR had the most perfect textbook
elections and democratic processes in place for 50 years. There was no
democracy though. So you point is pointless.
As for Baath party problems, well, being part of the previous dicatatorial
oppressor's support group is not likely to win you any friends come the
revolution. Fact.
> Just because Hussein was a bad guy and many of top ranks were really
> bad guys doesn't mean that all members of the party were bad guys.
> When the sovient union fell apart, did they ban all teachers who were
> member of the communist party ? It was basically a required formality
> to be part fo the party in order to get the jobs you wanted.
Just like being a good communist. So JF, are you going to decide who are
the good guys and bad guys ???
Dr. Dweeb (who is today bored and weary of JFs hopeless grip on history and
reality)
Dr. Dweeb
> Bob Koehler wrote:
>> It was not until the Bush administration decided to ignore the
>> advice of most of the US' friends and allies, forget the evidence
>> of bad "intelligence", and refuse to answer questions so that an
>> invasion of Iraq could sound justified that the majority of the
>> world turned against American actions.
>
> It isn't just that. It is also the USA politicians using USA media to
> turn americans against the rest of the world, rename French Fries to
> liberty fried, and most importantly went on its ever increasing
> demands on the rest of the world that they break their data privacy
> laws to please the Bush regime's patriot Act (such as supplying
> private data from airline reseravtions made outside the USA to the
> USA government which has no data privacy laws.
>
> For instance, the bush regime now wants canadian airlines to provide
> all reservatiosn data for domestic canadian flights so that the USA
> can monitor our movements and post suspect names and then prevent
> canadians from flying domestically within canada because their name
> is close enough to the name on their secret no-fly list.
>
Are we still waiting for evidence of this no-fly list JF ??
> Because we did want to participate in your missile project, Bush
> prevented the re-opening of the border for beef. Iraq cost us the
> removal of some duties of wood exports. Poland got heaps of subsidies
> from USA for supporting its invasion of Iraq. After 9-11, Bush
> thanked a few dozen countries , but specifically excluded Canada in
> his speech, even though it is Canada that sacrificed the most (we
> lost 1 airline within a week or 2 of 9-11) and hosted all the
> stranded planes and passengers, sacrificied our our aispace to help
> you. Not even a thank you. And now bus wants to zap an international
> natural reserve in alaska to drill for oil without consulting Canada
> even though that reserve straddles the border and affects the
> porcupine cariboo herd which crosses the border each season. He has
> total disregard for international agreements which the USA agreed to.
>
Oh Canada, Oh Canada .... stop bleating for chris'sakes.
> So anyone who doesn't bend opver backwards to support Bush gets
> financially punished. How can the rest of the world respect the big
> bad bully who abuses his military and economic power ?
>
>
> Iraq isn't the only reason, although it is the most significant
> because it is a war crime.
Under JFs rulez.
Bob Koehler
> Consider how so many americans hate canada, france and all the other
> countries that didn't bend over to lick Bush' ass in Iraq. Consider how
> your policicians try to isult France at every opportunity becayuse it is
> protrayed as the enemy of the USA even though its done nothing to get
> that reputation.
A very large number of Americans do not hate Canada or France for
trying to help King George see the light. And only politicians
close to him cary out the insults you cite.
Bob Koehler
>
> Well, there is considerable disagreement - both intellectual and political -
> as to whether the USA has a "moral obligation" to step up to the plate when
> no one else has the balls or military power to do so in cases of large scale
> human rights abuses/genocide/wanton crimes against humanity and similar.
>
Just like the US stepped up to the plate in Cambodia, and is now
stepping up in Sudan?
Ooops, no oil.
JF Mezei
> Not everyone subscribes to the new liberal idea that the only legitimate
> actions are those sanctioned by the UN.
Not everyone subscribes to speed limits on highways. But its the law.
All member nations of the UN ratified treaties and have domestically
passed laws agreeing to being member of , and abiding by UN
treaties/charters. Bush shoudl formally pull out of the UN if it wants
to ignore the rules the USA has legally agreed would be binding to the USA.
