Slashdot Mirror

If you're naïve enough to believe that the world is ready for a global organization that can enforce it's wishes on sovereign nations, maybe you should consider some of the idiocy that's come from the UN previously.

https://www.unwatch.org/from-t...
https://www.globalpolicy.org/c...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
   

Oh, and THIS, demonstrating how Bremer et al were hand picking the Interim Government who had authority to permit, or ban, any party or person running for office in that sham election

There have been experiments in this before. Here's one in a small village in Namibia: Otjivero
It seems everyone thought it was a success except the local farmers who enjoyed the large pool of minimum wage labour. There's no indication that they actually lost out but they feared they would.

Actually that was not the statement that got him killed. It was his attempt to trade oil in EUR instead of USD.

https://www.globalpolicy.org/c...
http://www.monetary.org/was-th...

I never fail to find the bravado and hubris underlying American exceptionalism... exceptional.

Land of the free... as long as you're not in one of our many many prisons ( http://nomadcapitalist.com/201... ), which has a higher per capita incarceration rate than Cuba, which is second on the list. Oh, and speaking of Cuba, there's always http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G....

Home of the brave... because you'd be pretty brave too if your military budget was larger than the nearest eight other countries combined ( http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/... )

Where all men are created equal... except, of course, when they're not ( http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ru... ) and a man can make something from himself even if he starts out life with nothing (but probably not): http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/0... )

And where the rule of law is universal and sacrosanct... except in those cases where it's not convenient ( https://www.globalpolicy.org/u... ) and ( https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying... )

Oh well, enjoy your "freedoms".

This makes about as much sense as when the Clinton administration opened trade with China by personally promising reforms in Chinese government and an increase in Chinese demand for American cars and products, leading to an increase in manufacturing jobs. Yep, makes perfect sense.

We stood idly by while Saddam expended huge quantities of chemical weapons.

Personally that may be true. On a bigger scale, we (the United States) provided helped them deploy the chemical weapons.

Our governments (US and UK) knew very well what Saddam had, and what Saddam was capable of.

We certainly should have known what Saddam had and was capable of. First, we helped put the Ba'ath party in to power. During the Iran / Iraq war, we helped them financially and with intelligence information. Then, we sold the precursors of chemical weapons to them and provided reconnaissance intelligence that was used in their deployment. Why else would Donald Rumsfeld be smiling as he shook Saddams hand in 1983?

You will note, I hope, that I've said nothing in Saddam Hussein's defense. I have ONLY pointed out how dishonest our own governments are.

And here is more evidence supporting that supposition.

we could be quite certain the Israelis and Brits would get beat up with us

You are joking right? You do realise that in 2001, 75% of the British public did not want to be part of the Afghan war. http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/154/26553.htm1

From your linked article:

The biggest poll of world opinion was carried out by Gallup International in 37 countries in late September (Gallup International 2001). It found that apart from the US, Israel and India a majority of people in every country surveyed preferred extradition and trial of suspects to a US attack.

This was what we wanted as well. Then the Taliban told us to go fuck ourselves. Then we blew the shit out of them. Every country in the world either got behind us or was at least smart enough to get out of the way of the injured, rabid, bulldog that Afghanistan had just poked with a stick.

I'm with you in that Iraq was unjustified and stupid and nobody had any business in that mess (least of all the U.S.), and you can argue that Afghanistan has been poorly managed, but that initial invasion was inevitable and pretty thoroughly justified.

To connect up with a more current possibility - if North Korea were to do something as thoroughly boneheaded as the launch and detonate a nuclear weapon at the western seaboard of the United States I am absolutely certain that Britain, Israel, and probably the majority of the free world would jump on board with an invasion. Heck, if NK was that utterly stupid, China would probably bitch slap them for it.

we could be quite certain the Israelis and Brits would get beat up with us

You are joking right?
You do realise that in 2001, 75% of the British public did not want to be part of the Afghan war.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/154/26553.htm1

That 1 Million people (1 in 60 of the population of the country) went to London to protest against the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_February_2003_anti-war_protest

That parliament only voted for war because Tony Blair (subsequently one of the most vilified prime ministers in modern times) outright lied to parliament.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodgey_Dossier

Sorry to bust your bubble.... but Britain & the rest of Europe isn't prepared to unilaterally support the US in war as you seem to believe. Thankfully, support for such wars is very much lacking by the majority of educated, intelligent Americans in your own country too.

Only conspiracy theorists could come up with the option that it was only a way to put oil resources between American hands. Crazy.

Yeah, in particular since most of the oil from the Middle East goes to Europe, Japan, and Asia.

Please, stick to the facts.

The first Google search result for "oil extraction Iraq" gives: Oil in Iraq

Thanks

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/secret-airlift-of-nuclear-mate
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/tuwaitha.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/168/37640.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2856647.stm
http://www.mediamonitors.net/gowans36.html

That should get you started. Learn to use a search engine AC.

I hope they will be put to a life time sentence without a parole, in a cell.

