Slashdot Mirror

Obama will castrate our military and destroy our nuclear deterrent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxL8NcNACBY

He will tax corporations and high income earners that employ the population of the US, which will force them to cut jobs and send the unemployment rate skyrocketing.
http://obama.3cdn.net/b7be3b7cd08e587dca_v852mv8ja.pdf

He sees dead people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=galtZF0nKYc

He wants to take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, leaving us at the mercy of criminals.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/barack_obama_gun_control.htm

He'll cut and run from Iraq, knocking the legs out from under the Iraqi government as they are finally finding their footing.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

He believes homosexuals are entitled to more rights than straight people.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/23/debate.transcript/index.html

He believes in mob rule concerning criminal punishment.
The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p. 58

He refuses to call terrorists "terrorists" even when presented with evidence.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15251928

He will prevent us from keeping sensitive materials confidential, which will place national security at risk.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/14356/

He would talk with terrorist countries without demanding that they cease their efforts to murder innocent people and abide by the rule of law.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3Oj7Jn9rv4

He believes we should reward people who ignore the existence of a country's sovereignty and illegally enter the country instead of forcing them to abide by the law.
http://obama.senate.gov/news/060923-sen_obama_at_to/index.php

He believes the government should regulate the internet.
http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060608-network_neutral/index.php

He believes in making those who have money pay for the healthcare of those who do not have money.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

He believes we should take corn, a staple food for the US, and use it for ethanol production, which will cause shortages in food supply and produce car exhaust that is more dangerous to humans than gasoline burning cars.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/01/05/new_us_congress_looks_to_boost_alternate_fuels/?p1=MEWell_Pos5

He believes that parents should have no choice but to send their children to government run schools to be indoctrinated by sub-standard teachers.
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/citations/04/041027.obama-ct.html

In short, he's an anti-American, anti-military Marxist who will destroy the US before he can be voted out of office. I don't like McCain and I have problems with many of his positions, but he will, at the very least, keep the US from crashing and burning within the next 4 years (provided the Dems don't win Congress).

And no, he's not a Muslim (as far as we know). He's not black (he's bi-racial). He's not a Christian (against everything Ch

Obama will castrate our military and destroy our nuclear deterrent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxL8NcNACBY

He will tax corporations and high income earners that employ the population of the US, which will force them to cut jobs and send the unemployment rate skyrocketing.
http://obama.3cdn.net/b7be3b7cd08e587dca_v852mv8ja.pdf

He sees dead people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=galtZF0nKYc

He wants to take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, leaving us at the mercy of criminals.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/barack_obama_gun_control.htm

He'll cut and run from Iraq, knocking the legs out from under the Iraqi government as they are finally finding their footing.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

He believes homosexuals are entitled to more rights than straight people.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/23/debate.transcript/index.html

He believes in mob rule concerning criminal punishment.
The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p. 58

He refuses to call terrorists "terrorists" even when presented with evidence.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15251928

He will prevent us from keeping sensitive materials confidential, which will place national security at risk.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/14356/

He would talk with terrorist countries without demanding that they cease their efforts to murder innocent people and abide by the rule of law.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3Oj7Jn9rv4

He believes we should reward people who ignore the existence of a country's sovereignty and illegally enter the country instead of forcing them to abide by the law.
http://obama.senate.gov/news/060923-sen_obama_at_to/index.php

He believes the government should regulate the internet.
http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060608-network_neutral/index.php

He believes in making those who have money pay for the healthcare of those who do not have money.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

He believes we should take corn, a staple food for the US, and use it for ethanol production, which will cause shortages in food supply and produce car exhaust that is more dangerous to humans than gasoline burning cars.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/01/05/new_us_congress_looks_to_boost_alternate_fuels/?p1=MEWell_Pos5

He believes that parents should have no choice but to send their children to government run schools to be indoctrinated by sub-standard teachers.
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/citations/04/041027.obama-ct.html

In short, he's an anti-American, anti-military Marxist who will destroy the US before he can be voted out of office. I don't like McCain and I have problems with many of his positions, but he will, at the very least, keep the US from crashing and burning within the next 4 years (provided the Dems don't win Congress).

And no, he's not a Muslim (as far as we know). He's not black (he's bi-racial). He's not a Christian (against everything Ch

Obama will castrate our military and destroy our nuclear deterrent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxL8NcNACBY

He will tax corporations and high income earners that employ the population of the US, which will force them to cut jobs and send the unemployment rate skyrocketing.
http://obama.3cdn.net/b7be3b7cd08e587dca_v852mv8ja.pdf

He sees dead people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=galtZF0nKYc

He wants to take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, leaving us at the mercy of criminals.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/barack_obama_gun_control.htm

He'll cut and run from Iraq, knocking the legs out from under the Iraqi government as they are finally finding their footing.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

He believes homosexuals are entitled to more rights than straight people.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/23/debate.transcript/index.html

He believes in mob rule concerning criminal punishment.
The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p. 58

He refuses to call terrorists "terrorists" even when presented with evidence.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15251928

He will prevent us from keeping sensitive materials confidential, which will place national security at risk.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/14356/

He would talk with terrorist countries without demanding that they cease their efforts to murder innocent people and abide by the rule of law.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3Oj7Jn9rv4

He believes we should reward people who ignore the existence of a country's sovereignty and illegally enter the country instead of forcing them to abide by the law.
http://obama.senate.gov/news/060923-sen_obama_at_to/index.php

He believes the government should regulate the internet.
http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060608-network_neutral/index.php

He believes in making those who have money pay for the healthcare of those who do not have money.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

He believes we should take corn, a staple food for the US, and use it for ethanol production, which will cause shortages in food supply and produce car exhaust that is more dangerous to humans than gasoline burning cars.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/01/05/new_us_congress_looks_to_boost_alternate_fuels/?p1=MEWell_Pos5

He believes that parents should have no choice but to send their children to government run schools to be indoctrinated by sub-standard teachers.
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/citations/04/041027.obama-ct.html

In short, he's an anti-American, anti-military Marxist who will destroy the US before he can be voted out of office. I don't like McCain and I have problems with many of his positions, but he will, at the very least, keep the US from crashing and burning within the next 4 years (provided the Dems don't win Congress).

