shamino
Jul 21, 10:09 AM
Not exactly. Multiple cores is as much about multitasking multiple applications or multiple instances of the same application simultaneously as it is about running one or two that use all the cores. The OS X system delegates multicore use to some extent already.
At the very least, Spotlight indexing won't kill the performance of my foreground app :cool:
At the very least, Spotlight indexing won't kill the performance of my foreground app :cool:
indisguise
Apr 8, 03:09 AM
Many Best Buys with Apple Shoppes have Apple representatives who work right at the store, I doubt they would let this happen at their store. I wonder how many Best Buys have done this
Skika
Mar 26, 08:00 AM
Will it have a new theme? I think its really time for aqua to be put to rest and something new comes along.
Multimedia
Jul 21, 12:20 PM
It really depends on your application.
On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.
If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.
With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use...
Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.
I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)
I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.I strongly disagree. I could use 16 cores right now for notihng more than simple consumer electronics video compression routines. There will be a Mac Pro with 8 cores this Winter 2007.
You are completely blind to the need for many cores right now for very simple stupid work. All I want to do is run 4 copies of Toast while running 4 copies of Handbrake simultaneously. Each wants 2 cores or more. So you are not thinking of the current need for 16 cores already.
This is not even beginning to discuss how many Final Cut Studio Editors need 16 Cores. Man, I can't believe you wrote that. I think you are overlooking the obvious - the need to run multiple copies of today's applicaitons simultaneously.
So as long as the heat issue can be overcome, I don't see why 8 Cores can't belong inside an iMac by the end of 2008.
I apologize if I read a little hot. But I find the line of thought that 4 or 8 Cores are enough or more than enough to really annoy me. They are not nearly enough for those of us who see the problem of not enough cores EVERY DAY. The rest of you either have no imagination or are only using your Macs for word processing, browsing and email.
I am sincerely frustrated by not having enough cores to do simple stupid work efficiently. Just look at how crippled this G5 Quad is already only running three things. They can't even run full speed due to lack of cores.
On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.
If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.
With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use...
Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.
I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)
I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.I strongly disagree. I could use 16 cores right now for notihng more than simple consumer electronics video compression routines. There will be a Mac Pro with 8 cores this Winter 2007.
You are completely blind to the need for many cores right now for very simple stupid work. All I want to do is run 4 copies of Toast while running 4 copies of Handbrake simultaneously. Each wants 2 cores or more. So you are not thinking of the current need for 16 cores already.
This is not even beginning to discuss how many Final Cut Studio Editors need 16 Cores. Man, I can't believe you wrote that. I think you are overlooking the obvious - the need to run multiple copies of today's applicaitons simultaneously.
So as long as the heat issue can be overcome, I don't see why 8 Cores can't belong inside an iMac by the end of 2008.
I apologize if I read a little hot. But I find the line of thought that 4 or 8 Cores are enough or more than enough to really annoy me. They are not nearly enough for those of us who see the problem of not enough cores EVERY DAY. The rest of you either have no imagination or are only using your Macs for word processing, browsing and email.
I am sincerely frustrated by not having enough cores to do simple stupid work efficiently. Just look at how crippled this G5 Quad is already only running three things. They can't even run full speed due to lack of cores.
kcmac
Apr 27, 10:09 AM
I think that a lot of people forget that the first iPhone did not have GPS. It helped you find where you were by locating Wi-Fi hotspots and triangulating cell towers. Sometimes it would get you pretty close to where you were but sometimes the results could be fairly maddening. We always referred to this as fake GPS back then.
Now with the combination of real GPS and these other two methods, it is a very accurate system. And fast. I believe Apples description and only hope that the software update does not reduce speed or accuracy of what I have now come to expect.
Now with the combination of real GPS and these other two methods, it is a very accurate system. And fast. I believe Apples description and only hope that the software update does not reduce speed or accuracy of what I have now come to expect.
SiliconAddict
Aug 11, 03:02 PM
So what happens when Apple finds out the source of the leak was Jobs? Does he get fired? :p
macrumors12345
Apr 19, 01:50 PM
It's ambiguous whether they mean the beginning of March, the end of March, or somewhere in between. This will have a huge impact on the iPad numbers since iPad 2 didn't go on sale until March 11, and has been severely constrained since then.
SuperMatt
Mar 31, 02:26 PM
The biggest advantage always given for Android over iOS is that it's "open source." Well, clearly that's not the case anymore. So, I can't think of any other reason to use Android over iOS, or even Windows 7. It looks like junk, and it's just a cheap ripoff of iOS.
xStep
Apr 10, 04:58 AM
I'm a little confused...why was Avid presenting at a Final Cut Pro User Group's meeting anyway? Do they just come in and are like "Hey, you've all made a mistake!" or something?
