Slashdot Mirror

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0, 13918,1329858,00.html

Have you not noticed that Americans don't give two shits what Europeans think of us? Each email someone gets from some arrogant Brit telling us why to NOT vote for George Bush is going to backfire, you stupid, yellow-toothed pansies ... I don't give a rat's ass if our election is going to have an effect on your worthless little life. I really don't. If you want to have a meaningful election in your crappy little island full of shitty food and yellow teeth, then maybe you should try not to sell your sovereignty out to Brussels and Berlin, dipshit. Oh, yeah - and brush your goddamned teeth, you filthy animals.

"About 70,000 displaced people are thought to have died in Sudan's Darfur region since March, mainly from disease and malnutrition, a UN official says. David Nabarro, head of the World Health Organisation's health crisis group, said up to 10,000 people were still dying in refugee camps each month. He said the mortality rate would not fall unless more urgent aid was sent."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3747380.stm

Why is war-torn Iraq giving $190,000 to Toys R Us?
Naomi Klein

Iraqis are still being forced to pay for crimes committed by Saddam. Since Saddam was toppled in April, Iraq has paid out $1.8bn in reparations to the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC), the Geneva-based quasi tribunal that assesses claims and disburses awards. Of those payments, $37m have gone to Britain and $32.8m have gone to the United States.

Here is a small sample of who has been getting "reparation" awards from Iraq: Halliburton ($18m), Bechtel ($7m), Mobil ($2.3m), Shell ($1.6m), Nestlé ($2.6m), Pepsi ($3.8m), Philip Morris ($1.3m), Sheraton ($11m), Kentucky Fried Chicken ($321,000) and Toys R Us ($189,449).

In the vast majority of cases, these corporations did not claim that Saddam's forces damaged their property in Kuwait - only that they "lost profits" or, in the case of American Express, experienced a "decline in business" because of the invasion and occupation of Kuwait. One of the biggest winners has been Texaco, which was awarded $505m in 1999. According to a UNCC spokesperson, only 12% of that reparation award has been paid, which means hundreds of millions more will have to come out of the coffers of post-Saddam Iraq.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,132888 7,00.html

This was the first story I heard of: The Guardian

oh, it's funny because it's true....

think about it--nobody's disputed the actual *content* of the memo, they just dispute the authenticity of the copy of the memo that CBS has. I mean, what better way to get people to disbelieve true information than to forge a document with that information, pass it to the press, then "out" the document as fake?

The information is still true, but it's now so tainted, no other network will cover the story.

(It makes complete sense, too, since Rove has a history of forging documents, and he once bugged his own office to cast an opponent in a bad light.)

"Most of the people are feeling optimistic" has a very hollow ring to it when you know how many Afgahn women are committing suicide:

Afghanistan: Self-Immolation Of Women On The Rise In Western Provinces

(...)

Activists say women in many parts of Afghanistan -- including Herat, which is ruled with an iron fist by provincial governor and warlord Ismail Khan -- still face repression and harassment.

Virdee says the continued crackdown on women's rights is contributing to the rise in self-immolation cases.

(...)

Ahmad Bassir is a Herat-based correspondent for Radio Free Afghanistan. He says women see no difference between their lives now and under the Taliban, and that desperation drives them to attempt suicide.

(...)

Bassir adds that the despair is especially strong among women who once lived as refugees in neighboring Iran, where women enjoy far greater rights.

So in summary, for many Afghan women, the situation in Afhanistan today is so bad -- for some it's worse than it was for them in Iran -- with even fewer prospects for improvements in their lives, that they commit suicide by setting fire to themselves.

I'll just repeat your words to give the proper constrast:

Afghanistan today: Most of the people are feeling optimistic about their future after decades of war and oppression.

More:

Death by fire: the agonising way out for trapped Afghan women

Google

Sorry to reply to myself, but I didn't include the link with the original news story about the NC-17.

" Puppet oral sex goes against grain for US censors "

I have that link (and others) in my own write-up, but I realize that not everyone is going to read that. So now you have the separate link :).

- Neil Wehneman

Story

Personally, I think our Government should be given a slap and made to hand the domains over. They've obviously done it as a form of political canvassing, and it's plain wrong.

yeah cuz "real banks" don't have problems with transactions.

Steve Bell at the guardian makes better monkeys

start here

Storing all this data on a RAID of cheap IDE devices would be a mistake similar in magnitude to that made by the digital domesday project. :)

More reading ;-);-);-) from the London Observer:

France's Saddam deals revealed by Antony Barnett and Martin Bright on Sunday October 10, 2004

Dramatic new details of France's secret dealings with Saddam Hussein's regime have emerged as part of a fresh corruption investigation into alleged illicit oil deals.