And no, he's not a Muslim (as far as we know). He's not black (he's bi-racial). He's not a Christian (against everything Ch

And Juniper.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9856/

Money, yes; Not so much on the skills in that case -- they paid Cisco and Juniper to build it for them.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9856/

The reason everything "suggested" in their bimonthly magazine, forums, conferences etc. starts being implemented by democrats and republicans alike is because they just happen to always like what they see there. In fact, it's pure coincidence, right?

The first step of any investigation is to ask yourself, no matter what happen, "cui bono?" (who benefits?). This will give you a good list of possible starting points, many of which false positives. The second step is to go around researching further evidence. And the CFR offers lots, and lots, and lots of evidence, all in the open.

A "conspiracy theory" ceases being a theory when there's hard documental evidence. It also ceases being a "conspiracy" at that. A conspiracy, by definition, is something that requires few people, all keeping secrets. There's nothing secret about the CFR. Just go to their own publications and read them.

By the way: if you want information on the specific Republican take on implementing the CFR's guidelines, a good source of information their own Project for the New American Century's website. PNAC was founded and has many CFR members.

I'm not so sure.

Regime change was the official policy of the Clinton Administration.

And ya might want to read this. Gore's statements about Iraq in the wake of 9/11. The money shot: "As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table".

I do think Gore would have been better at forming a broader coalition. Democrats are better at making back-room deals, knowing how the grease the wheels. It comes from their dedication to the culture of bureaucracy.

The Iraqis have an opportunity to join modern nations with a functioning democracy - they are moving closer to being a modern democracy like Turkey every day. Still a long way away, but clearly a better situation that having Saddam or one of his psychopathic sons in charge, likely for the next half-century.

But I guess all you care about is your own green grass.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/11113/

"Cuba has the "same effect on U.S. administrations that the full moon has on a werewolf.""

"What is the likelihood that the United States and Cuba will resume diplomatic relations?

Given the range of issues dividing the two countries, experts say the possibility of normalization remains distant. "We don't use that language [normalization] anymore because the relationship is so toxic," Sweig says. Wayne Smith, director of the Cuba program at the Center for International Policy, says Cuba has the "same effect on U.S. administrations that the full moon has on a werewolf.""

i guess Cuba is the (wolfs) bane of the US' political existence... and i see the current regime is a source of angst for many Cubans outside the country. However, i will again assert that oppressing or internationally rebuking a nation's government (and spilling this over to its people) is not the way to advance a nation out of poverty and domestic oppression.

and in France the violence has turned to urban warfare

But I'll come back to that later. First:
It's people like you who are responsible for the rise of Sadam, Hitler, Bush and other despots. You justification is: there are "good" reasons to persecution. Hitler shared your point of view.
Instead of going after the people who failed to act (or juts let things happen that 9/11 to get the convenient war propaganda), you let your rights burn, you justify your own oppression, you take the lies about terrorism in Iraq as granted (the only terrorists active in Iraq were backed by the US and were acting to replace Sadam by a more cooperative dictator, just like in the very well documented coup against Mohammed Mossadegh which led to the current Iranian situation). You support the american terrorism. You can't recognise a failed leader when you see one, Bush speaks in YOUR name, he acts in YOUR name.

they have developed a reputation for it.

Americans have developed a reputation: a short summary of things done in YOUR name: You call others nations terrorists if they don't support in your holly war, you invade a country under false pretexts, plan the chaos (disbanding the government and army http://www.cfr.org/publication/7853/iraq.html) which will justify the presence of your army in the country. You steal all the oil you can while people argue about the effectiveness of your strategy. You kill people at random (just for fun, a video) and you create laws to avoid being prosecuted... You kill more people cause it's fun It's bad you broke rules but no laws, because killing people is not a crime (the killers will walk free and proud in your streets). You have a strong tendency of acting like criminals at every level of the state and you make your own law how and where it pleases you; As Bush said "He tried to kill my dad". And so you bombed a nation with radioactive waste (twice http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/95178_du12.shtml, http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0515/p01s02-woiq.html). Also, giving false evidence about mass destruction weapons to bring other nations into your jihad is another strategy in you sick failed-state. And this reputation of being christian fanatics who create your own private (out of the law) saint armies http://www.blackwaterusa.com/ counts for something... Your leaders are a reflection of yourself.

I think there are valid reasons for millions of people around the world to seek vengeance against the US. So stop complaining, having a 1984 like system at the airports and having your laptop stolen by greedy TSA officials is a low price to pay for your own security when you are too lazy to act responsibly. You don't deserve freedom if you can't fight for it... It's up to you as a citizen of a country to watch where your freedom goes... You are just like russians, happy to give away your rights by fear of loosing some of this daily comfort. At the airport you are treated like cattle, because you are... Your country and its officials (from top to bottom TSA agents) consider you as such... it gives you

I could almost guarantee you that IF people in Muslim countries were allowed to vote, religion would have a major influence in their decisions, much MUCH more than here. Look, I even found a similarity between USians and Middle easternerrs.

I'm not checking my facts, but someone list some Muslim countries that ARE democratic. Hopefully, Iraq will remain one.

Ok, actually, I did go check my facts and found that Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Indonesia, Egypt and Afghanistan.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9481/muslim_democracy.html
Apparently there are more, chad, yemen UAE... etc.

Anyway, my point is I'd bet a paycheck that religion has a major part in their voting practices.

very interesting this mentioning of this patent, especially in the light of this news of today:

> GENEVA and ARMONK, NY--(Marketwire - January 14, 2008) - Leading members of the corporate community have come together in a first-of-its-kind effort to help the environment, unleashing dozens of innovative, environmentally responsible patents to the public domain.

source: http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=809733

- aaah, btw there is a highly interesting report by the OECD claiming that biofuels might be worse than oldschool fuels: http://www.cfr.org/publication/14293/oecd.html

China is doing that a lot in Africa, most likely Nigeria included.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9557

Guantanamo's detainees are not who you think they are. Only 5% of them were picked up "on the battlefield" by US forces. 55% are not even accused of engaging in hostile acts against the US, and many of the rest have been picked up after being identified by 3rd parties responding to a bounty program, or have been identified as having roles such as "cooks assistant."