No, they come in and professionally present their product like they would do for any audience, as personally seen at an LAFCPUG (http://www.lafcpug.org/) meeting.
Michael Horton who runs LAFCPUG, and is one of the main organizers of the Supermeet, has the attitude that editors should be aware of all the tools available, including competition to FCP. Also remember that not all people are tied to one tool.
The speculation of how Apple got into the meeting is humorous. Hopefully Michael will eventually give up some information.
Apple can easily make there own event, just book that building in SF and invite some journalists or plan in advance!!
Giving an in depth presentation to this FCP centric audience will likely get Apple much more buzz in the editing community than a standard announcement in front of journalists.
No, they come in and professionally present their product like they would do for any audience, as personally seen at an LAFCPUG (http://www.lafcpug.org/) meeting.
Michael Horton who runs LAFCPUG, and is one of the main organizers of the Supermeet, has the attitude that editors should be aware of all the tools available, including competition to FCP. Also remember that not all people are tied to one tool.
The speculation of how Apple got into the meeting is humorous. Hopefully Michael will eventually give up some information.
Apple can easily make there own event, just book that building in SF and invite some journalists or plan in advance!!
Giving an in depth presentation to this FCP centric audience will likely get Apple much more buzz in the editing community than a standard announcement in front of journalists.
davelanger
Apr 14, 04:54 PM
Opinion is not fact. This works on both sides of the argument, I concede.
Still, you cannot say the iPhone is the best smartphone on the market, just as someone else can't say the Atrix is the best. Different strokes for different folks!
You can however state the iphone is the best smartphone on the market for my needs.
Still, you cannot say the iPhone is the best smartphone on the market, just as someone else can't say the Atrix is the best. Different strokes for different folks!
You can however state the iphone is the best smartphone on the market for my needs.
PeterQVenkman
Apr 5, 08:12 PM
Nobody's using Blu-Ray, in my experience.
There is a whole thread about that, though. Don't read it.
Perhaps a little hasty of me, I was simply meant to say that in my experience I've not ever been required to deliver anything on Blu-Ray, and that to my mind it was a purely consumer format.
I've been to quite a few film festivals that take entries on Blu-Ray.
Apple has two mountains to climb: 1) to keep up with their competition where they used to lead. (2) They have to convince users that the mac as a pro platform is a good investment.
There is a whole thread about that, though. Don't read it.
Perhaps a little hasty of me, I was simply meant to say that in my experience I've not ever been required to deliver anything on Blu-Ray, and that to my mind it was a purely consumer format.
I've been to quite a few film festivals that take entries on Blu-Ray.
Apple has two mountains to climb: 1) to keep up with their competition where they used to lead. (2) They have to convince users that the mac as a pro platform is a good investment.
onigami
Apr 10, 08:51 PM
They did it in 2007... I was there.
Back when Myspace was cool. (http://www.myspace.com/studiomusic1/blog/253736149)
Myspace was never cool.
Okay, okay, so they have done NAB (they've never done AES, though, that I'm certain). But still: They pulled out of everything in the last couple years. Why come back to NAB? Why not just do a small-scale announcement outside of NAB's timeframe so as to maximize press?
Also, nobody answered my initial question. Why the idle timer? There's no point!
Back when Myspace was cool. (http://www.myspace.com/studiomusic1/blog/253736149)
Myspace was never cool.
Okay, okay, so they have done NAB (they've never done AES, though, that I'm certain). But still: They pulled out of everything in the last couple years. Why come back to NAB? Why not just do a small-scale announcement outside of NAB's timeframe so as to maximize press?
Also, nobody answered my initial question. Why the idle timer? There's no point!
Dont Hurt Me
Jul 15, 09:30 AM
well, that looks a real mess.. but I suppose it's a good idea since heated air tends to rise.. :-)Not really a mess but not anywhere near quicksilvers ease of use but still holds a ton of optical and a ton of hard drives. Apples Powermac G5 series are kind of pathetic in this respect.
Im still hoping apple throws away the radiator and go back to something Quicksilver like.
Im still hoping apple throws away the radiator and go back to something Quicksilver like.
Amazing Iceman
Mar 22, 10:31 PM
Microsoft Office 2007 (Windows) and 2011 (Mac) are not slow.
They may be slow in your super �ber Mac from which uses the super �ber Core 2 Duo, but it's certainly not in my sister's Core i3 notebook.
Your machine is outdated. I hope you're not using it as a reference to judge Microsoft Office performance.
Are you having PMS (no offense to the ladies) or something like that?