Americans don't do time for their war crimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

As of March 2010[update], 111 states are members of the Court,[7][8][9] and a further 38 countries have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute.[7]
However, a number of states, including China, India, Russia and the United States, are critical of the court and have not joined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_Parties_to_the_Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court#United_States

In 2002, the U.S. Congress passed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA), which contained a number of provisions, including prohibitions on the U.S. providing military aid to countries which had ratified the treaty establishing the court (exceptions granted), and permitting the President to authorize military force to free any U.S. military personnel held by the court, leading opponents to dub it the "Hague Invasion Act."
The act was later modified to permit U.S. cooperation with the ICC when dealing with U.S. enemies.

The U.S. has also made a number of Bilateral Immunity Agreements (BIAs, also known as "Article 98 Agreements") with a number of countries, prohibiting the surrender to the ICC of a broad scope of persons including current or former government officials, military personnel, and U.S. employees (including non-national contractors) and nationals.
None of these agreements preclude the prosecution of Americans by any nation where they are believed to have committed any crime.
As of 2 August 2006, the US Department of State reported that it had signed 101 of these agreements.[30]
The United States has cut aid to many countries which have refused to sign BIAs.[30]

In 2002, the United States threatened to veto the renewal of all United Nations peacekeeping missions unless its troops were granted immunity from prosecution by the Court.[31]
In a compromise move, the Security Council passed Resolution 1422 on 12 July 2002, granting immunity to personnel from ICC non-States Parties involved in United Nations established or authorized missions for a renewable twelve-month period.[31]
This was renewed for twelve months in 2003 but the Security Council refused to renew the exemption again in 2004, after pictures emerged of US troops abusing Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib, and the US withdrew its demand.[32]

And then people ask why would any nation want or need a nuclear program.

In fact, they didn't. Most of the oil development contracts made last year in Iraq went to EU and Chinese companies. That "Blood for Oil" mantra was mostly BS. See http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/168-general/48444-did-big-oil-win-the-war-in-iraq.html

Especially if you're a private military contractor in Iraq.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5xT1DGJMoQ

DynCorp was operating like that in South America throughout the 1990s. These private military contractors are not held accountable, which is why they're used. They can get away with things the military would have a hard tyme getting away with. And I bet that's one reason Bush pushed to privatize the military. About the only way these corporations can be held accountable is via the Alien Tort Claims Act, which Bush tried to get rid of.

Falcon

No, but every nation with a record like this which has also covertly overthrown dozens of governments and also has a history of ignoring international law and suppressing international opinion absolutely qualifies as an imperial power. Forcing sovereign nations to capitulate to giving up sovereignty through financial pressure falls well within the bounds of imperial behavior.

Embracing ignorance, or in less polite terms, being fucking stupid, cannot change reality.

Iraqis obstructed UN inspections in a way that indicates that they were up to something. They either were, or wanted it to appear that way to start a game of chicken with the US.

There are other possible reasons to obstruct weapons inspections. One could be exactly what the Iraq government actually claimed - that they didn't trust that cooperation would actually get the sanctions lifted: The Iraqis have said they believe that the United States would never agree to a suspension of sanctions but would instead find another reason to keep them in place, making cooperation, in their view, fruitless. Recent confessions from U.K Prime Minister Tony Blair seems to have borne out that position.

If they didn't have WMD, they could have diffused the situation at any time by allowing inspections.

And when they did? Six months later the U.S/U.K invasion happened. Lot of good that did them...

So the fact is that the Iraqis acted deliberately to goad the US into action.

I don't know what you think a "fact" is, but that's an interpretation. Another interpretation was that Iraq thought that the U.S was bluffing, given that many other countries (Russia, France) rejected the U.S position, and they were trying to call that bluff thinking that the U.S would eventually back down from international pressure.

The missing bit of the puzzle is, why? Was there a possible outcome that could have benefited top Iraqi leaders? Was there internal pressure (stupidly) forcing the confrontation?

I'd say the majority of international diplomacy consists of lying, and trying to figure out what the truth about the other guy really is. Given that, it's more than likely that Saddam Hussein and company honestly misunderstood the U.S position (under Clinton, remember, and generally cooperative with the international community as peers, presumably subject to pressure), and thought that a certain amount of beligerance would get the sanctions lifted (if you read the news reports pre-George W. Bush, it really was a completely different world, where the sort of war-hungry savagery of the U.S and U.K really was assumed to be a dead part of the past, and Iraq had the sovereign right to exist, and simply had to be managed until things improved some time into the future).

Remember, post war inspections showed that Iraq had been in essential compliance with the U.N resolutions for years. Compliance was a strong diplomatic card it earned and thought it could play.

Except no western companies got any of the oil contracts from Iraq, not even BHP.

What? A consortium led by BP gained the Rumaila oilfield contract in June of this year (CNPC was the other major oil company in that contract). Many of the other oilfields have not yet been offered.

Shell (Dutch) just won the largest contract so far, but American oil companies have been in the mix of bidding.