Guantanamo is an utter travesty, a testament to a nearly sociopathic streak in US foreign policy.

Overview here. Detailed study here.

From Enemy Combatants on a site called the "Council on Foreign Relations" that has the tagline "A Nonpartisan Resource for Information and Analysis" (and not knowing anything about the CFR, that sounds a bit like a "fair and balanced" view of things, if you get my meaning).

I quote:

An "enemy combatant" is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban. In applying this definition, the United States government has acted consistently with the observation of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37-38 (1942): "Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war."

"Enemy combatant" is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention. (The treatment accorded to unlawful combatants is discussed below).

The President has determined that al Qaida members are unlawful combatants because (among other reasons) they are members of a non-state actor terrorist group that does not receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. He additionally determined that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants because they do not satisfy the criteria for POW status set out in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. Although the President's determination on this issue is final, courts have concurred with his determination.

Too bad Americans pay more per capita for health care than any other industrialized nation. You're already paying for all those people without health insurance. When they go into the emergency room for every health-related need and never pay rather than get preventative care, guess who ends up paying those costs. Certainly not the hospital or the publicly traded health insurance company.

You're already paying for national health care. You're also paying for advertising, lobbying, dividends, as well salaries and bonuses to management who keep profits and dividends up.

Physicians for Human Rights visited a major detention facility for surrendered Taliban combatants, Shebarghan Prison, in January 2002 and publicized its findings widely in the media. The prison was freezing cold, food was minimal, and sanitation was dangerously squalid. The facility was overflowing with ten times as many men as it was built to hold, and thousands depended upon a small trickle of water and a half dozen latrines. Many had died from dysentery and exposure by the time of the visit by PHR.

Physicians for Human Rights researchers made an even more disturbing finding within a few miles of Shebarghan Prison: a large patch of disturbed earth with remains of bodies on the surface suggesting a mass grave site. The United Nations Human Rights Commission conducted a preliminary investigation of the site, located at Dasht-e Leili in April 2002. Working with a forensic expert, seconded by PHR, the Commission investigators uncovered fifteen bodies who appeared to have been smothered, in a small test trench dug at the site. In late August, Newsweek magazine released a special report on the issue of war crimes in Afghanistan about how negotiations among the U.S. special forces, the Northern Alliance, and captured Taliban combatants after the fall of Kunduz should have led to the release of most of them, but instead resulted in the death of hundreds. Reportedly Northern Alliance forces under the command of General Dostum packed the Taliban combatants into airless and waterless containers for days. Newsweek obtained testimonial evidence that the drivers of the container trucks were prevented from providing ventilation or water to the captives.

So yeah! We are fucking heroes.

(the site where I got that is a pretty non-partisan site. They are pretty hard on Bush as well. I'm not saying he is perfect, but I think he is right here. Sure, it would have been easy to quote the White House just as it would have been easy for you to quote Amnesty International or something)

Let me leave with a quote from Orwell. Since I've seen so many people who call this "Orwellian" because they think it reminds them of 1984, I thought it may be appropriate since you seem to be a pacifist.

Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that 'according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be "objectively pro-British".' But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious 'freedom' statio

The Iranians will give money and guns to anyone fighting the Americans and/or the current Iraqi government.

Bollocks. There's a fucking civil war going on in Iraq where Sunni groups are killing Shiites - and vice versa. Why the fuck would Iran want to fund the killing of Shiites?

See http://www.cfr.org/publication/9362/#4 - "Some reports also suggest that Iran's interference in Iraq has included funding, safe transit, and arms to insurgent leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr and his forces", and also says Iran funds/has funded Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas. I haven't seen anyone credible claiming they are directly funding Al Qaida. Please note all the groups above are Shiite.

The ministry has also established a system of online reporting centers that encourage citizens to report "harmful" information

I could appreciate that conclusion except it flies in the face of the facts.

After I resigned and took time off I switched to Tea as the source of my caffeine, and drank an average of about 3-4 cups per day. I was drinking Tea as the symptoms as the systems subsided and went away.

I drank only ONE can of diet Dr. Pepper and it brought the symptoms back within 30 minutes. I can and have repeated that "test" to see if the sensitivity remains. After 15 years it sill does.

Currently I drink about 4-5 cups of Green Tea each day and never experience the symptoms.

Concerning the claim that Rumsfeld was never at R.G.Serle I offer these URLs, which says otherwise:
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript. aspx?transcriptid=3427
and this one which states he was the HEAD of the company... ...
He even took out a few years from 1977 to 1985 to make a living, and a very good living I might add, as the very successful head of G.D. Serle & Company
http://www.cfr.org/publication/6001/meeting_with_s ecretary_of_defense_donald_h_rumsfeld.html
and the 1985 Congressional Record: https://web.lexis-nexis.com/congcomp

Searle was being investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice for attempting to defraud the FDA into approving artificial aspartame as a safe artificial sweetener when lab tests proved it was a neurotoxic, carcinogenic drug. He was able to pull political strings to get Searle out of legal trouble and influenced President Reagan's appointment of Arthur Hull Hayes as FDA Commissioner to politically approve the sale of aspartame in 1981--over the objections of FDA scientists, independent researchers and consumer safety advocates. Monsanto bought Searle for $2.7 billion in 1985, and the Searle family walked away with about $1 billion. Rumsfeld's take was about $12 million.

OR
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0612/15/sit room.01.html
When he was CEO of a company, he took a company over, G.D. Serle, a pharmaceutical company, that was -- it was dying. And he fired people, he reorganized it, he turned it around, he brought synergies in ...

Now we know what the "synergies" were... his own people planted at the FDA to push approval of Aspartame through.

Several soft drink companies and Nutrasweet were taken to court in April of 2004 but I haven't heard how the case is going.

Then, there is this little bit of info about bird flu and Rumsfeld
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0312-06.ht m

"Upon entering office in January of 2001, President Bush inherited from the Clinton administration a policy of regime change. That policy was based upon the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act (P.L. 105-338), which stated, "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." This policy was unanimously approved by the Senate and strongly supported by the Clinton administration.