The neocons may not like the fact that the USA cannot do as it wishes,
but when it goes beyond what the UN allows them to do, they break the
law. They are war criminals.
How would you like it if China decided it didn't like Bush and send a
billion soldiers to invade the USA, destroy white house, congress,
pentagon and most other government buildings except the energy dept
buildings , change the currency and impose a new constitution just
because they disliked what bush was doing to its citizens and without
approval of the UN ?
the USA has no more rights to invade another nation than Iraq had rights
to invade Kuwait, Argentina invade Falklands, or China sending missiles
at Taiwan, or Soviet Union invading Afghanistan. The USA has no special
police status in the world, although the neocons would like to think
this way.
and IMPOSING a government and constitution as well as a new currency
onto another country isn't exactlty compatible with proclaiming that
they want the people to have total freedom.
And while americans may think that Iraqis have a freely elected
government, that isn't the case. Furthermore, the USA refuses to hand
over power to that government and insists on keeping full power over
police/military despite the USA having proven itself incapable of
bringing peace to that country.
The USA blocked a request by Iraqi government to use Kurdish troups to
help secure Bagdhad. But then the USA blames the irai troups when things
go wrong.
Iran will get to a stable democracy well before Iraq, and that si
despite the USA interventions against Iran which are slowing Iran ,ms
progress because it forces Iranian govt to back down on reforms for fear
of appearing to agree to USA's demands.
Dr. Dweeb
And this diatribe has exactly what relevance to my comment ?
Dweeb
Dr. Dweeb
I made no claim that the US had *always* made the correct moves, only that
on the larger scale, the US has seen it as part of its charter to make some
morally correct moves. Read a book or two sometime. Ooops, I forgot, your
an American and subsequently illiterate. (An equally cheap shot to make a
point).
Dr. Dweeb
Karsten Nyblad
> I keep seeing references to US practices that 'earned' this act of
> terrorism. I never seem to see any details. For once, could you list
> the actions, being very specific, that have earned such an attitude and
> action(s)? Names and dates would be appropriate. Lets keep to things
> prior to 9-11, since that action has been deemed 'earned' by prior US
> actions.
Since it was Osama bin Laden who attacked USA it is interesting to see
what he says. He thinks Saudi Arabia and other middle east countries
are not Islamic enough and have not distributed the wealth to the poor.
That is because USA was helped regimes like the kingdom of Saudi
Arabia stay in power.
While you can discuss bin Ladens goals and arguments, there is no doubt
that USA has helped a number of middle east regime stay in power, even
though it was difficult to see how these regimes served the needs of
their citizens. E.g. Saudi Arabia has a bad human rights record and
there are still many people how have a low standard of living. USA has
earned it self many enemies around the world by supporting dictators
more interested in the own power and wealth than in the interests of
their people.
Bill Todd
> Bill Todd wrote:
>
>> Dave Froble wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Bill in some manner seems to feel that the US deserved being attacked,
>>
>>
>>
>> Hmmm. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that such
>> sentiments are confined to small number of people, rather than having
>> been (just to pick a poll number that I happen to have noticed at the
>> time, about a year after 9/11) shared by about 70% of Canadians (who
>> are in a better position to know both the good and the bad things
>> about America than just about anyone else - and a full 15% of them
>> felt that we had *primary* responsibility for the attack rather than
>> just shared blame with those who had executed it).
>
>
> This could be as bad as replying to JF, which gives him just another
> opportunity to reply with more of the same garbage.
Hey, moron - just because *you* don't happen to like what a large
portion of the world thinks about us in no way intrinsically makes it
'garbage', it simply makes you ignorant and, by all appearances, ineducable.
>
> I keep seeing references to US practices that 'earned' this act of
> terrorism. I never seem to see any details. For once, could you list
> the actions, being very specific, that have earned such an attitude and
> action(s)? Names and dates would be appropriate.