[snip][snip][snip]

The disclosure will embarrass President Jacques Chirac as it follows on from claims last week by the Iraq Survey Group that Saddam indirectly paid French politicians and individuals to gain support for lifting UN sanctions and influencing French policy. The ISG's claims were dismissed by Chirac as politically motivated.

[snip][snip][snip]

Patrick Maugein, whom the Iraqis considered a conduit to Chirac, is also accused of receiving oil through a Dutch-registered company. The report claims a 1992 Iraqi intelligence service report said Iraq had paid the French Socialist party $1m in 1988.

[snip][snip][snip]

I don't think we'll see action on this area until people start sending annonymous copyright takedown notices to the ISP's of members of congress, as well as the heads of major corporations, showing them the folly of giving others full control over your life and business without due process. Of course such a thing would be illegal and dangerous, and a person would have to be crazy to do such a thing. After all, laws are a social contract, which we must obey in order for society to function. In a society ravaged by terrorism like ours, sending mixed messages is the last thing we can afford.

I don't think we'll see action on this area until people start sending annonymous copyright takedown notices to the ISP's of members of congress, as well as the heads of major corporations, showing them the folly of giving others full control over your life and business without due process. Of course such a thing would be illegal and dangerous, and a person would have to be crazy to do such a thing. After all, laws are a social contract, which we must obey in order for society to function. In a society ravaged by terrorism like ours, sending mixed messages is the last thing we can afford.

And they're right. My wife and two kids were rear-ended by a semi truck going 50 miles per hour. The back end of their Suburban was crushed and folded like a banana, but they all walked away unscathed.

Call me selfish all you want, I don't care a whit. I love SUV's and promptly bought another. Fuck you very much if you don't like it.

If it's good enough for John Kerry, it's good enough for me.

-ccm

LOL, here I go. Kopel has been shot down pretty hard already. I'd LOVE to see you say anything about the Saudi Arabia connection and information. That's kinda SLIGHTLY more important than the tiny things that you are still wrong about.

1. "With information provided from the Voter News Service, NBC was the first network to project Gore the winner in Florida at 7:48 pm. At 7:50 pm ,CNN and CBS project Gore the winner in Florida as well." By 8:02 pm , all five networks and the Associated Press had called Gore the winner in Florida. Even the VNS called Gore the winner at 7:52 pm. At 2:16 am, Fox calls Florida for Bush, NBC follows at 2:16 am. ABC is the last network to call the Florida for Bush, at 2:20 am, while AP and VNS never call Florida for Bush. HERE

2. Ten minutes after the top of the hour, network excitement was again beginning to build. At 2:16 a.m., the call was made: Fox News Channel, with Bush's first cousin John Ellis running its election desk, was the first to project Florida -- and the presidency -- for the Texas governor. Within minutes, the other networks followed suit. "George Bush, Governor of Texas will become the 43rd President of the United States," CNN's Bernard Shaw announced atop a graphic montage of a smiling Bush. "At 18 minutes past two o'clock Eastern time, CNN declares that George Walker Bush has won Florida's 25 electoral votes and this should put him over the top. HERE

But it's just the liberal media right?

3. The Florida Department of State awarded a $4 million contract to the Boca Raton-based Database Technologies Inc. (subsidiary of ChoicePoint). They were tasked with finding improperly registered voters in the state's database, but mistakes were rampant. "At one point, the list included as felons 8,000 former Texas residents who had been convicted of misdemeanors." St. Petersburg Times (Florida), December 21, 2003.

4. Database Technologies, a subsidiary of ChoicePoint, "was responsible for bungling an overhaul of Florida's voter registration records, with the result that thousands of people, disproportionately black, were disenfranchised in the 2000 election. Had they been able to vote, they might have swung the state, and thus the presidency, for Al Gore, who lostin Florida. Oliver Burkeman, Jo Tuckman, "Firm in Florida Election Fiasco Earns Millions from Files on Foreigners," The Guardian, May 5, 2003 HERE. See also, Atlanta-Journal-Constitution, May 28, 2001.