Not two months after he signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law, President Clinton delivered an address to the nation explaining his decision to order air strikes against Iraqi military targets. He discussed the potential long-term threat posed by Saddam Hussein, stating,

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam Hussein remains in power, he threatens the well- being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with the new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. ". . . Heavy as they are, the costs of inaction must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."

Considering they're not a country... or a city... or in any way organized enough to really have some sort of location that can be targeted.

The US did not depend on 678 - they considered 1441 the loophole they needed. Resolution 1441 did not authorize the use of force. In fact, both the U.S. ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, and the UK ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, gave assurances that the resolution provided no "automaticity", no "hidden triggers". The US and UK ambassadors agreed that 1441 included no step to invasion without consultation of the Security Council. The US was keenly aware of this and tried desperately to get UN approval via a new resolution, but they could not. And keep in mind that both Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei had just given the UN reports that further undercut the US push for war - they had found nothing worthy of concern and wanted more time to continue the inspections. The American attack forced the weapons inspectors back out of the country. Don't get me wrong - Saddam was jerking around the international community and playing games with the system. Some of those on the Security Council refusing to authorize war were profitting from illegal deals with Iraq. However, none of that gives the US the right to launch a war of aggression against another sovereign nation.

I disagree for two reasons. First, the US and their allies certainly did rely on UNSEC #678 and UNSEC #687. Here is an op-ed by a State Department ambassador laying out the exact same case. You can find the same rational from Australia, The UK, and even the National Security Council, among others.

Second, UNSEC #1441 specifically recalled and reaffirmed UNSEC #678 and UNSEC #687 which gave authorization to use force, and deplored the fact that Iraq was in "material breach" of the requirements in UNSEC #687.

You mean the Al-Samoud 2 missiles that were declared to the UN in December of 2002 and were considered a violation because they could potentially exceed the 150 km range limit by 30 km? The same Al-Samoud 2 missiles that Iraq was in the process of destroying when the US invasion occurred?

Bingo. They declared these weapons to the UN in December of 2002, but had been banned from possessing them or developing them 12 years prior to that. The fact that it took a carrier group parked on their doorstep in the Gulf to make this declaration is hardly comforting.

I have to admit that I'm at a loss to explain your "North Korean No Dong 2000km ballistic missiles" comment. I'm not aware of any reports about No Dong missiles in Iraq and I can't find anything on Google. No Dong missiles do not even have a 2000 km range.

This information is directly pulled from the 2004 Duelfer report:
Iraq entered into negotiations with North Korean and Russian entities for more capable missile systems. Iraq and North Korea in 2000 discussed a 1,300-km-range missile, probably the No Dong, and in 2002 Iraq approached Russian entities about acquiring the Iskander-E short-range ballistic missile (SRBM).

My apologies about the mis-information on the range, however 1300km is still well above the 150km limit.

Again, I'm at a loss. The Duelfer report was considered a scathing rebuke of American rhetoric and propaganda. It indicated that Saddam wanted to restart his weapons programs as soon as the sanctions were lifted, but I don't think that was disallowed. The report demonstrated that his nuclear program was in shambles, and his chemical and biological programs nonexistent. And why do you guys love to reference David Kay's interim repor

The cost of the Iraq war is a pimple on the behind of either the American economy, or the US Government budget. The annual costs of the Iraq war are on the order of $100-150 billion. The US Government budget is $2 trillion. The US economy is on the order of $12 trillion. From an economic perspective, the cost of Iraq is an annoyance, nothing more. The US Army during the Vietnam war was 3x its current size. During WW2, it was 16x larger while the country was half its current size. Militarily the Iraq war is uncomfortable for the current size of the Army and the policies they want to keep, but that is about all.

Iran isn't simply provoking Israel, its President is making statements suggesting a threat of genocide that even various Arab governments condemn. Maybe you can understand why the Jewish state might be sensitive to that? Or, maybe not. I can't imagine you advocate them accepting annihilation just to keep the peace.

Europe has been taking the lead on the Iran problem*, and is failing. Is that because Europeans want oil priced in Euros, a nuclear armed Iran (soon) with missiles capable of reaching Europe (now), they are simply feckless, or maybe the Iranian government is run by fanatics who have an agenda of their own that they value above Europe's carrots & sticks?

Wars tend to start when one country attacks another. Iran has been sponsoring terrorism across the region, providing arms to Iraqi insurgents, and is making threats against other countries. That isn't a recipe for peace.

By the way, how does suicide bombing work into this? Since we "know" that religion isn't involved, but oil is, how do they convince suicide bombers to do it? Do they offer to bury the bomber's remains in pure kerosene or something?

* Yet more evidence of US unilateralism.

Condi Rice served as National Security Council staff director for Soviet and East European affairs in Bush 41's administration.

kdawson really seems to like this topic... as pointed out in the summary, this was slashdotted two weeks ago on her watch.

This submission, furthermore, stems from "plasmacutter". In a mini-flame war between he and I (note - this is in response to my post, yes), he goes on to claim that:

- Foreign Affairs, a publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, Policy Review, and the Christian Science Monitor "have been thoroughly debunked as extreme right" (I'd love to know who did that bit of debunking, and just how they determine what's "extreme right") while considering Al Franken to be an "influential political thinker". (source)

- Apparently believes anyone who has a Ph.D., particularly in the political sciences (I realize the social sciences aren't popular here on /., but when one is discussing election results/poll data, they're the best source) must belong to the "elite echelons" of the upper class (Also... people with Ph.D's in fields like those you are speaking about also tend to be in the elite echelons of the upper class, because those degrees tend to cost you more money than you make from them (without the right connections, of course.. wink wink).. and you wander why they espouse elitist right wing values and are listened to by elitist right wing leaders? (source). I got a good laugh out of this then, and still do, especially considering my top 3 favorite political science professors are, in order: 1. a Democrat, 2. a Green, and finally 3. a Republican. And I attend one of the most conservative universities in the entire U.S.

The submitter of the previous story was similarly a bit off his rocker.