But your argument is a bit of a red herring anyway... the fact that the US has failed to win major oil money for the American oil companies does not mean that access to the Iraqi oilfields was not a major consideration in the decision to invade Iraq.

Here's some reading for you.

Why do Americans always seem to have this attitude? It always seems like they want all the benefits from being part of international organisations, but none of the responsibilities.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/images/pdfs/UN_Finance/assesment2009.pdf

I've looked into it. From Wikipedia: "About 4.5% of the troops and civilian police deployed in UN peacekeeping missions come from the European Union and less than one percent from the United States (USA)." The ten biggest troop contributors by country are 8 developing countries, France and Italy. Regarding UN troop funding - the reluctance and tardiness of the US to pay its UN contributions is legendary, and they are currently $1.3bn in arrears.

Possibly because the United States foots a quarter of the funding yearly to the UN and yet does not have a single UN operation on its soil.

Might makes right, eh?

http://nbgazette.com/index.php?entry=entry090910-210927

http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/167/35807.html

That's an entirely different question. The US has a tendency to ignore international agreements that everyone else is signing up to, despite their presence potentially giving the agreements much greater force. The two I'm specifically thinking of are Kyoto and the International Criminal Court. However, it's not unknown for the US to just ignore treaties it has signed up to - see GATS for an example. There are a few other examples here.

Which is exactly why there ought to be legislation of some kind to prohibit the kind of thinking that makes American businesses not required to obey the Constitution when it doesn't involve dealings on American soil. American soil or not, the business operates in America, where such rights are supposedly "protected".

There is such a law that allows foreigners to sue businesses in US courts for wrongs they commit or for which they supported in other countries. The Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) of 1789 was created just for this. It has been used to sue a number businesses, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, and other large corporations have been sued using the ATCA. Shell was sued for supporting the execution of Ken Saro Wiwa and other Nigerian by the Nigerian military rulers. Chevron was sued in LA for the shooting of peaceful protesters at "Chevron's Parabe offshore platform and the destruction of two villages by soldiers in Chevron helicopters and boats" in Nigeria. Of course during his presidency Bush tried to Bush even tried to get the US Supreme Court to disallow human rights violation lawsuits, more evidence he supported torture.

Falcon

I'm sorry but you actually lack proportion and especially perspective. Simple facts: US has engaged in more wars, invaded more countries, dropped more nuclear bombs on cities, has more military bases in foreign countries, and in recent years undermined the international order and stability far more than any other country in the world: http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/155/26024.html

Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of things to like about USA and I agree with most points for example in this article: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmFlMzViMWZmYjY5ZmUzNDg2N2JiMGMxZDllYjA2MmM= . But a peaceful nation who refuses to exercise any semblance of imperialism!? You must be joking.

When talking about necessities like public utilities and so on, we are talking about safe habitation of human life.

And many people consider broadband, which this is about, as necessary. I have been attempting to show that people's definition of what's necessary is different than your definition. B ut you only accept your own version.

Well, no. It's primarily because cities are too crowded to safely have farm animals

Not really, I suggest you read the article thread I'm now going through, Spiraling Skyscraper Farms For a Future Manhattan.

Be whatever the cause may be, the reality is what we have today. It was the reality of yesterday also and the reality of most of the life of the world. Cities are notorious for not having lawns or gardens big enough to support the life of the occupants.

That's because there is no free market. Government policies were designed to drive people out of rural settings and into cities.

Lol.. And it would have nothing to do with the fact that Mexico's economic recovery process involved shipping it's citizens into the US so someone else has to deal with them? The entire Mexico economy is in shambles. It's not the fault of the US or the EU or any other nation, it's their economic system.

BS! Yea it's the government of Mexico's fault they signed NAFTA. If Mexicans had an import duty to raise the cost of corn so Mexican farmers could compeat with subsidized corn from the US then US agriculture businesses could sued Mexico for lost profits. The Canadian business Methanex sued the US when California banned MTBE, a known cancer causer.

It's the lost intercity idiots who get absolutely no help from the government.

Perhaps you don't understand real world economics, but when farmers are driven off the farm because they can't compeat they then move to cities. And when those cities are already crowded some of those resident will themselves move to where they think they have a better chance. Which is what is happening in Mexico. Having said that I agree that the Mexican government can do more to help people.

You really have a naive outlook on the scenario.

No, you're the one who's naive. "Small Farmers Seen Gaining Little from Subsidies". "How Farm Subsidies Harm Taxpayers, Consumers, and Farmers, Too". Groups from those supporting free markets, such as the Heritage Foundation, to socialists agree subsidies harm small farmers more than they help.

when banks started folding during the savings and loan scandal (a lot like present day problems), the banks called the notes on these farms in knowing that they couldn't pay them. You had farmers taking out loans at $1000 an acre to buy combines and build a new home or a new barn on land that was valued at $100 an acre just a year or two before (remind you of the housing bubble?).