I didn't say it ran slow on my MAC. Even FCP and CS5 run great. Otherwise I would have already purchased a new one. Unlike you, I can afford it. I'm going to buy the new 17" MBP, but because it has issues I decided to wait until these get solved, but that's not your business.
Also, your ignorance and arrogance didn't let you understand my point. Every new version of Office, specially the Windows version, requires a bigger and faster computer to run. And when you compare features, there's no real gain from one version to the next, just nice looking colors and animations, which are a waste of processor speed.
Go learn some manners, and mature at least a little. Idiots like you shouldn't be allowed in these forums.
They may be slow in your super �ber Mac from which uses the super �ber Core 2 Duo, but it's certainly not in my sister's Core i3 notebook.
Your machine is outdated. I hope you're not using it as a reference to judge Microsoft Office performance.
Are you having PMS (no offense to the ladies) or something like that?
I didn't say it ran slow on my MAC. Even FCP and CS5 run great. Otherwise I would have already purchased a new one. Unlike you, I can afford it. I'm going to buy the new 17" MBP, but because it has issues I decided to wait until these get solved, but that's not your business.
Also, your ignorance and arrogance didn't let you understand my point. Every new version of Office, specially the Windows version, requires a bigger and faster computer to run. And when you compare features, there's no real gain from one version to the next, just nice looking colors and animations, which are a waste of processor speed.
Go learn some manners, and mature at least a little. Idiots like you shouldn't be allowed in these forums.
rolandf
Aug 8, 05:14 AM
I just went through my older posts, concerning Apple's strategy and future, e.g. the role of Vista. I still think, what I said several month ago is still an issue. Having seen Leopard as it stands is not very promising for Apple's future.
Let me remember you, that some of the key people at Apple left the company! In the posts there has been "monolithic kernel" and "NEXT" bashing.
Question: Did they improve the kernel?
Question: How much will the integration / interoperability be with Unix / Linux?
Question: Is there still a future for the Open Source community, or is Leopard just making OS X more proprietary?
Question: Are they continuing to water down their PRO Apps, intermingling it with the OS and making everything more childish?
Question: Is this OS 10.5 usable for a tablet PC? How strong are features like handwriting and speech recognition? (Remember, we are approaching 2010!)
Question: Will they still continue to make the UI more heterogeneous and disorganised, this mix of unmotivated 3D, lack of resolution independence, for every single task a separate application etc.
Question: Virtualisation is a standard for many OS's in the Unix world. A company that sells servers, should be comfortable with that.
Question: How efficient will the OS be, given the arrival of multi-core processors, e.g. quad etc.?
But as it seems, OS X still lives from the legacy, from the NEXT computer that quantum leap in computer history and meanwhile MS with Vista just improved a lot the feel and look, so as others also remarked it, the need to switch to Mac is not given for an everyday user.
Apple conveys to me the image of a company working on too many things at the same time, loosing focus, innovation and good people. Further since the Intel switch even the motivation to further push the design of the hardware did not happen, and the "products we wanted to build, but could not" did not appear.
Will at least the Playstation 3 be the highlight of the year and the direction for the future?
Let me remember you, that some of the key people at Apple left the company! In the posts there has been "monolithic kernel" and "NEXT" bashing.
Question: Did they improve the kernel?
Question: How much will the integration / interoperability be with Unix / Linux?
Question: Is there still a future for the Open Source community, or is Leopard just making OS X more proprietary?
Question: Are they continuing to water down their PRO Apps, intermingling it with the OS and making everything more childish?
Question: Is this OS 10.5 usable for a tablet PC? How strong are features like handwriting and speech recognition? (Remember, we are approaching 2010!)
Question: Will they still continue to make the UI more heterogeneous and disorganised, this mix of unmotivated 3D, lack of resolution independence, for every single task a separate application etc.
Question: Virtualisation is a standard for many OS's in the Unix world. A company that sells servers, should be comfortable with that.
Question: How efficient will the OS be, given the arrival of multi-core processors, e.g. quad etc.?
But as it seems, OS X still lives from the legacy, from the NEXT computer that quantum leap in computer history and meanwhile MS with Vista just improved a lot the feel and look, so as others also remarked it, the need to switch to Mac is not given for an everyday user.
Apple conveys to me the image of a company working on too many things at the same time, loosing focus, innovation and good people. Further since the Intel switch even the motivation to further push the design of the hardware did not happen, and the "products we wanted to build, but could not" did not appear.
Will at least the Playstation 3 be the highlight of the year and the direction for the future?
realitymonkey
Apr 6, 06:52 AM
Hmm we have a Blu Ray burner in our duplication bay in 3 years and approx 1500 hrs of Broadcast HD TV it has only been used so editors can take home personal projects to screen them.