In short, what we have here is kdawson publishing pretty much anything he or she likes about this matter to stir up debate and ad clicks, and all of it coming from that bastion of journalism, that peer-reviewed gem of western society, Rolling Stone.

Surely Slashdot can do better than this. There are LOTS of topics of interest to the left that could be covered in a decent manner. Why kdawson keeps banging away on this one note is baffling to me.

George H. W. Bush promised King Fahd that the troops would be removed after the Gulf War. They were not. Removing the troops wouldn't have been "giving into Bin Ladin's demands", it would have been keeping his damn promise.

No, I just ignore "facts" from right-wing websites with as much credibility as Baghdad Bob. Which is about all that turns up if you Google for "saddam hussein terrorism".

• The UN Security Council ("Deploring threats made by Iraq during the recent conflict to make use of terrorism against targets outside Iraq" and "Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory")
  
• President Clinton ("In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists")
  
• President Clinton's State Department ("Iraq continued to plan and sponsor international terrorism in 1999").
  
• The Council on Foreign Relations ("Saddam Hussein's dictatorship provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups...")
  
• President Jimmy Carter, who placed Iraq on the State Department list of State Sponsors of Terrorism in 1979
  
• Vladimir Putin, who warned us in 2002 that Iraq was plotting terrorist attacks against the United States

As always, thanks for the laughs.

Most of your post is simply too absurd to bother with responding to, but I'll have some fun while I'm here:

First, naom chomsky and Al Franken are influential political thinkers.. or maybe lies and lying liars didnt make it to the the top 10 best sellers list?

So, I should read Ann Coulter as well? Great! She's influential! Stupid, but influential! She's on a top 10 list!

By influential, I mean people that write things policy makers read and have some hope of being implemented: Samuel Huntington, Francis Fukuyama, Scott Sagan, John Mueller, Thomas Friedman, et al. People with doctorates in relevant fields, people who have worked on this. People who have done analysis or worked in the field. Not op/ed page dwellers that make a quick buck off of political rantings. Not linguistics professors who have made a living writing rants that find a home amongst Marxists.

Finally.. that whole rant just pegged you as an extreme neofascist right wing nutter.

Help, mommy, he's calling me names! Oooh... fascist. The left's favorite word! I'm so scared by it, ooooooh!

Those publications you seem to sarcastically laud in your shameless frothing rant have been thoroughly debunked as extreme right, and it's been shown from first hand witnesses that anything opposed to the right wing agenda since '01 has been kept out of the main stream by zealous editors, corporate chiefs, etc because it would be "bad for america"...

The Council on Foreign Relations has been "debunked as extreme right"? Are you really so stupid as to say something like that? No, seriously, if you post in response, I'd like you to type exactly those words - "The CFR has been debunked as an extreme right organization". They'll make a great sig for me. Do you have any idea what you're talking about? I mean at all? Have you heard of these publications? Read them? Or is anything other than The Nation simply a right-wing rag? Who, precisely, has debunked these publications? Where is your evidence? Oh wait... you don't need any... BUSH SUCKS, FASCIST!

Make Social Security insoluble. Great. Pardon me as I run for the ballot box...

better than making it "nonexistant".. by the way making it actually worth something to people by reforming it and undoing bush's rediculous privatization does not necessarily mean making it insoluble.. it may however mean that corporate executives will have to get 3 solid gold hum-v's this year instead of 4.

Yes, we should really stick with the present social security system, which is bound for failure in the next few decades, just to make sure no one gets "solid gold hum-v's" (which should be HMMWV, but hey, it's not like you're concerned with accuracy). Riiiiight...

Social Security will, effectively, become "nonexistent" unless massive reforms are made. Personally, since you're so concerned about rights and freedoms (vis-a-vis your position on the PATRIOT act), if the government wants to invest money in a retirement account for me, I'd like the choice of where that money goes rather than trusting the government (something you obviously have issues with) to put it into a system which depends on birth rates the U.S. is highly unlikely to sustain in the long-term.

Take a look at similar programs in countries whose present birth rate reflects what the U.S. birth rate will be in a few decades - here's a hint, it's not pretty. For someone who's supposedly so concerned about government intervention in our lives, working against a program that would allow people to exercise some freedom over how THEIR money is spent for THEIR retirement rather than just placing it all in a system that will not be able to provide for them in a few decades would seem to make sense. But your positions aren't based on personal consistency - simply arguing the contrary of what someone you don't like says.

As to the rest... heh, thanks for the laughs. It was a boring boring BORING (as you seem to like to type it) repeat of the gibberish found throughout the left and about as enlightening as reading a Franken/Chomsky/Coulter/Limbaugh debate.

Well, first of all, I said that Iraq was one of the largest state sponsors of terror, not one of the largest state sponsors of Al Qaeda. If you haven't seen a "shred of proof" about this, I have no idea where you were looking. Iraq was on the State Department's "State Sponsors of Terrorism" list for the better part of two decades. Iraq and Hussein provided open support for many internationally recognized terrorist organizations, including Abu Nadal, Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, Carlos the Jackal, PKK, Ansar al-Islam, and Hamas to name a few. The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) was also implicated in several terrorism plots, including the attempted bombing of a radio tower in Prague, and the attempted assassination of a former US President. This is why the legislature passed a resolution in 1998 stating that "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime", which happens to be exactly what George Bush is doing right now.

However, there are still concrete links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The Clinton State Department issued an Indictment of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden in 1998, charging that "al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq". This came after Saddam Hussein offered political asylum to Bin Laden after he was expelled from Saudi Arabia and left Afghanistan.

Not to mention the fact that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other Al Qaeda fighters were allowed to set up and operate Ansar al-Islam within Iraqi borders following Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan in December 2001, and that Mohammed Atta had allegedly met with ISS officials in Prague in April 2001.

Feeding the troll, perhaps, but if by "most of their money" you mean less than 1% of gross domestic product, then perhaps you would care to explain your innovative new system of mathematics to the rest of us.

>provide proof

The Council Of American islamic relations (a front for the terrorist lobby):

http://www.cfr.org/publication/10356/tracking_down _terrorist_financing.html#2
http://www.anti-cair-net.org/
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3437
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/394

Enough proof there...