And just as with the housing bubble those farmers and wannabe farmers who bought land at high prices are the ones at fault. Most either bought more than they could manage or they did not know what they were getting into.

You then had zoning and tax laws that were either nonexistent or didn't distinguish between residential, commercial, or agriculture uses.

It may surprise you, but I also believe zoning laws and tax laws are bad. Besides railing about the farm subsidies like I have, I've also railed about taxes and zoning. The money people work to earn should not be taxed. Instead there should be a tax on consumption, with one exception, corporations. Since corporations have limited liability, the most most stockholders can loose is how much they invested in the

Egypt has the border blocked because they don't want a war with Israel. You don't need to import the Berlin wall, the Israelis have been building one for years. This is part of the root problem - Gaza is separated from the West bank by Israel, and Israel is blocking access between the Palestinian territories.

And referring to the previous posts about Germany post WW2, the reason Germany has been peaceful since WW2 is due to a) being split into 2 halves for nearly 50 years, and b) being occupied both at the end of the war and for decades afterwards. There was no meaningful occupation after WW1 (excepting the valuable coal fields of course). AFAIK, the US still has bases in Germany now, and Japan, and Iraq and ... well see for yourself.

If the Russians were as widespread militarily as the US is, the US would be firing rockets.

From the article:

His report drew on a 2006 survey by the surgeon general of the Army, which found that fewer than half of soldiers and marines serving in Iraq said that noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect, and 17 percent said all civilians should be treated as insurgents. More than one-third said torture was acceptable under some conditions, and fewer than half said they would report a colleague for unethical battlefield behavior.

If you look at the actual study PDF, though, it seems that the New York Times took some liberties in their paraphrasing. Here's the actual questions:

article: "fewer than half of soldiers and marines serving in Iraq said that noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect"

study: "all non-combatants should be treated with dignity and respect"

article: "all civilians should be treated as insurgents"

study: "all non-combatants should be treated as insurgents" (not sure about this one, but my guess is that the minority who answered positive on this one were thinking along the lines of being on guard at all times, just in case someone who seems innocent is actually planning on harming you)

article: "More than one-third said torture was acceptable under some conditions"

study: "torture should be allowed if it will save the life of a soldier/marine" and "torture should be allowed in order to gather important information about insurgents"

The million dead is not a fallacy, it's confirmed by scientific research:

"The number is shocking and sobering.
It is at least 10 times greater than most estimates cited in the US media, yet it is based on a scientific study of violent Iraqi deaths caused by the U.S.-led invasion of March 2003.
That study, published in prestigious medical journal The Lancet, estimated that over 600,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the invasion as of July 2006. Iraqis have continued to be killed since then. The graphic above provides a rough daily update of this number based on a rate of increase derived from the Iraq Body Count. (See the complete explanation.)
The estimate that over a million Iraqis have died received independent confirmation from a prestigious British polling agency in September 2007. Opinion Research Business estimated that 1.2 million Iraqis have been killed violently since the US-led invasion.
This devastating human toll demands greater recognition. It eclipses the Rwandan genocide and our leaders are directly responsible. Little wonder they do not publicly cite it."

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html

Further the Iraq people don't want us there:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/pollindex.htm

The unconscionable suffering of the Iraqi people and the quite literal trillion dollars down the drain counting long term healthcare of our soldiers and restocking military hardware most likely to steal their oil makes me angry and no I won't be quiet about it. That trillion dollars could have provided BOTH health care for all Americans AND a real high speed rail system like civilized places in Europe and Asia have. Instead we pissed away a trillion dollars killing a million people in a country where they don't want us there in first place.

Here is a further point SK the American people handed your point a of view a quite through drubbing in the elections, if I were you I'd look for a new set of talking points, American's aren't buying the interventionist line anymore when OUR own country is in such trouble. Goodbye interventionists, and good riddance!

The battle is between special interests at the cost of society VS society (including special interests that don't harm society).

Take for instance the no-bid contracts for haliburton in Iraq...

Hardly the first time American interests have abused NAFTA to the detriment of Canadians.

Other examples: softwood lumber, taking water from the Great Lakes, crippling our attempts to enforce environmental standards, and my current favourite... American private health providers arguing our public health system violates NAFTA.

Thank God for this, in America's military our moral judgment is not only encouraged, it is celebrated.

Really? Then why is it that almost every member of America's military marched off to Bush's illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq without so much as a whimper? Why is it that the the defense in the court-martial of Corporal Trent D. Thomas asserted that "Marines in combat don't challenge orders"?

I do detest those who pick a fight, then hide in the bushes and buildings, unwilling to fight the fight they brought upon themselves like men.

Hmm. So you detest those who participated in the criminal invasion of Iraq, then hid in the Green Zone or in FOBs, unwilling to fight the fight with insurgents that they provoked? Wow. Most anti-war protesters don't go that far; we realize that those soldiers were duped victims too, guilty perhaps of poor judgment, but certainly not to be detested. We hope they get to stay safe in the bushes and buildings, rather than being shot at by Iraqis defending their homeland against invaders.