Really do not see the need for Blu Ray at all there are so many other better suited formats.
Really do not see the need for Blu Ray at all there are so many other better suited formats.
Peterkro
Feb 28, 12:57 PM
A same-sex attracted person is living a "gay lifestyle" when he or she dates people of the same sex, "marries" people of the same sex, has same-sex sex, or does any combination of these things. I think that if same-sex attracted people are going to live together, they need to do that as though they were siblings, not as sex partners. In my opinion, they should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another.
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage. If I had a girlfriend, I might kiss her. But I wouldn't do that to deliberately arouse either of us. If either of us felt tempted to have sex with each other, the kissing would stop right away. I know of a woman who gave an excellent answer when men asked her why saved sex for marriage. She said, "I"m worth waiting for." She lived by her Catholic convictions, and she wouldn't risk letting any man use her as a mere object, as a mere "sex machine."
It's life Captain but not as we know it.:confused:
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage. If I had a girlfriend, I might kiss her. But I wouldn't do that to deliberately arouse either of us. If either of us felt tempted to have sex with each other, the kissing would stop right away. I know of a woman who gave an excellent answer when men asked her why saved sex for marriage. She said, "I"m worth waiting for." She lived by her Catholic convictions, and she wouldn't risk letting any man use her as a mere object, as a mere "sex machine."
It's life Captain but not as we know it.:confused:
portishead
Apr 12, 12:17 AM
How about using more than one bloody core to render a timeline or do an export to the eternally-broken Compressor?
How about properly recognizing file attributes on import?
�stability?
�QMaster having better than coin-flip reliability?
�better R3D support (as well as other cameras)?
�GPGPU/OpenCL?
etc etc
Barely any of these are features you NEED. Yes we all want a faster NLE, but people are talking like FCP doesn't work, and is light years behind. All it needs is an update to 64 bit, new quicktime platform, and some other things which I won't go into.
How about properly recognizing file attributes on import?
�stability?
�QMaster having better than coin-flip reliability?
�better R3D support (as well as other cameras)?
�GPGPU/OpenCL?
etc etc
Barely any of these are features you NEED. Yes we all want a faster NLE, but people are talking like FCP doesn't work, and is light years behind. All it needs is an update to 64 bit, new quicktime platform, and some other things which I won't go into.
Surreal
Mar 26, 07:40 AM
Thank you for your constructive reply but ....
to be fair, devs care about that... users won't until they see new things that they can use. then they/we can complain about backward compatibility!
to be fair, devs care about that... users won't until they see new things that they can use. then they/we can complain about backward compatibility!
macpross
Aug 6, 01:34 PM
As Apple applied for the trademark, it will not be approved.
It is up to Apple how they want to proceed. A fight that can't win, no matter how much money they have.
Mac Pro has been the premier Mac dealer in the same county as Apple since 1988. Out of all the names for this new line of computers, why choose one that they know they cannot have.
We are already getting countless support calls for the macbook pro. It seems they assume we made them When we can't help them, they seem to get very upset.
Mac Pro is in a position to file for a court order not to release any computer that bears our name.
So get ready WWDC, we will be watching.
Mike Ajlouny
President
MAC-PRO.com
It is up to Apple how they want to proceed. A fight that can't win, no matter how much money they have.
Mac Pro has been the premier Mac dealer in the same county as Apple since 1988. Out of all the names for this new line of computers, why choose one that they know they cannot have.
We are already getting countless support calls for the macbook pro. It seems they assume we made them When we can't help them, they seem to get very upset.
Mac Pro is in a position to file for a court order not to release any computer that bears our name.
So get ready WWDC, we will be watching.
Mike Ajlouny
President
MAC-PRO.com
11thIndian
Apr 5, 10:17 PM
I doubt Apple will ship a new version of FCP before they ship lion, there are simply no real video editor APIs in Snow Leopard that are capable of 64 bit, QT Kit is a joke.
HOWEVER, according to the developer page for Lion there will be a brand new A/V API in Lion that will be 64 bit and FCP will most likely be written in that.
I guess they could back port the entire API to Snow Leopard, but I wouldn't count on it.
Rumor is that new FCP will be based on A/V Foundation, leaving the legacy QT Kit limitations behind, and negating the need to wait for Lion for 64bit.
http://www.philiphodgetts.com/2011/02/a-new-64-bit-final-cut-pro/
HOWEVER, according to the developer page for Lion there will be a brand new A/V API in Lion that will be 64 bit and FCP will most likely be written in that.
I guess they could back port the entire API to Snow Leopard, but I wouldn't count on it.