Sorry - educating you is nowhere nearly high enough on my list of
priorities to put in anything like that kind of effort (especially since
at least *some* references to specifics have already appeared here over
time and do not appear to have penetrated your cranium), so you can take
some generalizations and do whatever is most appropriate with them
(though we might well differ in our views of what that might be).
In the immediate world of the people who were involved in the 9/11
attack we have a lengthy historical record which you can examine (if
you're interested in becoming at least semi-informed), from our direct
support of corrupt, exploitative, and brutal (but, at least to us,
friendly) governments like (pre-1979) Iran's, (pre-1990) Iraq's, and the
Saudis (I'm sure a better historian than I am could extend that list
without having to leave the Moslem world - hmmm, Pakistan *might* be
another), to our blatant economic subjugation of those areas in our
quest for power and oil, to our more subtle forms of interference and
coercion throughout the Moslem world.
Somewhat more *personal* reasons for bin Laden's (and his followers')
antipathy toward us include our cynical use of him (along with the
Afghani resistance that he and other foreign Islamic freedom fighters
had joined) to further our own interests in kicking the Soviets out of
Afghanistan in the late '80s and then summarily dumping Afghanistan
after that eviction had been accomplished (breaking the specific
promises we had made to help the country get back on its feet), plus the
conviction that the presence of foreign (American) troops in the
vicinity of the holiest Moslem cities - a presence which dramatically
increased prior to the first Gulf War and did not dissipate afterward -
was blasphemous (some people do take such things seriously even if I do
not, and as long as they don't try to tell me what to do in my part of
the world I won't presume to try to tell them what to do in theirs).
In a more general sense, our tendency to treat large parts of the world
population like ants who have only themselves to blame if they get
stepped on is not very endearing. Expecting the 'ants' just to buck up
and bear it because they don't have the facilities to engage us on the
terms *we* prefer (tanks, nuclear weapons, economic might), rather than
to bring the battle to us in whatever way they can ('by whatever means
necessary', if you happen to like Bushisms), is - well 'naive' is about
the nicest way I could put it.
'The Ugly American' is almost 50 years old now, and for at least a while
we appeared to have learned something from it. Perhaps that appearance
was what let so many at least groggily aware people close their eyes to
the problem again, such that it reappeared worse than ever.
- bill
Bill Todd
A post-full of crap.
Stick to something you understand and you won't look like such an
idiot/bigot that the world would be better off without. People with
attitudes like yours are at the center of the reasons why the 9/11
attacks took place, and until you shape up (or at least shut up) you'll
bear a measurable amount of personal responsibility for both the
incompetent and counter-productive reactions that seem to be all we are
capable of and any subsequent (and entirely appropriate) escalation
which may occur (e.g., the Iraqis have every bit as much right to light
off a nuke, if they can get their hands on one, about half-way down
Pennsylvania Avenue as we had to go after those responsible for 9/11,
and if we aren't going to curb our own runaway dogs I certainly hope
that they, or someone else, steps up to the plate to do so 'by whatever
means necessary').
- bill
Bill Todd
...
>
> And this diatribe has exactly what relevance to my comment ?
Shall we add illiteracy to your list of attributes, or would you like to
take another shot at JF's post to try to arrive at an answer to what is
on the face of it a truly stupid question?
Hint: start with the issue of ratified treaty obligations (his 'speed
limit' analogy), and please apply it to the specific case of Iraq in
2002-3 rather than to some hypothetical unique horror involving "large
scale human rights abuses/genocide/wanton crimes against humanity" which
you might be inclined to try to divert the discussion toward.
- bill
Bill Todd
> In article <42B1D383...@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei...@teksavvy.com> writes:
>
>>Dave Froble wrote:
>>
>>>Bill in some manner seems to feel that the US deserved being attacked,
>>>and that instead of going after the bastards we should be thanking them
>>>for showing us the error fo our ways.
>>
>>That is the standard american response to anyone who criticises the
>>USA's actions since 9-11.