The bottom line is, if there were no organized military in America, you'd be climbing a tree or hiding in a bush every few months trying to defend the country you love when Iran or Russia decides to take a swim over here to rape our wives. That's a fact.

Why do you think Iran and Russia have such a beef with us, rather than with, say, Switzerland?

Number of times Russian or Iranian troops have invaded the U.S. or toppled its government: 0.

Number of times U.S. troops have invaded Russia: once: 13,000 American troops during the Russian Civil War.

Number of times U.S. covert operatives backed an anti-democratic military coup in Iran: once, in 1953.

These are the sorts of actions carried out by those who march in joyful, singing ranks, following unquestioningly the orders of their "superiors".

I am all for the right to self-defense, individual and collective. And certainly some sort of organization is needed for that. But when that takes the form of a large standing army, instead of a "well-regulated militia", it's a constant temptation to use it for aggressive means.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail; when all you have is a military-industrial complex, everything looks like a reason to bomb or invade someone.

While the scale of our involvement has certainly ramped up since WWII, the US was *hardly* a neutral nation before that, except for brief "America First" periods. Just look at this list for a long list of worldwide involvement since the very beginning.

However, Seattle was simply an example of an area where solar power would be impractical due to weather conditions. It was an example because Seattle is actually already very environmentally friendly in power generation since hydroelectric is so easily utilizable in the area.

Seattle can get it's solar power from Oregon, Oregon can produce plenty to share. As for hydro being environmentally friendly, dams are not friendly to the environment. Ask the salmon. Take a look at Klamath River and what's happened there. Also eventually they need to be dredged, adding to the cost.

Falcon

As you point out, the spot price difference ammounts to appx. 50%. The DOE numbers differ more than 415%. No amount of imposed market cost can account for such a difference.

Those numbers were wholesale numbers. The DOE numbers would be retail to the consumer. And the point was that the differences weren't market imposed but governmental and regulation imposed. In other words, their local politics structure and regulations have caused the differences in price which counters the op's suggestion of "European Union type regulation seems much more equitable and 'free' than American 'freedoms'". If paying more for no reason other then regulation is free, then he is right, but I don't see it as better.

I would also like to point out that the Norwegian prices are lower than the corresponding US prices, even though the Norwegian market are exposed to the same regulation as the EU markets (through EEC).

It's different by 1 cent which could be close to a conversion factor. However, there just isn't enough information to accurately make that claim. But remember, I didn't says that the US was missing the the problems with regulation. On the other hand, keeping with the theme, Norway isn't a member of the EU and they aren't bound by the same regulations and/or restrictions. If you look at the DOE report, you will see that Norway's costs fluctuate quite a bit compared to Denmark's or the U.K.'s. More aptly, in 2003 there was over a 4 cent increase in costs and while Denmark and the UK continued to rise, Norway's separate from the EU allowed them to dip the prices back.

To claim that Norway is exposed to the same regulation is a little disingenuous. They would be on the wholesale market but not on the retail market because of the sovereignty that Norway decided to keep. In other words, Norway has the ability to keep sane and reasonable approaches to their consumer markets and not drink the coolaid if they don't want to. Well, to a certain degree surrounding commerce, they can just not drink near as much but for the most part. But with situation like local utility delivery and consumer rates, no.

To be honest, I don't think you can read any positive or negative regulation effect from the DOE prices.

What you can honestly read from the DOE report is that for the most part, in the EU (European Union Not Europe itself), consumers pay more then in the US. And as you pointed out, there is really no market reason for this other then regulation, taxes which is still regulation, and policy which again is regulation.

Now I would like to point out that most of this recent regulation is due to Global warming. You can also see a increase in costs relative to the performance of difference Kyoto countries.

We're already doing this with roads in America so why not sidewalks? The Magic of the Free Market also worked well in bringing about prosperity in Iraq (imagine how badly it would have gone if we'd relied on public entities rather than contractors). I don't see how this sidewalk plan could go wrong - just make sure you stock up on quarters before you go for a walk. :)

What I want to see is where taxpayers would allocate their money. I.e. when you fill out your tax form, you send along something that allocates the taxes paid per year to various programs. For example, assuming that you pay $10,000 in taxes, you might write:

Defense: $2000
Social security: $2100
Medical: $3300
Debt reduction: $800
NASA: $50
Other discretionary: $1750

That's what we have now (lumping a lot of things together to save typing). Or maybe you might prefer to spend nothing on defense and that $2000 would go to space research or welfare or whatever else you might want to select. Or you think too much is spent on welfare and not enough on defense, so you give the $10,000 to defense.

Even if this were non-binding, I think that we'd get some interesting information. Some discussion of how this might work (although based on a per person allocation rather than a per tax dollar allocation) is in the second press release ("New Poll: Public Would Allocate a Federal Budget
Much Different from Washington's") at http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/tables/usspend.htm

Binding (if feasible) would make this interesting. People could have the option of increasing their personal taxes paid and having the money go where they want it (e.g. NASA or welfare). Billionaires (e.g. Gates) would get the benefit of controlling the allocation of their taxes, giving them a reason to pay taxes (rather than the natural reasons to evade them).

