Slashdot Mirror

I agree that nobody has been able to stick those charges, mainly because it hasnt been in front of a judge of the ICC or an equivalent (which could be in the country of origin. but let's not go into the legality of the ICC, that's another story.) if it's not been in court, it cant have stuck.

anyway... here's some links and discussions and stuff.

Before we get all high and mighty, and conclude that we in the United States are so much better, superior, or luckier, remember about the prisoners the US is holding RIGHT NOW in Guantanamo Bay.

These prisoners of the US Government were held for a year or more.

Let's clean up our own act before we get all high and mighty about the Chinese, heh?

Sigh...

It would help us all a great deal if you would educate yourself about things before you make comments about them.

You misstate my argument.

My argument is that if the environment is as deadly critical as environmentalists suggest then the same rules should apply to all. Just as being poor isn't an excuse to accept a thousand bucks to kill someone, nor is being poor an excuse to pollute the world--IF we are to believe the environmentalists that the threat of our pollution is so grave. Plus most of the pollution in developing countries isn't from poor people--it's from the factories of the rich and/or factories that belong to companies based in developed countries. By exempting pollution controls in developing countries you are giving a handout to the rich in those countries or the rich in developed countries at the expense of even worse health for the poor in those developing countries.

More likely than not the threat is NOT that grave. In that case I resent the environment being used as an excuse to justify worldwide wealth redistribution. If they want handouts for the poor they should say so and let us debate that on the economic or ethical merits.

You have, what, 1/24th the world population and you use 25% the world's energy.

The GWP (Gross World Product) was 45.9 trillion in 2001. The US GDP was 10.4 trillion in 2002 (sorry for the one year difference in stats). So the US generates 22.7% of the world's wealth. And the U.S. produces 23.3% of CO2. Are you seeing the similarity? 22.7% of the wealth and 23.3% of the CO2. We produce an amount of CO2 proportional to what we contribute to the world economy.

Further, the U.S. growth in CO2 production was 9.9% from 1990 through 1996. In the same period, China grew by 40%, India grew by 47.7%, and South Korea by 69.2%. Is it of no concern to you that the two most populous countries in the world are increasing their CO2 production at the rate of over 40% per year?

And all those goods are not flowing to other countries, either, they are mostly going to be used by you at home.

Irrelevant. Wealth is wealth. Even if most products are consumed at home the wealth enters the U.S. banking system and the effects are worldwide. If U.S. wealth goes down by 50% believe me everyone in the world will feel the pinch big time.

I don't really give a damn about your personal comfort, it's still inequitable.

Bingo! So we're talking about what is fair and wealth redistribution. Then let's make that the topic and stop making the environment a scape-goat to achieve economic rather than environmental goals.

Rules? What rules?

I meant the constitution...

For example... can the president start a war? And if the US were not such a large and reputable country, the attack and occupation of another country would otherwise be an act of war crimes if committed by any other country.

For the record, I agree that something had to be done, I just feel that if we had abided by the rules and were a bit more diplomatic about it, we could have accomplished the same goals with much less backlash. But no, instead we were in a huge rush because the WOMD threat was SOOOOO eminent. Sadly, I think we played right into Saddam's hand. There is a lot to be said about rational thought, tact, and strategy. Shit, I would have been more concerned of a WOMD getting out of the USSR when it collapsed than Iraq...

Actually Congress is not consulted all along the way. For the first two years of negotiations the public was kept in the dark by the Clinton administration about the MAI. Even the Congressional Committees with direct jurisdiction over international commerce and investment were not briefed about the content of the discussions. It wasn't until April of 1997, when a draft copy of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment was leaked to the press, that the true nature and scope of the talks was revealed.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that without Fast Track there would be no trade agreements. As I say in the above post, "Nearly 300 separate trade agreements were negotiated by the Clinton Administration. Of these, only the Uruguay Round Agreement and NAFTA were submitted to Congress under Fast Track procedures." How does 298 agreements equal "halt[ing] the process in its tracks"?

Protectionism certainly stems from an anti-globalization mentality that is still embedded in most countries' policies, even those who strongly advocate globalization, and there are ongoing trade wars all the time, so it's not just one country that is bending the rules.