Rumor is that new FCP will be based on A/V Foundation, leaving the legacy QT Kit limitations behind, and negating the need to wait for Lion for 64bit.
http://www.philiphodgetts.com/2011/02/a-new-64-bit-final-cut-pro/
Multimedia
Aug 26, 08:11 PM
My expectations for the next generation 17" MacBook Pro:
2.33 Core 2 Duo
Better GPU
160gig HD
Higher quality displays. No more of this uneven backlighting crap.
My hopes:
Longer battery life
Get the power adaptor below 70 watts so we can use them on planes
Lower price
Hell, I'm buying whatever comes next. I just hope there are some solid spec bumps across the board.
And most importantly, I hope Apple fixes the crappy quality issues that have been plaguing their portable line all year.I agree. But I refuse to buy any "So-Called" MacBook Pro until they have implemented the easy access HD professional feature they put in the MacBook. I would rather buy a C2D MacBook with that feature than ever buy a MBP without it. :mad:Post #81 Apple has, on occasion, introduced new or upgraded features on its consumer computers when those computers were refreshed between refresh cycles of their professional computers. For example, at one time, the iMac had a faster SuperDrive than the Power Mac. Of course, with the next refresh of the pro computers, the new/upgraded features seen previously in the consumer products have always been added.Good to remember. Thanks. Hope it's the rule this time as well.
2.33 Core 2 Duo
Better GPU
160gig HD
Higher quality displays. No more of this uneven backlighting crap.
My hopes:
Longer battery life
Get the power adaptor below 70 watts so we can use them on planes
Lower price
Hell, I'm buying whatever comes next. I just hope there are some solid spec bumps across the board.
And most importantly, I hope Apple fixes the crappy quality issues that have been plaguing their portable line all year.I agree. But I refuse to buy any "So-Called" MacBook Pro until they have implemented the easy access HD professional feature they put in the MacBook. I would rather buy a C2D MacBook with that feature than ever buy a MBP without it. :mad:Post #81 Apple has, on occasion, introduced new or upgraded features on its consumer computers when those computers were refreshed between refresh cycles of their professional computers. For example, at one time, the iMac had a faster SuperDrive than the Power Mac. Of course, with the next refresh of the pro computers, the new/upgraded features seen previously in the consumer products have always been added.Good to remember. Thanks. Hope it's the rule this time as well.
Amazing Iceman
Mar 31, 05:21 PM
Apple realized long time ago that it is bad if the cell service provider has too much freedom, puts too much **** on the phone and customizes it in ways that it is no longer maintainable ... they got bashed as being too closed.
But now people finally realize they were right:
- android is getting too fragmented because service providers are either too slow to provide updates or refuse to update at all for current phones
- microsoft just realed an update to their mobile7 - guess what: service providers are too slow to update the brand new phones - weeks after the MS release they still need many more weeks to 'test' and 'adjust' for their phones
What good is it to have an OS that claims to be 'open' but you still can't get updates because the openess was abused by service providers who struggle to re-adding their ****.
The problem that has always existed, not just with Android, is that the carriers customize the OS, release it with a phone, and you can forget about getting any updates for it. Maybe one update for the lifetime of the device, if you are lucky. My HTC TouchPro 2 has only seen in almost 2 years just one update to WM 6.5, and it was not even close to the most current revision at that time.
This just shows that carriers and manufacturers don't want to keep maintaining their phones. They want to sell and forget, and push a new model out the door.
Sad, but true... :(
But now people finally realize they were right:
- android is getting too fragmented because service providers are either too slow to provide updates or refuse to update at all for current phones
- microsoft just realed an update to their mobile7 - guess what: service providers are too slow to update the brand new phones - weeks after the MS release they still need many more weeks to 'test' and 'adjust' for their phones
What good is it to have an OS that claims to be 'open' but you still can't get updates because the openess was abused by service providers who struggle to re-adding their ****.
The problem that has always existed, not just with Android, is that the carriers customize the OS, release it with a phone, and you can forget about getting any updates for it. Maybe one update for the lifetime of the device, if you are lucky. My HTC TouchPro 2 has only seen in almost 2 years just one update to WM 6.5, and it was not even close to the most current revision at that time.
This just shows that carriers and manufacturers don't want to keep maintaining their phones. They want to sell and forget, and push a new model out the door.
Sad, but true... :(
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 06:11 AM
Libya is more like Bosnia than Iraq. A moment of force has the potential to change the scope of the conflict, hopefully for the positive, in a way that a full-blown invasion would merely complicate. That's the central part that fivepoint, who is merely interested in making another partisan screed, is ignoring.
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html