5. A] consortium [Tribune Co., owner of the Times; Associated Press; CNN; the New York Times; the Palm Beach Post; the St. Petersburg Times; the Wall Street Journal; and the Washington Post] hired the NORC [National Opinion Research Center, a nonpartisan research organization affiliated with the University of Chicago] to view each untallied ballot and gather information about how it was marked. The media organizations then used computers to sort and tabulate votes, based on varying scenarios that had been raised during the post-election scramble in Florida. Under any standard that tabulated all disputed votes statewide, Mr. Gore erased Mr. Bush's advantage and emerged with a tiny lead that ranged from 42 to 171 votes. Donald Lambro, "Recount Provides No Firm Answers," Washington Times, November 12, 2001.

As for any other comments, WHO CARES. How important are your tiny points compared to the huge looming things presented by the movie that you simple CAN NOT REFUTE. Go ahead. Take on the Saudi Arabia connection. Take on the military spending and cut funding for OUR SOLDIERS. Take on the Unocal connections. Take on the Carlyle group connnections. YOU CAN'T. You may draw comfort from taking issue with moores ridiculously slanted style, but you can't shoot down a single fact in the movie. And you haven't. So sorry. Thank you for playing.

I mean, how high do you have to be to think that copying your legal CD to your iPod or watching a movie on your TV (God forbid!) is "terrorism"

-FL

Record labels believe it is essential to establish file-sharing as illegal in the minds of the public [...]

Yeah? Even if they'd said sharing files of music to which copyright applies, how about establishing such in law before trying this?

I can't believe that these people were getting away, unchallenged, with such sweeping (not to mention incorrect) generalisations also on (UK) television this morning.

Have we lost all sense of objectivity?

Actually, single sales are falling, it's album sales that are still on the rise;

"UK singles sales have more than halved since 1999, it says, when downloading took off. Sales of CD albums in the UK have bucked the global trend and continue to rise."

From the guardian's article about this

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story /0,6903,1096298,00.html/ The United States is embarking on a multimillion-dollar expansion of its nuclear arsenal, prompting fears it may lead the world into a new arms race. The Bush administration is pushing ahead with the development of a new generation of weapons, dubbed 'mini-nukes', that use nuclear warheads to penetrate underground bunkers. Last week, it gave a quiet yet final go-ahead to a controversial research project into the bunker-buster. The move effectively ends a 10-year ban on research into 'low-yield' nuclear weapons. Critics fear it may lead other countries to push ahead with developing such weapons. It also comes at a highly sensitive time diplomatically, with the US lobbying countries such as Iran and North Korea to abandon their nuclear plans. 'The United States is spurring a new global arms race with our own development of a new generation of nuclear weapons,' said Democrat Ellen Tauscher, who led an unsuccessful bid in Congress to have the programme scrapped.

Right on Demachina. Wish I had mod points.

The Catholic position on contraception and birth control might appear moral in the United States. But it is absolutely unconscionable in the areas that hold the vast majority of the world's population. The number of people indirectly killed by statements like this far outweighs the number of abortions in the western world.

I think he is probably referring to the 'deferred payments' which Cheney still receives from Halliburton.

Halliburton, the Texas company which has been awarded the Pentagon's contract to put out potential oil-field fires in Iraq and which is bidding for postwar construction contracts, is still making annual payments to its former chief executive, the vice-president Dick Cheney.

The payments, which appear on Mr Cheney's 2001 financial disclosure statement, are in the form of "deferred compensation" of up to $1m (£600,000) a year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,912515 ,00.html

You again appear to be ignoring the context of my comments, which was regarding the 2002-2003 inspections, even though I have said explicitly multiple times. However, assuming you did read my previous posts and you are talking about the same thing, you will have to provide some kind of reference backing up your claim. Here are mine:
According to this December, 2002 Guardian article:

On November 18, a team of about 30 weapons inspectors, led by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, and the director of the IAEA, Mohammed el-Baradei, returned to Baghdad to begin Unmovic's work.

They will carry sensors capable of detecting nuclear material as well as chemical and biological agents, and their findings could determine whether or not Iraq will face another US military onslaught.

Under Resolution 1441, the UN has given inspectors the right to go anywhere at any time and warned Iraq of the "serious consequences" it will face if it does not cooperate. The teams must report back to the security council on January 26 and inform it of their progress.

[Mohamed el-Baradei] said Iraq has provided immediate access to all inspection locations and that four Iraqi scientists have been interviewed in private.

There are two sides but you have to look at the magnitudes. There are 100,000 in the new army alone. I don't think normal sane iraqis would go around blowing up iraqi children whose only crime is wanting to play football with american soldiers.