Here is a link about it if anyone is interested:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/ffd/2003/0718e xploits.htm"

(it seems biased, but explains the issue...)

I don't know if they are right, but in this case, for instance, Microsoft's issue is similar to steel, farm goods, etc, but they're on the other side of the fence, trying to ensure China doesn't give their companies unfair trade advantage.

No Joke!

Diamonds Help Fund Terrorism

Are You Smokin' With Bin Laden?

Al-Qaeda Funded by 'Blood Diamonds'

They're not really rare. As the article states, Debeers has a stockpile and controls the supply ruthlessly with tactics that makes Microsoft look like reasonable.

They pretty much ignored an antitrust judgement, have been held responsible for untold exploitation of black African minors, and have been accused of much worse. In the article, one of the interviewees recalls and indirect death threat and treats the journalist with suspicion, fearful that he is an agent of Debeers.

Yes, ladies, we know they look pretty. They may also be more responsible for more terrorism than drugs, certainly more than Bush/Ascroft would like you to beleive.

But the dream was shattered in 1989 when the United States threatened to designate TRON as an unfair trade barrier under its Super 301 trade law when it learned of plans by the Japanese government to use the software for computers in schools.

I bet the real reason the US invaded Iraq and invented WMD was because Iraq didn't sign the DMCA.

UnAmerican posts get modded down ;-( tyranny of the majority. Should the CEO of Nike go to jail if one his globalised workers in China gets harmed making Nike shoes?

Iraq was not at all stable, if it was the Bath party would not have taken power.

BTW, it's usually rendered Ba'ath in English, not "Bath".

Really?

A lot of people seem to think they had some help.

An interesting quote...

We were better informed on the 1963 coup in Baghdad than on any other major event or change of government that took place in the whole region in those years. from
Frontline.

Do we get to sue the Spanish for thier attacks on the Aztecs? How about the Aztecs for thier wars on neighboring tribes? Do the Israelis get to sue the EU for money the EU provided to the PA that was then passed into the hands of a Hamas cell?

It could work in the world's favor.

Well, the problem is we need a world court.

But similar things has been/are being done, with varying degrees of success, using national courts:

http://www.wiesenthal.com/swiss/mandates.cfm.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miami/3970567.htm?templat e=contentModules/printstory.jsp

Corporations are people and pay taxes just like we do.

Not if they give out enough stock options to employees.

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security

Should the Security Council consider that measures [not involving the use of force] provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Do some research. the US excercises its veto on the security council more than anyone else. Aside from the tail end of Stalin's rule, the Soviet Union used their with far less frequency than the US.

The last thirty years are really telling, what with the US using their veto 64 times, the Soviets used their 8 times.

Link here.

They tried diplomatic pressure and other means with America alongside. It didn't work.

But it did work, in the end there were results and that's why a lot of countries wanted the weapons inspectors to go on with their work. If there is proof, that the Iraq has a significant number of B- or C-weapons the USA never presented it. In the end the Iraq was complying (though grudgingly) with the demands layed down by the UN. In the meantime north Korea more or less publicly announced their intention to produce nuclear bombs, so shouldn't Bush et al. strike at north Korea before going for the Iraq?

So when Bush couldn't convince the world that Iraq was threatening the world with weapons of mass destruction he switched rhetorics and talked about having to free the Iraq of that evil dictator Saddam. Now Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator, but that's none of the USAs business, as it hasn't been for the past 20 years (like when the USA even supported the current Iraqi regime). The last demand that Saddam now leave the country within 48 hours is not an ultimatum, it's a joke. Everyone can imagine that that'd be suicide for Saddam.

This war isn't about terrorism either, it's easier to construct a link from Osama bin Laden to Bush than to Saddam Hussein, and war isn't a means to get at terrorists who're probably not even in the attacked country. As a result of the war even more terrorist attacks are expected in the US and the threat level is raised.

So the war isn't about chemical weapons or terrorists, neither is it an idealistic mission to free the Iraq people from their evil dictator (or do the USA now intend to attack any country where the government isn't to their liking?). Many people (even inside the US) see it that way and that's how they arrive at the conclusion that the war isn't justified but is just about oil and distracting the american people from their problems at home.