They even tried to shut anti-cair up, but no dice

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3511
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.a sp?ID=18919

Some Muslim organizations in the United States have also condemned CAIR. Sheik Muhammad Hisham Kabbani of the Islamic Supreme Council of America (ISCA) denounced CAIR, saying: "There are many Muslim organizations that claim to speak on behalf of the Muslim community but that in reality are not moderate, but extremist."

Seif Ashmawy, an Egyptian Muslim and peace activist, who published the "Voice of Peace" newsletter about Muslim affairs, said: "It is a known fact that CAIR has defended, apologized for, and rationalized the actions of extremists groups ... The real challenge for moderates like myself is to prevent my Muslim brethren from being deceived by extremist groups that pretend to represent their interests."

Steven Pomerantz, former FBI assistant director and chief of the FBI's counter-terrorism section, once charged that CAIR's activities "effectively give aid to international terrorist groups." Other American Muslim leaders have raised questions about their possible alliances with radical groups, and many academics are disturbed by the groups' prominence.

On February 2, 1995, CAIR advisory board member Imam Siraj Wahaj was accused by the United States Department of Justice as one of several "unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators in the attempt to blow up New York City monuments," including the World Trade Center in 1993. He was a character witness during convicted Islamic terrorist Omar Abdel-Rahman's World Trade Center bombing trial.

Convicted Members of CAIR

A number of other CAIR officials have been charged with, and some convicted of, offenses related to the support of Islamist terrorism.

In December, 2001, Rabih Haddad, a CAIR fundraiser, was charged and deported from the United States because he was the executive director and co-founder of Global Relief Foundation, a terrorist front organization that for financing Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

On December 18, 2002, Ghassan Elashi, a founding board member of CAIR-Texas and a co-founder of the Holy Land Foundation, was arrested by the FBI on charges of having ties with front groups that fund Islamic terrorism. In 2005, Elashi and two of his brothers were convicted on 21 counts of federal terrorism charges related to funding Hamas and the illegal export of electronics equipment to U.S. State Department-designated state sponsors of terrorism.

In January 2003, CAIR's director of community relations and founder of the Islamic Assembly of North America, Bassem Khafagi, was arrested by the FBI on charges of having ties to front groups that fund Islamist terrorism. Khafagi pleaded guilty to charges of visa and bank fraud, and agreed to be deported to Egypt.

In August 2003, CAIR's former civil-rights coordinator, Randall "Ismail" Royer, along with ten other men known as the "Virginia jihad group" were indicted on 41 counts, including training and participating in jihad activities overseas. The group had connections with Lashkar-e-Taiba and five of them possessed AK-47-style rifles and hundreds of rounds of ammunition. Four of th

Can you show me any short paragraphs or excerpts from your well documented evidence? Or will it be a link to a 5 page article full of vague accusations?

A few minutes with Google provides more than enough citations, even after excluding those from lefty publications:

CBS News says "Mr. Bush appreciates loyalty above all."

In Military Week, Lt. Col (ret) Karen Kwiatkowski lays it on the line: "George W. Bush and Dick Cheney habitually reward cowardice and incompetence. They continually place political loyalty above ethics and loyalty to country."

The British Guardian quotes Michael O'Hanlon saying "I certainly think Bush values loyalty above all else."

Time Magazine says "For a President known to prize loyalty above most else..."

The Washington Post says: "But on a matter of first-order significance to many conservatives, the president let personal loyalty override what had been a central tenet of his political strategy."

The St. Cloud Times says: "George W. Bush's particular brand of immoderation lies in the premium he places on trust and loyalty". It goes on to cite Alberto Gonzalez, Karen Hughes and Don Evans as examples. Of course we can add Harriet Meiers and Michael Brown to that list.

In a Newsday story, James Klurfield writes "What's going on here, folks, is that loyalty to the president is being rewarded above all other values, including competent performance."

The Council on Foreign Relations has an entire article called Loyalty as Foreign Policy

The New Republic says "...Moreover, both Johnson and Bush have been known to place a high premium on personal loyalty."

You can look at the whole of a Knight Ridder wire article entitled Bush's Loyalty Raises Doubts About His Political Judgment.

The British newspaper The Telegraph says "...Mr Tenet, who, like President Bush, prizes loyalty above most other virtues..."

I think I've made my point. You can find more for yourself with minimal effort if you care to.

So you think Iraq isn't producing any oil? All Your claims make me think you are an Conservative. Sorry for that insult.

"EXACT SAME GARBAGE". :-) I'm glad to see there's at least some people who are awake.

When Craig Whitney on the Council on Foreign Relations admitted that the whole Weapons of Mass Destructions in Iraq deal was a scam and he, along with Charles Duelfer, announced that the USA would first attack Iran and then North Korea on May 24, 2005 in New York, he blurred out: "But we now know that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction to speak of in 2003, when we went to war. Does it matter to Americans that our country went to war on a false premise?"

Guess not, because in the very same briefing, minutes later, Charles Duelfer said:

"Secondly, and we describe this in some detail in the report, there was a greater concern than we could appreciate sitting here in Washington of the threat posed by Iran. And we just, you know, that our gut feeling for that was not the same as the gut feeling one would have sitting in Baghdad, where you had invaded and killed a lot of those people, and then every once in a while they were throwing rockets at you, so there was an ongoing conflict there. And Saddam was certainly aware of the WMD assessments of Iran and he created intentionally a certain ambiguity about what his capabilities were. So there were mixed motivations."

http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=8157

(for those of you who haven't realized it, the Council on Foreign Relations is the primary political institution of the power elite in the USA and behind the facade controls both political parties)

Well, at least our friendly Bush administration has something in common with Communist China:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/09/19/AR2005091901570.html

Now who knows what other similiarities they have? Perhaps we'll find out that they actually torture prisoners in secret locations to fight the war on terror, similiar as China tortures a diverse range of seperatists for their own "war on terror":

http://www.cfr.org/publication/4765/chinas_war_on_ terror.html?breadcrumb=default

Nothing to see here, move along people!

Kosovo was NOT a unilateral UN move. Russia was hotly against it and was appalled at the action taken. Germany in turn was concerned at Russia's response.