This isn't the micromanagement of direct democracy, but it does allow people to participate directly in the decision with the most direct impact to them.

I did look it up. It looks like the majority of the times the US used its veto power it was to stop some condemnation of Israel for (ostensibly) acting in their own self defense. The USSR, on the other hand, seemed pretty active in denying membership to possible nations if you go back and look at the entire history of the UNSC.

An interview of President Bush by Tom Brokaw of NBC News aboard Air Force One:

Q Mr. President, there's no tougher decision any President makes than to commit the nation to war. Let's talk about that first night, when you surprised us all by launching the preemptive strike against the residence of Saddam Hussein.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, they started in the Situation Room, and we had Tommy Franks on the screen with a Commander -- I think out of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait City and out of -- and a CENTCOM commander out of Tampa Bay, along with their British and Australian counterparts.

And then we had the national security team aligned on the table there. I went around to each of the commanders and said, are you happy with the strategy, do you have what it takes to win the war? They all answered affirmatively.

I then gave the instructions to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld that Operation Iraqi Freedom would commence at a time of Tommy Franks' choosing. Told Tommy, you know, for the sake of peace and security and the freedom of the Iraqi people that he's got the orders to proceed. I asked God for blessing on him and the troops. He saluted, I saluted back and left the room.

It was a -- it was an emotional moment for me because I had obviously made up my mind that if we needed to, we would use troops to get rid of weapons of mass destruction to free the Iraqi people. But the actual moment of making that decision was a heavy moment. I then went outside and walked around the grounds, just to get a little air and collect my thoughts. .....

Q Let me ask you about that day that the prisoners were captured. Everything played out on television. There's been probably no more televised event in the history of mankind. Suddenly you look on the screen and from Iraqi television there are five American prisoners of war, including a woman who was a cook, Shoshana Johnson.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I believe that was a Sunday. And it was a tough day. It was a tough day for America, it was a tough day for the Commander-in-Chief, who committed these young soldiers into battle in the first place. Which made their release even more joyous. But war is -- it's tough.

As I said, a lack of rigorous thinking. Is it "proof by assertion day"? Do you have any evidence at all to back up the assertion Iraq oil contracts were given to US companies at below market rates? Ive never seen that documented anywhere.

Certainly. I said that I was able to provide references for everything I stated. Link. The Indpendent is a major British newspaper and you can be certain that this article would have been thoroughly jumped on by the UK government were anything not supported. Paragraphs three and four detail the proposed law that mandates oil revenues should be apportioned between Iraq and US companies. Ostensibly this is in return for investment in infrastructure, but the Iraq government has no choice in this and you can be certain the US companies are making a killing on it. A further story is here. These laws have now gone through and return on investment is forecast to be anywhere in the region of 42 to 162 percent. Standard market rate would be 12%. I recommend you read this article if you want a comprehensive overview of foreign countries expected gains from Iraqi oil reserves.

As far as Cheney getting deferred compensation from Haliburton... so what? That kind of thing is pretty normal for CEOs. I'm pretty sure they were obligated to pay him whether or not the company made money.

It indicates motive and bias on the part of the vice president. If someone gives you $1million US dollars a year, there is an obligation. He also retains a number of unexercised stock options giving him a strong personal, financial interest in the succcess of the company. As promised, I can provide references. Link. Note that this is based on a report by the US government's own Congressional Research Service. Cheney's defence has consisted of "I spent $15,000 on an insurance policy in case the company goes under so it doesn't matter to me". Where he found a company willing to take $15,000 in return for a potential $5,000,000+ outlay, I have no idea, but in any case, it looks to me like he has been paid well for services and is now fulfilling them. I don't know how can honestly look at the former head of a corporation, receiving massive annual sums, owning stock in that corporation who then awards huge no-bid contracts to that corporation on behalf of the government and think that it is all above board, but it certainly isn't me.

Surely you must be joking about the donations thing. Large companies in the US donate to both sides. That's the way the game is played. Yes, it's corrupt, but good luck changing it since both parties are swilling at the same trough

All I wish to say here is that my point was that it was corrupt. You are again thinking in partisan terms that I do not. That corporations hedge their bets and bribe both Republican and Democrats does not reduce the importance of the fact that bribery has taken place. I again remind you that I am not a US citizen and have not been subject to the divide and conquer brainwashing that affects the population there, in which pointing out the faults of one side excuses the faults of another. I belong to neither side, but care only about the american people themselves.

Denying oil to the Chinese? Okay, now youve crossed into never-never land. Oil is fungible. The Chinese don't need to buy oil from Iraq because they can buy it from the Russians. O

Anyway, this actually seems to be a good law. Has Hell frozen over ?