>
>
> Get real, both of you.
They are both quite real. JF represents the opinion of a very large
portion of the world. Dave represents the opinion of a very large
portion of the U.S.
After 9-11 most of the world rallied behind
> the US, including many who were not habitually friendly.
That was indeed true at the very first, but Bush quickly began making
statements that increasingly eroded that sentiment.
For example, his first pronouncement (on 9/11/2001) was measured and
appropriate: "We will track down those responsible and bring them to
justice" (I'm quoting from memory here, but my memory is pretty good).
Within 2 or 3 days, this had escalated to a full-scale 'war on
terrorism' that already started sounding potentially a bit over the top.
Within a week or two we started hearing things like "You're either with
us, or you're with the terrorists!" - that was the point when a lot of
the world started having serious second thoughts (and a lot of Americans
should have started worrying about their civil liberties, though most of
us really couldn't believe that this was more then political rhetoric),
but the world gave us the benefit of the doubt (perhaps thinking we were
still in shock, rather than being efficiently herded in a direction that
Bush & Co. had just been waiting for a good excuse to head down at full
speed) and waited to see what we would actually do.
>
> During the invasion of Afghanastan, most of the world still supported
> the US. Al Queda was clearly the enemy and Al Queda was clearly in
> Afghanastan.
Well, some of the talk that preceded the invasion of Afghanistan (such
as a recently-retired high-echelon American Army officer in Australia
stating that if Pakistan wasn't willing to give us passage to
Afghanistan we'd just roll over them, and IIRC an administration
suggestion in response to a question about use of nuclear weapons that
nothing was off the table) was making a lot of people even more nervous,
but, again, they were willing to wait and see what really happened.
And for a while they were relieved, and even reports of torture and
prisoners suffocated by the hundreds in sealed trucks coming out of
Afghanistan were largely (if somewhat uneasily) dismissed as isolated
incidents. Of course, now we know better.
>
> It was not until the Bush administration decided to ignore the advice
> of most of the US' friends and allies, forget the evidence of bad
> "intelligence", and refuse to answer questions so that an invasion of
> Iraq could sound justified that the majority of the world turned
> against American actions.
That Canadian poll I mentioned was taken in August, 2002 - at a time
when Bush was at most doing a bit of saber-rattling about Iraq while
earnestly proclaiming that military action there would be a last resort
(of course, now we know better about that, too). So if those 15% of
Canadians convinced that we had brought 9/11 upon ourselves plus another
70% believing that we were at least in part responsible for it were *at
all* representative of world opinion, I'd say that your characterization
above might be at least a bit flawed.
- bill
b...@instantwhip.com
what the world thinks ... if you want to follow
the world over the cliff, go right ahead ... their
are 1000s of flights daily to escort you right
out of here ...
Bill Todd
> hey Bill ... I worry about America and me, not
> what the world thinks ...
Y'know, boob, I generally don't find your drivel worth reading, let
alone responding to. But since your response here is so disgustingly
self-centered and thus so typical of much of the problem with America
and Americans today, it seems appropriate to point it out as an example
- since being associated with your level of thinking should make even
the most hardened chickenhawk take a step back and ponder at least a bit.
if you want to follow
> the world over the cliff, go right ahead ... their
> are 1000s of flights daily to escort you right
> out of here ...
Sorry: this is my country, and I have no intention of leaving it just
because a bunch of cretins (aided by confused but generally willing
sheep like you) have managed to hijack it.
I intend to get it back.
- bill
JF Mezei
> which may occur (e.g., the Iraqis have every bit as much right to light
> off a nuke, if they can get their hands on one, about half-way down
> Pennsylvania Avenue as we had to go after those responsible for 9/11,
Actually, that isn't the case. Both NATO and the UN agreed that 9/11
was an attack on the united states, both agreed it was Bin Ladin, both
agreed that the Taliban were harbouring Bin Ladin and protecting him.
And it wasn't just the USA who went into Afghanistan. There was
legitimacy in that invasion.