This war is also a very bad precedent, as it shows that the USAs government doesn't care what the UN have to say on the issue, they do what they damn well please anyway. So now whenever any country wants to start a war all they need are some unsupportable and made up reasons and then they can go ahead? Or is that only right for the USA but noone else?

Also the arrogant way the USA dealt with the UN and other nations (and also opposition at home) has weakened the UN and hurt diplomatic relationships worldwide. More and more the USA is percieved

I am completely against the current war on Iraq. To my mind, by attacking Iraq without there being any hint of aggression against America, and without a shred of evidence to support it's claim that Saddam Hussein is constructing weapons of mass destruction, I think the US has violated any claim they may have had about this being a "just" war. see Jimmy Carter's opinion on what constitutes a just war.

I am not arguing against those who claim that Saddam Hussein is a "bad" man. But there are lots of despotic rulers in the world, and I think the current US policy of pre-emption is morally wrong, and sets a very dangerous precedent. The US is encouraging other despotic regimes to acquire nuclear capabilities in order to fend off a US preemptive strike, and guaranteeing that terrorism will be the only perceived way to fight superior US firepower.
The US has shown clear contempt for other countries in the world, by rejecting the Kyoto protocol accords, by subverting the International Criminal Court, and by acting unilaterally against Iraq. The US has vetoed UN resolutions against Israel 41 times (putting in doubt President Bush's claim that he wants to restore the land to the Iraqi people).
I don't believe this war is legal, although I doubt anyone will be prosecuted.
The world is extremely skeptical about this essentially unilateral war.

Oh God I missed the "of" at first.

Don't worry, George Bush will see that you were right the first time! He'll get rid of those nasty Iraqis, hoarding all that sweet, sweet oil for your SUV. While he's busy destabilizing the Middle East, more terrorist attacks may be prompted here in the US, and North Korea (you know, that crazy guy who threatened war?) will go forgotten while he builds an arsenal of long-range nuclear weapons.

Here's a helpful score card:

Iraq: Tiny dictator that hasn't attacked anyone since Bush's daddy while trying to steal Kuwait over 10 years ago. Has short range missiles that don't fly too straight. Leader enjoys gassing rebels (especially when Reagan was paying for it), torture, killing family members, and long walks along the perimeter. Problem to nearest neighbors that claim to be "friends" of America (you know, those guys that fund and house terrorists, pay blood money to families of "martyrs", spew hatred of America in their schools, etc.)

North Korea: Tiny dictator that has nuclear weapons or is very close. Has medium range missiles and will have long range missiles capable of hitting American targets. The leader also enjoys starving and torturing his subjects, and saber rattling with an eye toward actual global war

Moderators: this is NOT flamebait. It is a troll. Learn the difference!

Iraq owes Russia between $7 billion and $12 billion. ( http://www.globalpolicy.org )

France is one of Iraq's biggest business partners, with $3 billion in trade since the "oil for food" program started in 1996. ( http://www.arizonarepublic.com )

The most significant oil company in Iraq is a french firm.

All of the above will lose big time if Saddam loses control of Iraq' oil. Nuff said.

Well, oil has nothing to do with the U.S. Iraq policy.

Way too many learned people disagree with you on that one. After the Gulf War, guess who was in Iraq rebuilding the oil rigs. Haliburton, with then-CEO Dick Cheney at the helm.

We can start at the top with Ken Lay. Oops. he was a criminal, there goes your theory of poverty and crime.

I never claimed that only the poor committed crimes. However, you won't find someone like Ken Lay having to choose between committing a crime or having his kids go to be hungry. The rich commit crimes out of greed. The poor often do it to keep from starving or freezing.

No, people vote Republican because they believe in national defense,

Translation: Funnelling huge sums of money over in corporate welfare to giant corporations.

in equal rights for all regardless of race,

Translation: Making sure that rich white suburbanites and impoverished minorities get exactly the same level of assistance from the government.

and that people should keep what they work for instead of giving it over greedy elites.

"Greedy elites" being poor families in subsidized housing in this case.