We are *done* in Kosovo. When Clinton was selling the war to the American people, all the Republican congresspeople and right-wing pundits said this was going to be Clinton's Vietnam, that we were entering a quagmire, etc. etc. Guess what? Situation is peaceful.

It's not hard to have peaceful results when your goals are minimal. We didn't even send in troops. Fact of the matter is that Kosovo was strategically and economically unimportant, and the action taken was an inconsequential exercise of military effort. Clinton's touted "reason" for taking action was "humanitarian reasons". If this be the case, any number of other countries could be seen as similar targets. Why did he not go into any of them as well? Are they not similar arguments you see posted against Bush these days? (ala, "Why Iraq? Why not Country X?")

Read up on some 1999 public opinion of Clinton's military excursions here and here

The parallels are incredibly amusing. So much that people bitch about Bush about today they were bitching about Clinton back in 1999. There were virtually identical claims way back in 1999 that Kosovo would see a dramatic decline in European confidence in American leadership due to international outcry about the bombings.

We have had no combat fatalities in Kosovo. We are done and the war is over. Service people have died, but not because of enemy combatants and insurgents

True, but you're trying to compare a ground war + 3 year occupation to a FOUR MONTH PERIOD in which no ground force was present and our only intervention involved bomb dropping, much of which was done in unmanned vehicles. Kosovo wasn't a war, it was a skirmish.

Clinton never lied to the American people

Some would argue he was just a better liar. That's why people never recognized him as such.

Bush's team had absolutely no plan for reconstructing Iraq, and they have no plan to this day

Anything to back up this claim with?

2000+ soldiers have died, and there is no end in sight. The violence it getting worse, not better. The military is stretched to their limits. This cannot continue without instituting a draft

Say what? Now you're just trying to be sensationalistic.

1737 combat deaths so far (not 2000+), since that's the yardstick you're using with Clinton.
No end in sight? Every day, more Iraqi security forces are trained. For every Iraqi squadron that can be deployed effectively, a U.S. squadron can be pulled back. Some reports are here or here.

And of COURSE the military "can continue" without a draft. They're still fighting over there now, right? That's "continuing." Now, whether or not we could fight _another_ war is a different story, though I'm pretty sure we still could without a draft. But it wouldn't be pleasant on the economy. You act as if Iraq is a growing effort instead of the resource sink it actually is. The current alotment of soldiers we have there now is the MAX we will have there. If the numbers will go anywhere, they will go DOWN. There's already talk of limited pullout.

FDR packed the supreme court and installed himself for an unprecedented 3rd time. Talk about abuse of power. But, he got us in a good position to win WWII, and his New Deal programs modernized the US, so that now America is a modern industrial country

And thats becouse the big media has brainwashed american people into doing/agreeing to what ever they see on cnn/fox/or any other joe blow talk show host might tell them.

But how could this be? You may Ask. Well simple look who makes up the general though and direction as to where the american Ruling Elite is steering too. http://www.cfr.org/about/board.php/ These are the very people that control ALL MAJOR MEDIA OUTLETS!!!

"And I am here to tell you that there is not going to be any other nation on Earth that's going to accept the U.S. developing something they see as the death star. It's not going to happen. And people are going to find ways to target it and it's going to create a huge problem. I don't think the United States would find it very comforting if China were to develop a death star, a 24/7 on-orbit weapon that could strike at targets on the ground anywhere in 90 minutes."

http://www.cfr.org/ The Council on Foreign Relations tries to present non-partisan information on matters global.

The Council on Foreign Relations has an FAQ about torture, especially in relation to the events at Abu Ghraib. It seems to be a solid, non-partisan source of information, with primary sources hyperlinked in-line.

Well, if you're a conservative it might be tough to convince you, but it's admirable though that you're willing to hear and consider different points of view. While Dean has been branding himself as a liberal, in truth his record is very moderate. Three main reasons I support him are economics, national security, and foreign policy.

On economics, Bush has given huge tax cuts to the rich and not cut spending at all. This has turned our biggest surplus in history to our biggest deficit. In fact, while on the surface he cuts taxes, his economic stewardship in fact is causing states to rise taxes, effectively increasing taxes for the lower and middle classes. Dean is a fiscal conservative. He believes strongly in a balanced budget and often fought off Democrats in the Vermont legislature who wanted to increase spending, because he believes fiscal discipline is important. He wants a national health care plan but it costs much less than the Iraqi occupation will cost and much less than the tax cuts, and also less than Dick Gephardt's plan.

On national security, I believe that contrary to popular perception, Bush is very weak. Bush has stifled the 9/11 commission that was investigating our intelligence failures. The non-partisan Council of Foreign Relations believes that the terrorist threat is greater and ever and that there isn't enough spending on security. I believe that Bush has simply exploited 9/11 in order to further his own agenda rather than making us safer. Also, I believe that Bush has made the Justice Department too powerful and given law enforcement way too much power. I am somewhat of a social libertarian and I believe that if government has too much power it will tend to abuse it. Dean's plan I think would do a lot more to improve our national security.

The last thing is foreign policy. Bush's policy of pre-emption is very dangerous and is alienating the entire world and creating bad precedents. Bush manipulated intelligence reports in order to make the case for the Iraqi war and now his facts are crumbling and the CIA is very upset. This has become a scandal in Britain, where the media is more open. Dean opposed the Iraqi war not because he thought Saddam was a good person but because he thought we risked alienating the rest of the world and because he thought Iraq didn't pose a threat to us. Dean would make America a leader in the world and maintain our military supremacy but he would work with the world community, not against it. For example, if we gave Iraq a bit more time we might have been able to create a multinational coalition that would greatly reduce the nation building costs. We will be there for ten years at tens of billions of dollars per year and it's using up half our military, threatening our security and costing lives, all for an exaggerated threat.

Dean often comments that Bush has forgotten ordinary people, and I believe that Bush is more concerned with his special interests than helping the American people. Dean is a man of the people, willing to speak what he thinks, even when it goes against his party line. He's honest and has a proven track record from his time in Vermont. I think he'd make a great President.