Where I still have question is in the refusal by the USA to hand over
the evidence that it was Bin Ladin to the Afghan government. In a normal
extradition process, the asking country has to show the evidence to the
holding country to convince the holding country that the extradition
request is valid. On that point alone, the afghan government had a right
to hold/protect Bin Ladin since it had not been shown any evidence that
he was a terrible criminal.
However, the rest of the world was more than willing to overlook this
and agree to the military action since the government of afghnanistan
was very disliked, but due process should have been followed to truly
remove any legitimacy to the Afghan government. Note: the Taliban was
put in power by the USA.
Now, consider that the Bin Ladin family have huge investments in the
USA, including propping up Bush Jrs failing oil businesses. Consider
that they had meetings at the white house the day after 9-11 and were
given the green light to use their own jets to leave the USA. "We don't
like our son/brother Osaama, he is an asshole, but please don't kill
him" might have been some of the discussion points.
An Ossama alive is worth far more to the Rumsfeld/Cheney/Wolfowitz trio
than a dead one. The day Bin Ladin is officially killed is the day
americans might no longer tolerate all the extreme measures the USA
regime has instituted alongside the patriot act. (And yes, patriot act
really does allow the FBI to find out about all the books you purchased
or borrowed from a library - my guess is so that they can spot any
person with an arabic name who borrows books about nuclear energy).
Bin Ladin is probably quite dead in some cave, burried under tons of
rubble. Since the supposed tapes of him which came out at convenient
times are verified by the CIA for authenticity, it becomes quite easy
for the CIA to produce those tapes.
Dave Froble
<in an earlier post>
Hussein was no saint. He deserved his day at the war crimes tribunal. At
the time he used the chemical weapons, they were not yet banned by
treaty.
> Meanwhile, Israel has had the bomb for a very long time, refuses to
> admit it, refuses to sign the nuclear non proliferation treaty, refuses
> to let UN inspectors in.
I'm not sure how to approach the issue that since there was no treaty
banning use of chemical weapons the is an implication that such use
wasn't a crime. JF would brush past any such anyway.
But now he wants to say that Israel is wrong to (perhaps) have
something, that has never been proved, has never been used, (excluding
possible testing), when they have never signed a treaty forbidding them
to do so.
And JF accuses the US of not being neutral?
Doc is right, you are an idiot!
Dave Froble
In principal I agree with much of what you write. However, one moment
some say that the US should not interfere in the internal workings of
some countries, and then complain that the US has NOT done so in other
cases. Not very consistant.
You didn't mention any details, which is what I asked for.
Dave Froble
> Are we still waiting for evidence of this no-fly list JF ??
No. It became a total joke when it included US Senator Ted Kennedy.
Dave Froble
> Dave represents the opinion of a very large
> portion of the U.S.
That's news to me. Most people don't like things I say. Then again,
most people believe what they're taught when young, and never learn to
question their basic beliefs.
My all time favorite. "Of course God exists, it says so in the bible."
My only question is why one work of fiction is treated as fact, and none
of the others?
JF Mezei
> I'm not sure how to approach the issue that since there was no treaty
> banning use of chemical weapons the is an implication that such use
> wasn't a crime.
If you can charge a country for use of weapons before such weapons were
banned, then you can get both Iraq and the USA. and probably many
others. Remember agent Orange in Vietnam ?
As I recall, the chemical/bio wepons treaty was signed n 1992-1993
timeframe.
This is like giving you a ticket because 10 years ago, before they put a
stop sign at an intersection, you went though many times without making
a stop.
> But now he wants to say that Israel is wrong to (perhaps) have
> something, that has never been proved, has never been used, (excluding
> possible testing), when they have never signed a treaty forbidding them
> to do so.
The allegations about Israel having the bomb are far more credible than
the allegations of Iran wanting a bomb. The scientists who have
publically admitted to Israel having a bomb have been imprisoned by
Israel. If Israel didn't have the bomb, why would it refuse to sign the
nuclear non proliferation treaty ?