Want to see a good example of giving to "greedy elites." Look at the Bush tax cuts. The latest one he's pushing is elimination of taxes on stock dividends. Does that benefit the lower class? No. They have no stock investments? Does it benefit the middle class? No. The vast majority of them hold stock through mutual funds held in retirement plans. The mutual funds just reinvest the dividends. But the middle class will pay taxes on all of those dividends when they start drawing from the retirement accounts. So who does it help? The greedy elites. Had there been no taxes on stock dividends last year, Dubya would have saved over $40,000 on his taxes while Cheney would have saved over $100,000.

i have typed and re-typed. this whole thing is cloudy and would be better served by a real discussion with points clarified but...

Can you identify for me a point of view, be it Air Force One,...

my lunch analogy, yes it was poor. but, ok, i'll point my finger -- it was the job of the president and his staff to drop everything and find out what's going on. maybe his staff did but he did not seem to. the president does have the authority to order the military to an immediate state of alert. perhaps asking the FAA what happened (FAA: a plane deviated from course and ceased responding) and if similar actions were occuring (FAA: yes) would have helped. but the second question is the clincher -- he had to know this wasn't isolated.

really, i'm less interested in what happened on 9/11 than i am in what happened next and what happens now. i posted that (and this) without the +1 bonus 'cause it's admittedly silly speculation on my part.

The contrast you are attempting to make is poorly supported by the practices and doctrine of the US military, which takes incredible measures to protect the lives of enemy civilians, and by the fact that the only people being shot at in Iraq right now are U.S. pilots. I therefore find your suggestion as to the state of mind of military planners with regard to said civilians to be extremely suspect.

from my armchair, i hear strategists claiming that the only way to oust saddam is to engage in military action in densely populated areas which i expect would result in civilian lives lost. this is purely speculation and hopefully we can find a better solution (my briefly suggestions come later). until this point the loss of life has been limited to the Iraqi side -- no coalition pilots have been killed since the beginning of the no fly zone. sure we've been fired at but they have actually taken hits.

yes, the US will try to avoid civilian losses but in a war such as this there will be civilian casualties (*see next paragraph). the only way to avoid these casualties is to avoid war. and the reasons for war that the US has proposed (iraq's possession of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons) are suspect. so we're checking it out -- Kofi says the inspections are going well, George says they're going poorly. i guess it comes down to who you belive.

for the long term stability of relations between the middle east and us (US, Europe, etc.) we need to 'make friends'. bombing a nation of people that hates us is going to leave more people more angry -- even if we don't kill anyone we will be imposing our will on them. i propose that we work towards a political resolution rather than another military coup. we probably will never be friends with saddam but the people of iraq are another story. just look at the progress in iran (don't believe George, they're not evil in fact before George we had made great progress towards 'friendship'). the very large and influencial demographic of youth in iran want more democracy and like much western culture but it must happen to them -- we can't force it.

briefly, my suggestion promoting friendship is to take a close look at the damage the embargo did to iraq and determine what can be done to reverse this damage. beyond this it comes down to education. in iran radio sawa has the largest market share with youth. radio sawa is run by the international broadcasting bureau, funded by the US but run entirely seperate. it plays music with brief news stories promoting democracy and cultural activities outlawed by current government.

i could go on but want to get to one more point:

I find that we are instinctively driven to find a meaning in disaster, so that we can try to create a construct of belief that we can avoid it in the future.

if i read this right, i mostly agree with this paragraph. what happened happened. we are human, humans make mistakes and maybe the only way to avoid the outcome was to know the future. what matters is that it happened in one day and hopefully won't happen ever again. however the reasons for what happened remain and i think that is part of why we are still talking about this.

there are still thousands (millions?) who hate the actions and influence of the US in their country. some say this hatred is because the US is the last superpower and they're mad about that. though a born citizen, i'm also mad that the US is the last superpower -- there should be no superpower and i'm doing what i can to move towards an egalitarian world and will never use violence to make my point.

shit, i hope that wasn't too long scattered -- my longest post yet. my thoughts flow better when talking instead of typing in a 10x50 char box...

1) Yes pat ourselves on the back: "UNICEF estimated that about 500,000 children younger than 5 have died in Iraq since sanctions were imposed." Silly Europeans should let us go to war so we can stop killing children (and start killing adults)!

2) For what its worth, the only nation with a proven track record of using weapons of mass destruction (chemical or nuclear) is the United States of America.