Nope not really. It's just another hypocrisy law. It won't fly; the US has too many economic interests in China to pass any type of 'Human Rights' type legislation.

As I just posted in a response to someone else, there's no need for a new law. A law allowing foreign nationals to sue US businesses in US courts for supporting human rights violations has been on the books since 1789. The Alien Tort Claims Act, ATCA, was passed into law in 1789 and has been used, is being used today, to sue US businesses. Here's some of the cases that have been in US courts recently. For instance Unocal settled a lawsuit brought by Burmese villagers in 2005. In another case Coca-Cola was sued for supporting paramilitaries in Colombia.

Donating money is normally just a waste of your own money; little of it gets to other countries, and even less of it does any good. Giving money is a largely irrational response to poverty, and makes little difference.

I agree, I'd rather teach a person to fish than give them one.

The correct answer is to make it easier for them to sell their products to us, or make it easier for them to immigrate over to the West.

While making it easier to sale products will help it'd help more if the US, EU, Japan, and other developed nations didn't give farmers and big agribusinesses hugh farm subsidies. In 2004 the US gave $47 billion in subsidies. But the EU and Japan gave even more, $133 and $49 billion respectively. In the US Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland, ADM, are poster children for corporate welfare. ADM is a great example of a corporate welfare queen. These subsidies allow these businesses to export food to sell in the Third World cheaper than Third World farmers can grow food.

There aren't a lot of resources in many places in the Third World, and it seems pretty pointless to try and continue the settlements.

Actually there's plenty of resources in the Third World. Some, not all but some, of the problems the Third World has is from the Washington Consensus and Neoliberal policies. Other problems stem from natural resources. The abundance of a natural resource can and frequently does lead to conflicts and fighting. Coltan, used in cellphones, for instance. Rebel groups there fight to control the mining of coltan along with copper, diamonds, gold, and other natural resources. In the Niger Delta of Nigeria rebels are fighting over a share of money from oil. The Bushmen of Africa is another good example. In Botswana they are being forced off their ancestral lands so mining companies can mine for diamonds.

Heck some US based multinational corporations are being sued, under the Alien Tort Claim Act of 1789, in US courts for supporting those who violate human rights. Coca Cola is being sued for supporting paramilitary units in Colombia while Unocal was being sued for supporting "human rights abuses committed by Burmese soldiers" in Burma.

Furthermore, the value of "a dollar a day" depends entirely on how inflated their economy is compared to ours and thus their cost-of-living. This "dollar a day" statistic is just a comparison of costs of living and inflation. It's no measure of poverty.

Heck poverty, as used to the west, needs to be redefined. A farmer in Africa can grow enough food to barter or trade with others to feed their family and keep a roof over their heads yet they can still be said to be living in poverty. Sure, they may not have enough money to take a vacation for 4 weeks a year but they make enough to live on. And by opening up international trade and cutting subsidies they could make enough to afford to go to Disney.

Falcon

Since most killing in the world is done by small arms,

Source please.

Natural resources lie at the heart of most if not all conflicts and wars. "The twin roles of natural resources[pdf] in fueling and motivating violent conflicts is being increasingly recognized in strategies for conflict prevention, resolution and peacebuilding."

As long as corporations don't have armies and nukes, it's the lesser of two evils.

Not nukes but corporations do have armies: "Coca-Cola Accused of Using Death Squads to Target Union Leaders". "Corporate Liability for Human Rights Abuses Goes on Trial". The Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789 allows foreign nationals to file lawsuits against US citizens and businesses that violate or assist others in those countries who violate people's rights. "Since 1993, lawyers in the US have filed 36 corporate human rights abuse suits under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA)".

• Tax Break Prompts Millionaires To Create Private Foundations: Many of these same "feel-good" workers, though, have their own opinion about private foundations. And it isn't pretty. In the best of all worlds, they say, private foundations, like their public counterparts, would help address problems like hunger or illiteracy; in truth, they charge, such charities tend to address the whims and agendas of their benefactors, whose motivations don't always fit the notion of "charity."
• The trustees' perk that keeps on giving: The foundation's accountant, Martin Logies of Sunnyvale, Calif., defended the benefits, saying they had been approved by the foundation's board of directors. But he acknowledged that Sara and Anders Kierulf are the board's only members, and that they approved the benefits for themselves. As to the work the Kierulfs perform for their pay, Logies demurred. "I couldn't give you that information," he said.
• Deduction Ad Absurdum: CEOs Donating Their Own Stock to Their Own Family Foundations: Consistent with their exemption from insider trading law, I find that CEOs' stock gifts occur just prior to significant drops in their firms' stock prices, a pattern that enables the donors to obtain increased personal income tax benefits. This timing is more pronounced when executives donate their own shares to their own family foundations
• Tax Me If You Can: FRONTLINE correspondent Hedrick Smith investigates the rampant abuse of tax shelters since the late 1990s. Through interviews with government officials, tax experts, and industry insiders, Smith uncovers an avalanche of bogus transactions -- created by some of America's biggest and most-respected accounting firms, law firms, and investment banks -- that were then aggressively marketed to big corporations and wealthy individuals.
• How Tax Shelters Brought Trouble to Billionaire Clan: The panel's senior Democrat, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, has been probing offshore tax evasion and money laundering for several years. The panel is also looking into how the elite New York law firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP provided legal advice on offshore tax shelters to wealthy individuals, people familiar with the probe say.