The trends in the government toward an Orwellian society sinerely worry me. Ashcroft and Bush have exploited 9/11 in order to pass many new laws that curb the openness of American society. They do all this under the guise of "national security" -- and yet we are not any more secure -- the non-partisan Council of Foreign Relations recently put out a report, saying that "Nearly two years after 9/11, the United States is drastically underfunding local emergency responders and remains dangerously unprepared to handle a catastrophic attack on American soil, particularly one involving chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-impact conventional weapons. If the nation does not take immediate steps to better identify and address the urgent needs of emergency responders, the next terrorist incident could be even more devastating than 9/11."

Our state of government is corrupt. Politicians are being bribed left and right in order to allow the big-media to consolidate even more, in order to pass DMCA type legislation, and in order to pass acts such as the PATRIOT Act, which should have been named the Big Brother Act. They are even creating Orwellian agencies such as the Total Information Awareness program (renamed to the Terrorism Information Awareness system, in hopes that this would help them fool the public on its purposes).

This is a farce. We need a new leader who will restore American values to this country. I personally think Howard Dean is our best chance at restoring this country to what it was (a good example of what he stands for is in his speech titled "The Great American Restoration", but in all honestly, almost anyone would be preferable to the anti-American Bush cabal.

I mean, yeah, there are the obvious reasons, such as:

• Health research will take forever, so all these nanotech companies will be out of business by the time research is completed.
• Nanotech businesses need to start selling their products in order to turn a profit. Waiting for research to proceed will, again, put these companies out of business.

The government wants development of nano-scale technologies so it can control its people, followed by the entire world. Ever heard of the CFR? It is the Council on Foreign Relations, and it is this entity that has pulled the strings behind the scenes of all presidencies since the Federal Reserve Bank and the Internal Revenue Service were created illegally. Do your research and you'll find that just about everybody who is (or has been) in any position of power in this country is (or was) a member of the CFR.

Whatever they say, the real mission of this organization is to take control of the entire world. It will look something like 1984... but techniques for taking over the world have failed over the centuries. Communism had a Great Purge and introduced, among other things, terrorism into the world. Do your research and you'll find that all the terrorism in the world originated in Communism. The idea was to scare the entire world so much that everybody would give up their freedoms in exchange for security. The Communist Party, as it would have been, would have "protected" everyone, much like how the Mafia will "protect" you from itself if you pay extortion. Other schemes have failed similarly.

The CFR is doing things differently. They are taking one small step at a time, slowly... very slowly. Nobody but a few computer geeks will ever notice that we are all 1% less free today than, say, ten years ago. And it has been, what? 70 years? The CFR is not using any specifically defined method to take over the world. They use whatever comes along. Video cameras are invented, so these are installed in every corner drugstore, restaurant, grocery store, police station, mall, and what-have-you. A number of people believe in the "Mark of the Beast," a technology that, in the end of days, will be implanted in every person's body. This technology would work in conjunction with satellites, GPS, communications technologies, etc. It would hold your money in the form of credits, as money is not backed by gold or anything else for that matter. It would hold your medical records. It would be so convenient because children could no longer be lost or kidnapped... and criminals could no longer get away with their crimes. In effect, it would take away all shadows of privacy. Already, this is beginning to take place. Increasingly, people are getting tatooes and body piercing, essentially getting used to the idea of artificial things placed in their bodies. It's only one step away to implant a convenient, tiny electronic device. And there would be no refusing it anyway, as cash would no longer be accepted anywhere, nor would credit cards or other methods of payment. Nanotechnology serves the purposes of government, as technologies could be sprayed into the air everywhere around the world. People would breathe these into their bodies and the government would know exactly where there are people who do not have "the mark." This is only one example. Many horrifying things could come of this.

Global warming may hit the third world harder than the US, but the US will be affected too. It does not look to be worthwhile to take Draconian measures to reduce emissions, but a middle road looks economically feasible.
Unfortunately, Kyoto is not the middle of the road.

Did anyone in your class have any suggestions other than simply allowing atmospheric CO2 to grow without limit? It's easy to criticize the Kyoto treaty. It's another to try to come up with a constructive and realistic alternative.
The issue for Kyoto is being tied into something which is detrimental to our citizens. While there is wide support for reducing CO2 emissions themselves, being forced into it is not a viable option. To force businesses to comply would be an undue burden on many of them. So the solution is to find the middle ground. Kyoto will never be signed by the US. However, another agreement might be, so long as it is equitable.

Another issue when dealing with Global warming or CO2 emissions is the fact that there is no immediate return to the enormous investment. We can spend billions to reduce CO2 emissions, but we will not see any result in our lifetime. These measures are an investment in our future, and that is difficult to convey to many people. Realize that it is not all-or-nothing issue. We can take steps to reduce emissions without being tied to Kyoto.

Here is a map of CO2 emissions in relation to Kyoto.

The following is a recently published book on Kyoto: The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol and the Struggle to Slow Global Warming

If anyone wants more info regarding Kyoto, just e-mail me or reply to this post, and I will get you more links.
----

There's a great organization, which is easily the most funded secret organization in existance. Unlike some secret societies (which are highly secretive), this one is somewhat public. Not in membership or what they talk about, mind you, but in their results. This organization's decisions visibly shape American foreign policy. They even have a periodical, Foreign Affairs, with article which, though seemingly bipartisan (laugh now), are so close to each other in terms of political POV that they are the same. Amazing to me is that they have a website with public access.... (Just don't believe the bulldrek.) This organization consists of some of the more important business, political, and military leaders of the nation, as well as no small number of NY Times journalists, who serve as background on the NY Times massive policy reviews, once they are announced. In 1972, there was a quote, which boiled down to there not being a damn's worth of difference between CFR Candidate Nixon and CFR Candidate Humphrey. That situation exists today with CFR Candidate Gore, Jr. and CFR Candidate Bush, Jr. That's why I am encouraging everyone who prefers to have a better life online and in the real world to vote for Ralph Nader. Click the link below, and you get to see where he's going, and show your support. Remember: The real majority in this country consists of people who don't vote. Make your voice heard, unless you like living in a country for the GM's, by the Exxon's, and of the GE's instead of for, by, and of the people.