3) Indeed: because setting the precedent for justifying preemptive unilateral attack to stop terrorism, topple unfriendly regimes or whatever ambiguous issue-de-jour sounds like a recipe for prolonged peace!

Any country or community that imposed such a tax would immediately be putting themselves at an economic disadvantage to their neighbors.

In Europe, fuel tax can amount to more than 75% of the price at the pump. Comparatively, gas taxes in Canada represent approximately 40% of the price at the pump, with variations between provinces and territories. In the U.S., the tax percentage is only 12.5%

For hard cash, we will lie and deceive
[...]
And dealing in death is the nature of the beast

East Timor is a good one. Those freedom-loving Americans turned a blind eye to annexation and genocide for the sake of Indonesian oil, and only the support of a few socialist states --- and the forum of the UN --- kept their struggle alive.

That's right, baaaaaaad Americans ...

Oh wait, I forgot that American Peacekeeper's are serving in East Timor ...

Well that's ok, it's just another case of America exporting it's troops to impose their jack-booted capatalism down the throats of ...

Oh wait, it seems that when the US Navy showed up in Dili harbor, they hosted the East Timorese boy scouts and rebuilt an Elementary school

Well that's ok too, because if it wasn't for the World Bank and other U$ capatalist institutions sticking it to East Timor ...

Oh wait, you mean that even critics of US policy in East Timor acknowledge that the US is one of East Timor's largest aid donors

Err ... um ...

Stupid America, always ruining my diatribes with facts!

Yes, but Iraq was provided millions of dollars of miliary equipment from the U.S. in the '80s (to fund its war against Ayatollah Khomeini). Cheney's company helped rebuilt Iraq's oil industry after the Gulf War.

The U.S. was convicted of war crimes due to the way it conducted the Gulf War. It's estimated that 500,000 Iraqi children have died during the U.S. embargo (even though Iraq is still America's fourth largest oil supplier).

The situation isn't so black and white.

You really think that the US government likes that fact that they're beholden to unstable Gulf countries which control more than 60% of the world's oil and virtually all of the world's easily obtainable oil?

Do you think they like that fact that our dependence on Gulf oil will only increase as non-OPEC supplies dwindle?

-Bruce

Most /. readers are NOT the richest 25 percent of the world, at least I'm not...

Really? R U sure you mean the world and not the western world or first world or something?


More than 1/3 of the world's population lives in China and India. 5 of the 6 billion people on Earth live in "less developed" countries.


The poorest 10% of Americans are still better off than two-thirds of the world population.

Why should the WHO have a monopoly on the .health TLD? Should we give the WTO .trade? Should we give the WorldBank .finance? APEC .asia? The UN Council for Human Rights .family?

This is not a debate against modern medicine v. new age quackery, or science v. superstition. It's about giving UN regulatory power over what would be a good portion of the internet. The UN has never been a friend of either the internet or a free flow of information.

• It was the UN that proposed a global tax on email. http://www.wirednews .co m/news/politics/0,1283,20705,00.html
• It was the UN that called for censorship on the internet. http://news.cnet.com/n ews /0-1005-200-323675.html?sas.mail
• It was the UN that cried out for a tax on international travel. http://www.globalpolicy.o rg/ socecon/glotax/baumert.htm

It is not a good idea to give the United Nations/The World Health Organization this control. If they wish to run their own site, say health.un.org, health.who.org, I have no problem with that. But it is foolish to believe that giving the WHO autority of a TLD is a good idea. They will either punish groups that use a .health domain for a purpose that the WHO don't like (what if southafricamedicalassociation.health publishes a paper denying HIV causes AIDS), or, much worse, prior restrait.

I also fear that the WHO won't stop there. The UN (of which the WHO is a part) has already tried to tax and censor the internet because of political reasons. With that mindset, it's only logical to do the same thing for medical reasons. You want to operate a web site that advocates smoking, or drinking, or steak eating, or having sex without protection? Pay a cent tax per hit.

The UN has already seen fit to run over individual beliefs when the issue's important. It's hard to feel sorry for hate groups when the United Nations advocates their banning. But what of a Roman Catholic site that decries birth control? What of a vegan site that implores the visitor not to consume animal products?

Giving an organization that's adamently against free-information (in both meanings) is a bad idea. I hope you will reconsider.