I don't know how many people have become terrorists or involved in warfare against US forces. I don't think anyone can put a number on that. However, I would argue that the terrorists are sane individuals. They just have a violent, extremist philosophy about who is an enemy and who isn't. Anyone in friendly regards to Americans are corrupted enemies in their eyes that deserve to be killed. I disagree with this philosophy immensely, but I think the word "insane" is a poor choice of words.

Even if Bush did do all this for OIL (I don't think he did), he isn't going to steal it. The US will BUY OIL and the money will go to improving the lives of Iraqis and not Saddam.

Let's hope so. The main people it seems that are profiting from this war is the employees of Halliburton.

Freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom to protest, freedom to choose government and all the other stuff people in the west take for granted. They will also get infrastructure built and ofcourse, US dollars. In short, they'll become 'successful' similar to post war japan and germany.

Again, let's hope so. I don't really see that right now.

Slightly offtopic: I noticed that one of the links you provided was by a right-wing libertarian. I used to be one of those. I bought nearly all the books Ayn Rand wrote and everything. I honestly believed that greed was good, etc. Then I was diagnosed with mental illness (depression). That really changed my perspective, as many of the mentally ill are good-natured human beings who are undeservedly getting neglected by the US government.

A link for you to ponder:

Baghdad Year Zero.

His new CD, Has Been comes out on Tuesday. Here is a review.

I'm still looking for a copy of Transformed Man if anyone knows where to get one.....

You might want to check the propaganda the US government and related bodies is spitting out with regard to the Sudanese "genocide" with a few other perspectives.

Here's one from The Observer that says that claims of genocide by the US administration are overstated and politically motivated.

American warnings that Darfur is heading for an apocalyptic humanitarian catastrophe have been widely exaggerated by administration officials, it is alleged by international aid workers in Sudan. Washington's desire for a regime change in Khartoum has biased their reports, it is claimed.

I was kind of confused, because it's been well known (well, I've known for several years) that both Coke and Pepsi sell tap water for their bottled water. Of course, I also live one town over from the Pepsi bottling plant that serves the New England region.

It makes logical sense - they need to have this filtered water to begin with anyway. All Dasani and Aquafina are is the base water the two companies start with for making all their beverages, plus some minerals for "taste."

But it turns out that in the UK they also managed to add twice the legal limit of bromate, which is a carcinogen. I guess they wanted to hark back to the days when the Coca in Coca-Cola stood for Cocain.

The interview you cited does not establish anything negative about the author, only about the verbally aggressive Chris Matthews.

Do you disagree that George W. Bush stopped his Guard service in April, 1972? Or, do you disagree that the Guard started drug testing in the same month? Or, do you disagree that alcoholics use cocaine to help them drink more?

I find it really, really frightening that you did not already know the things in the book. There's nothing particularly remarkable, if you understand the issues from other sources. The interview discusses someone who said he thought George W. Bush was involved with a prostitute. It should not come as a surprise that an alcoholic abused sexuality. I don't know if George W. Bush was involved with a prostitute, but such a story does not seem surprising for an admitted alcoholic. They usually abuse sexuality. For example, Dick Cheney was known as a drinker and "womanizer" when he worked in Wyoming as CEO of Halliburton.

(George W. Bush admitted only to years of problem drinking, but said he did not think he was an alcoholic. However, this is normal behavior for alcoholics, to deny that they are alcoholics.)

The book just lists things you would hear if you did the research yourself. If you go out to ask people, and 10 people who don't know each other all say that they had knowledge of an abusive drunk, it begins to have credibility. Anyhow, the matter is not in contention, since George W. Bush has admitted publicly his problems with alcohol, and his wife Laura Bush told him she was thinking of leaving him because of his drinking.

George W. Bush would say that his abusiveness was only having fun. This is normal for alcoholics. For example, he called Russian leader Vladimir Putin, "Pootie-Poot". English commentators are not able to analyze this adequately. They don't know that "poot" is a slang American term for a baby's defecation.

George W. Bush's grandfather, Senator Preston Bush, had real ability as a politician, but he was a physically violent alcoholic. George W. Bush's daughters have problems, too. See the story Laura's Girls. It is common that highly stressful families who abuse alcohol induce abuse of alcohol and/or drugs in their children.

Do some googling. For example, see this admiring article from Time Magazine: How George got his groove. Or, see this less-admiring article: Bush's Life-Changing Year. Remember, these journalists were covering a political candidate who might win, and the journalists depend on access to keep their jobs.