Doc.
@corp.supernews.com
> Doc is right, you are an idiot!
If I used those precise words, then it wasn't quite what I meant.
JF can be a valuable contributor to the newsgroup, but the majority of his
posts are more political, and particularly negative about the the US.
[Before Bill Todd jumps in I'll point out that _I_ think a lot of the
criticism is justified, but this may not be an appropriate forum for it.]
So, I wouldn't call him an idiot. I'd just say he's got tinfoil and he
knows how to use it. :-)
As to the can of worms that is US policy on Israel, do you really think the
Middle East would be such a mess if the US hadn't recognised the state of
Israel?
Doc. (who may well regret saying anything on this).
--
OpenVMS: Eight out of ten hackers prefer *other* operating systems.
http://www.openvms-rocks.com Deathrow Public-Access OpenVMS Cluster.
Doc.
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
Hey Boob, do you follow the revised psalms?
The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want.
He leadeth me to Walmart,
He reduceth the interest rate on new car loans,
he abolisheth the death tax
And yea, though I walk through the homeless, addicted, and untreated ill
I will ignore them forever.
Take a good, long, hard look at what is being done to your country, and
then tell me how you can look at yourself in the mirror every day and
_still_ support the current administration.
Doc.
Bill Todd
> Bill Todd wrote:
>
>>which may occur (e.g., the Iraqis have every bit as much right to light
>>off a nuke, if they can get their hands on one, about half-way down
>>Pennsylvania Avenue as we had to go after those responsible for 9/11,
>
>
> Actually, that isn't the case.
Yes, it is. My statement above was actually intended to refer to moral
right rather than specifically to legal right, but I'll be happy to
justify the legal right as well.
Kofi Annan has mentioned (casually but rather pointedly) that our
invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law as defined in the
U.N. charter (to which we ourselves are signatories and hence bound to
by active, formal agreement rather than simply by international fiat) -
though to many of us this was in no way news and came a couple of years
too late to have done much good. The U.N. charter defines such illegal
invasion as justification for fighting back in self-defense (no specific
additional U.N. authorization being required in such cases).
Now, while the former Iraqi government may (or may not - I don't happen
to know) have been a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,
our rather thorough destruction of that government has left the Iraqis
to fight on as a resistance force which has certainly never agreed to
any kind of restrictions on the use of nuclear weapons. And the degree
of destruction that we have visited upon their country is certainly
comparable to that which a single medium-yield nuke would visit upon
Washington, D.C., so it cannot be argued that such a response would be
in any way disproportional.
True, the immediate death toll from the latter might be higher than the
toll of the war over the past two years, but throw in the effects of a
decade's worth of sanctions demanded by the U.S. after all rationale for
them had long been proven invalid and that'll more than even the score
(in absolute terms, of course: destroying Washington, while a major
symbolic act, would mostly merely decapitate our ability to screw up the
rest of the world without drastically affecting individuals throughout
the rest of our country or our ability to produce the goods we need,
whereas we have screwed up Iraq quite thoroughly from border to border,
in every major city, and in most areas of production, and killed,
maimed, or displaced a large percentage of its population rather than
the rather small percentage of our population living within the blast
radius of the Capitol).
Both NATO and the UN agreed that 9/11
> was an attack on the united states, both agreed it was Bin Ladin, both
> agreed that the Taliban were harbouring Bin Ladin and protecting him.
> And it wasn't just the USA who went into Afghanistan. There was
> legitimacy in that invasion.
You appear to be confusing our invasion of Afghanistan with our invasion
of Iraq. My comment above really didn't address the invasion of
Afghanistan at all: it merely noted that just as we were justified in
retaliating (appropriately - though the degree to which we did that even
in Afghanistan is debatable, given some of the ways we went about that
invasion) against the perpetrators of 9/11, so the Iraqis are justified
in retaliating - 'by any means necessary' - against us for first
invading and then (with no end in sight) occupying their country.
- bill