Nope. It would NOT be smacked down like in WWF.
It would be "settled".
The company would pay a visible compensation and an invisible large contribution to campaign funds and the matter would be closed; without the company ever admitting it did wrong.

During 1800s many local counties had laws which prevented convicted companies from doing/establishing business in that locality.
But then now convicted companies like Deibold http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031217/APN/312170634 and Microsoft http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2118681/microsoft-convicted-software-piracy
  not to mention Bechtel http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/reconstruct/2006/0905profiteers.htm Custer Battles do business with impunity in all states.

When am convicted of a crime, am forced to wear a badge [of honor] and municipalities would not allow me to setup business if am an ex-convict.
The same rules never apply to corporates. Municipalities like Mass Turnpike authorities welcome Bechtel with open arms.

Until Senator Leahy introduces a legislation (on the sly) that prevents counties from ALL convicts from establishing a business, this will go on.

and while you're all at it, better get used to it. There's trillions of dollars in debt that has to be paid back, with interest. Taxes have only one way to go - up!

The federal government is trillions of dollars in debt. State taxes, which this article is about, make no difference to the national deficit.

Where did I say "federal"?

State and local governments are also in hock past their eyeballs, for trillions as well. Even back in 2002 state and local government debt was 1.5 trillion dollars. Do you really think its gone down in the last 5 years? Speaking of total federal debt, if you used GAAP, the federal debt is really 59 trillion dollars.

That money has to be made somewhere. Taxes.

So we agree on some things.

I would even argue that subsistence farming is the root of a lot of African conflict.

Here is where I disagree. I don't see subsidence farming as so much a problem as is the ethnic differences. For instance in Nigeria, the Niger Delta is multi-ethnic but government policies favor some ethnic groups over others: Nigeria: Characterising the Niger Delta Struggle . In Botswana the San or Bushmen were being forced off their ancestral lands so mining companies can get at the diamonds there: Bushmen Driven From Ancestral Lands in Botswana . Luckily the Kalahari Bushmen win ancestral land case in court in Botswana. Now the question is is will the government follow the ruling. In the Congo the fighting was partially about it's natural resources of Coltan, gold, and timber among several other natural resources.

I'm going for the many people that seem to suffer this disorder in aggrigate, so that they might wake up from the long nightmare of perceived suffering and be able to see real injustice and dillemas in other cultures

Oh, I'm quite aware of injustice throughout the world such as the San, Bushmen, of southern and western Africa. Because of diamond mining interests the San are being forced off their ancestral homelands in Botswana among other countries. Meanwhile some like De Beers, who also brought South Africa apartheid, are making out like bandits. Cellphones in the west causes conflict and fighting in the Congo over coltan. Elsewhere "Burmese villagers sued oil company Unocal for human rights violations." Back in Africa, oil is fueling Conflict in the Niger Delta.

Whatever the U.N. might say about the rules of engagement and who drew them up, the reality on the ground is that when the U.N. goes into these grim parts of the world, people see the blue helmets and U.N. flag and believe that help has arrived. By its very presence the United Nations is offering hope--and it is cruel to offer false hope. "In a sense, things got better after the peacekeepers left," the real Paul Rusesabagina said to me after the movie. "People realized that no one was going to help them and took matters into their own hands." If we will not help men like Rusesabagina, let us at least not lie to them. - Fareed Zakaria

Hello Mr Righteous, I'll assume your from the USA :

1- Yes the UN costs money, what a surprise. Nearly all the nations pay for it, though. The US likes not to.

2- Have you never heard of US soldiers raping local women ?

3- China, Cuba, etc on UN councils. Learn how they work, representative from every country get to be in them in turns. That doesn't mean they run them. At the UN, you are bound to find people from nations you disagree with in various commissions. The #1 rule of diplomacy is that you keep talking to these people anyway.

4- The UN suck, have never done anything good, etc. The UN weapons inspectors in Iraq got rid of all the WMDs. You are aware the US troops have found none left, are you? Speak of the devil, this particular engagement really showcases the skill and competence the USA shows in dealing with world matters when unhindered by useless international bodies, doesn't it ?

Given a choice of labeling you hypocrite or ignorant, I'm afraid I'll have to go with the former.

Come off it - all you really need is the position of the people running things. They decide what the corporation does, after all.

Like the heads of intelligence agencies during the lead up to Iraq? Or Christy Todd Whitman's claims about the safety of the WTC site after 9/11?

There are some organizations whose only credibility comes from the expertise of the non-executive staff. Execs can make claims about what actions their organization will take, but they're not the only important opinions in matters of truth.