CHEMISTRY
The Coca-Cola Company of Great Britain, for using advanced technology to convert liquid from the River Thames into Dasani, a transparent form of water, which for precautionary reasons has been made unavailable to consumers.

[...]It goes something like this: take Thames Water from the tap in your factory in Sidcup, Kent; put it through a purification process[...]

April Microsoft Patches Wednesday 14th April 2004 Microsoft have released three new critical patches: A cumulative update to Outlook Express (fixes the Microsoft Help bug discussed below) A cumulative RPC/DCOM update And a bundle of other patches

If you have heard that Microsoft have changed their licensing programmes then read on to find out what those changes mean, does it affect you and what your options are in the future when buying software.

Windows NT has been with us for almost eight years, and as the product has matured, Microsoft have added more features in an effort to address users' needs and administrators' requirements.

Microsoft claim that more than 60,000 users at corporations, government agencies and universities have already used beta versions of Microsoft Exchange Server. More than 130 software developers have or will soon announce products built on top of Microsoft Exchange, and 30 of these products are expected to ship within 90 days of the Microsoft Exchange ship date. Several of these products are in the area of Bulletin Board systems including some interesting names including PacerForum and TeamTalk. A very impressive feature of the launch of Exchange is the online documentation that Microsoft have assembled on all aspects of it - surf to Microsoft's main Web site http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/ for a cornucopia of documentation, case studies, technical reports and competitive evaluations.

The army have abused her, the police have sexually harassed her

His family claim the army have not learned the lessons of past casualties and said they should now reconsider their policy of using live ammunitions in training exercises.

The US army have no right what so ever to be in Najaf neither the so called governor of Najaf.

The BBC's John Ware: "The army have always contended that Nelson never told them about the targeting of Pat Finucane"

Actually, arbitrary imprisonment is now simple and convenient - you just need to be declared a "material witness":

• Intel programmer "material witness",
• aliens
• military custody
• 800 detainees!
• lawyer losing rights after misidentified fingerprint, (with great terrorist media smear campagain!)
• legal limbo for "material witnesses"

I still think thats nothing compared to this where the retired marine played the role of Saddam and basically kicked the crap out of the US in an exercise in which he sunk almost the entire fleet in the Gulf

> What did Iraq have to do with 9/11?

9/11 made people realize that we should deal with problems sooner rather than later, and that America should scrap it's image as a "paper tiger".

Remember Mogadishu? The 1993 World Trade Center bombing? The bombing of the U.S.S. Cole? Our reactions to those incidents, and many more, emboldened terrorists worldwide. They gave the impression that we talk tough, but are too cowardly to do anything.

Look at Iraq. Flouting the terms of our cease-fire for over a decade -- shooting at us occasionally, screwing around with the inspections, scamming the Food for Oil program, attempting to assassinate a former President... at what point do we put our foot down? 9/11 demonstrated that we can't wait forever.

> The irony is that since there were no weapons, and so Saddam was in complience afterall.

Not according to the United Nations he wasn't. Nevermind that it's been proven that he was (at least unsuccessfully) seeking WMD. That alone was a direct violation of our cease-fire with Iraq.

> Well, not GWB. We know he likes to sit for 7 minutes staring blankly.

He had to sit in the classroom until the Secret Service worked out an exit plan. They had secured the school beforehand, so it was the safest place to be before they got an alternate route to Air Force One worked out. It's not like Bush could have done anything anyways -- even Teresa Heinz Kerry agrees.

> If you think we can kill all the terrorist you're a fool. Israel has arguably been engaged in that policy for most of its 50 year existence, and it hasn't worked.

Israel hasn't been consistent in their policies, to say the least. Any times of peace were just used by the Palestinians to re-arm. As for current events, Israel actually seems to have nearly won the current "intifada", and Ariel Sharon has his country reasonably united on the case of terrorism.

> That is why this time, we're paying for over 90% of the costs of the occupation, and in 1991 we paid 5%.

What occuption in 1991? You mean the no-fly zones? The current "occupation" is rather more comprehensive.

> This "coallition of the willing" is made up of coutries that we bought off with foriegn aid

As opposed to the war's opponents, who were bought off with Saddam's "Oil for Food" money. But I'm sure there's a perfectly legitimate reason why Kofi Annan stonewalled that investigation.

> We had an unprecedented opportunity, and the Bush administration squandered it.

Squandered goodwill? All that America-love was just a blip on the radar. Almost immediately after 9/11, foreigners were worried about what 'evil America' might do to retaliate.

> What did Iraq have to do with 9/11?

9/11 made people realize that we should deal with problems sooner rather than later, and that America should scrap it's image as a "paper tiger".

Remember Mogadishu? The 1993 World Trade Center bombing? The bombing of the U.S.S. Cole? Our reactions to those incidents, and many more, emboldened terrorists worldwide. They gave the impression that we talk tough, but are too cowardly to do anything.

Look at Iraq. Flouting the terms of our cease-fire for over a decade -- shooting at us occasionally, screwing around with the inspections, scamming the Food for Oil program, attempting to assassinate a former President... at what point do we put our foot down? 9/11 demonstrated that we can't wait forever.

> The irony is that since there were no weapons, and so Saddam was in complience afterall.

Not according to the United Nations he wasn't. Nevermind that it's been proven that he was (at least unsuccessfully) seeking WMD. That alone was a direct violation of our cease-fire with Iraq.

> Well, not GWB. We know he likes to sit for 7 minutes staring blankly.

He had to sit in the classroom until the Secret Service worked out an exit plan. They had secured the school beforehand, so it was the safest place to be before they got an alternate route to Air Force One worked out. It's not like Bush could have done anything anyways -- even Teresa Heinz Kerry agrees.

> If you think we can kill all the terrorist you're a fool. Israel has arguably been engaged in that policy for most of its 50 year existence, and it hasn't worked.

Israel hasn't been consistent in their policies, to say the least. Any times of peace were just used by the Palestinians to re-arm. As for current events, Israel actually seems to have nearly won the current "intifada", and Ariel Sharon has his country reasonably united on the case of terrorism.

> That is why this time, we're paying for over 90% of the costs of the occupation, and in 1991 we paid 5%.

What occuption in 1991? You mean the no-fly zones? The current "occupation" is rather more comprehensive.

> This "coallition of the willing" is made up of coutries that we bought off with foriegn aid

As opposed to the war's opponents, who were bought off with Saddam's "Oil for Food" money. But I'm sure there's a perfectly legitimate reason why Kofi Annan stonewalled that investigation.

> We had an unprecedented opportunity, and the Bush administration squandered it.

Squandered goodwill? All that America-love was just a blip on the radar. Almost immediately after 9/11, foreigners were worried about what 'evil America' might do to retaliate.

I'll take you up.

Hellooooo, 9/11, non-compliance with UN resolutions, etc. This guy is basically saying that since Bush didn't want to invade before he had a good reason, he should not have wanted to after he got a good reason (9/11 and Saddam's non-compliance giving us sufficient reason to believe he was a threat being the good reasons).

What did Iraq have to do with 9/11? Attacking Iraq after 9/11 makes as much sense as the United States invading Brazil after Pearl Harbor. The two were not related at all, as numerous bipartisan investigations have confirmed. That lie, more than anything else, is why Bush adminstration is despised. We can not trust this administration with the power of war.

On September 12, 2001, the administration was already drawing up invasion plans for Iraq; even though we were attacked from Afghanistan. It just doesn't make any sense. Their initial reaction wasn't to strike back at those who attacked us, but rather carry out their wet dream of converting the middle east to democracy at the barrel of a gun. As their report said, they would need "a cataclysmic event -- like a new Pearl Harbor" in order to carry this out.

Now with the non-complience with resolutions:

The truth is, as Wolfowitz admitted, Iraq's WMD was just a convient excuse. An excuse that doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

Saddam's economy was in the tank. His infrastructure to reconsititue any weapons program was evicerated and atrophied to the point of being worthless. The bogus "intellegence" we were being fed about Iraq was coming from dubious sources. Furthermore, during the rush to war, the intellegence was not vetted. Instead it shoved directly to Doug Feith and the ominously named "Office of Special Plans". But it wasn't simply all the intellegence about Iraq. It was sifted first. Anything that supported a reason to invade, was good. Anything that didn't was disregarded.

I can hear you now. "But EVERYONE thought he had WMD!". Not exactly. As subsequent investigations have determined, the western world's intellegence apparatus is an echo chamber. Chalabi had been telling the US whatever he thought would get the US to invade Iraq, so he could be setup as the new strongman. His reports were considered by many in the CIA to range from interesting to fanciful.

However there was one group that bought everything Chalabi said. The neocons. This group was still upset that Bush I didn't "finish the job" by invading Iraq back in 1991. (Bush I said in his memoirs that he didn't because the coallition of 100+ nations would fall apart if he did, and he was afraid of what would happen in Iraq after the invasion.) Chalabi enjoyed his new patrons. They gave him money, and he in return told them exactly what they wanted to hear. He hoped that one day they would take control of the White House, and the invasion would be on. He was right.

The neocons would ask the CIA what they knew about Chalabi's claims. Not having many sources in Iraq, the CIA would ask the countries we formerly considered allies (i.e. Europe), if they could check in to it. The allies, not having sources in Iraq either, would ask each other what they knew. The allies would then tell each other that they too had heard these reports from secret sources too. Of course, their secret source was us. The nations-formerly-known-as-allies would then say "Yeah, we've heard these reports from secret sources too." Q.E.D.

The irony is that since there were no weapons, and so Saddam was in complience afterall.

As far as "etc." I have no idea what your "etc." could refer to, and I suspect you don't either.

"If we re-elect him now, we endorse the Bush doctrine of preemptive action and the invasion of Iraq, and w

Mustard gas found by Iraq weapon hunters
Sarin, Mustard Gas Discovered Separately in Iraq

I can only make these corrections so many times...
This is not the world's first legally binding internet vote
This is the first Swiss legally binding internet vote.
The first legally binding internet vote:
"The US, which held the first legally binding internet election, the 2000 Arizona Democratic Primary, is treading more carefully. While the government is spending $2.6bn on modernising voting systems following the 2000 fiasco in Florida, the only Americans able to cast remote internet votes next year will be 100,000 service personnel posted overseas."
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/egovernment/story/0 ,12767,994790,00.html
I would expect a little better from and IEEE member. IEEE used the company that ran the world's first legally binding internet vote to run their internal elections online for some time.

The overseas votes the story references are none other than that of the recent SERVE project that was cancelled recently. A similar story was posted on /. riddled with undue criticisms
I ask you /. community, please be more careful in your statements. Internet voting is the future of the electoral process. We the tech community, of all people, must understand this or at least have a well researched response as to why not.

Jeez, how hard is it to do some fact checking before posting things like that?

Haider was never PM of Austria, his party was a member of the ruling coalition though in 2000, and he is governor of the state of Carinthia. Read wikipedia entry to get some details.

Haider is an avowed anti-EU politician. In 2000 some EU member countries did impose limited diplomatic sanction on Austria. In this case this meant cancelling of visits, recall of ambassadors, etc, and had zero direct economic consequence. I.e this was a gesture of disapproval, and yes any country is entitled to do that, this is was diplomacy is all about. Israel did exactly the same BTW.

FYI Haider is a neo-Nazi revisionist. For once you'd like Europeans to do something when people like Haider get too close to actually governing a country. You remember the last time the European did nothing?

Nice double standards you've got there.

"Can you please explain the difference between the war in Iraq and the war on terror?"

I think that many people don't differentiate between the two. Let me tell you about two editorials that I read.

First, I read this opinion piece about the Iraq war. The author interviews military experts who say:

• The idea that [Iraq] is going to go the way [the Bush administration] planned is ludicrous.
• There's no analogy whatsoever between the situation in Iraq and the advantages we had after the second world war in Germany and Japan.
• We have a growing, maturing insurgency group.
• Most Iraqis consider us occupiers, not liberators.
• There's a significant majority [of military officials] believing this is a disaster. The two parties whose interests have been advanced have been the Iranians and al-Qaida.

I wondered, how good is this analysis? On one hand, it's entirely consistent with the news coming out of Iraq: the U.S. is suffering a lot of damage despite its lack of accomplishments. On the other hand, an op-ed by a former Clinton aide appearing in The Guardian may not be the most objective source for analysis. I wondered if I was missing something.

I decided to check Fox News for a counterpoint. Indeed, I found a viewpoint linked from the main page, titled " Iraq is Not Vietnam, It's Guadalcanal". It was dated Friday, one day after the Guardian article, which had a few comparisons to the Vietnam war.

Bingo. This should be a good read.

It says Vietnam is the wrong analogy for Iraq. WWII is is a far more accurate comparion because "both wars began for the U.S. with a catastrophic sneak attack from an undeclared enemy."

Huh? Is that a reference to 9/11? Did Iraq destroy the World Trade Center?

Oh, I see: he's using "Iraq" and "Al Qaeda" interchangeably. Apparently, he disagrees with the 9/11 commission's determination that the U.S. had no reason to believe that Saddam had significant cooperation with terrorists despite some incidental contact between them.

He continues his WWII comparison saying:

We had similar ill-defined warnings and precedents about Al Qaeda and Islamist terrorism (the East Africa embassy bombings in 1998; the USS Cole bombing (in 2000), but in 2001 as in 1941, we lacked the "hard" intelligence requisite to convince a country at peace that it was about to pitched into war.

Still talking about Al Qaeda, not Iraq. Moving on...

Which brings us to the next lesson of World War II: Totalitarian enemies have to be bludgeoned into submission...

...except when they don't have to be. In Iraq, the U.S. did have other options besides invasion. The U.S. could have continued containment. The reason that America didn't do that is because Bush insisted that Saddam had WMD and that he was a severe and urgent threat to America.

And now for the conclusion:

We lost the first battle of that war on Sept. 11, 2001, and we cannot now afford to walk away from the critical battle we are fighting in Iraq any more than we could afford to walk away from Guadalcanal.

Thanks for that fine comparison of World War II to the war on terrorism. Brilliant analysis. But what about Iraq?

" I doubt it, because I know what advice they'd give and I think, from what I've studied, that it's right, and I know what the Governments in question were like, and I think it's much more likely they baulked at meaningful change, because reform simply doesn't happen. The only time real change occurs is when an externally imposed crisis happens."

Argentina used to be the poster boy of capitalism. They followed pretty much everything these guys said and it turned into a mess--so did every other country that followed them. That is not to say that these guys were fully responsible--they weren't. Clearly the insane levels of corruption didn't help, but nevertheless they deserve some blame. Here is an article that sort of talks about the events in question (although the article doesn't cover Latin America).

" Adam Smith wasn't against Government intervention *per se*, but he was against *improper* intervention, and the sad fact is Government almost always intervene improperly, because their self-interest differs from that of the economy, and because of incompetence. "

Adam Smith was also wary of the private interests of the businessowners/capitalists. He even mentions a scenario of businesspeople meeting in a smoky room to plot.

You can cling to your Milton Friedmanesque views (I have no idea how much you support him) but all of you will end up collapsing at some point. I predict this will happen when USA officially declares bankrupt and Alan Greenspan retires...

"We're functioning in a - with peacetime restraints, with legal requirements in a wartime situation, in the information age, where people are running around with digital cameras and taking these unbelievable photographs and then passing them off, against the law, to the media, to our surprise, when they had not even arrived in the Pentagon."

-- sworn testimony of Secy. Rumsfeld

Exhibit B - handbills relegated to unseen areas

Exhibit C - cavity searches for journalists on World Press Freedom Day

Exhibit D - arguments in favor of squelching 527s

If trailers get you into the cinema, they have done thier job: even if they then ruin the film

> Daily Kos hatesite

Oh, the irony. As you link to LGF who mocks dead protestors like Rachel Corrie by awarding them their "idiotarian award of the year." And they got the entire country of France on there. Umm, who are the haters exactly? I'll let the reader decide:

DailyKos

LGF

Even 30 seconds browsing both sites is enough to figure out who the "hatesite" is.

Not to mention the telegraph is openly and proudly conservative. Just ask its owner Conrad Black.

The daily mail is the brit liberal paper, btw.

There's a nice article about this in the Guardian, here.

And should we also forget that Stalin was an ally of the United States during WWII? The reason the United states helped Saddam come to power weighs heavily in the fact that the United States had two issues. One the US was very scared of what was happening in the region with Khomeini at the helm in Teheran. Two the US was in the midst of the Cold War and was afraid of the Soviets gaining control over the oil in the Gulf.

That does not excuse the fact that we were not watching Saddam closely enough to avert the tragities that came as a result.

I don't have to google for that info, I know it, and while a majority of the hijackers where Saudi not all of them where. There was an Egyptian, a Lebanese, and two from United Arab Emirates, you google it. The tragity of 9/11 wasn't because of Saudi Arabia or Lebanon or the United Arab Emirates, it was a direct result of mentially unstable individuals that thought their chances with virgins where more important than thousands of innocent people. Al Queda seems to be a haven for individuals like that. They aren't fighting for independance, or to free themselves of oppression or slavery, the majority of them fight because they are told that it is a war between people who are like them against people that are against them.

Of course, people like you like to ignore the fact that governments in North Korea, China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia treat their citizens just as bad if not worse than Saddam did his, yet we're not invading those countries

No I am not ignoring the fact that the United States isn't invading those contries. Let take the first one on the list, North Korea. Last time I heard on the news the United States still was maning the line drawn in the sand by the U.N. You want to know why the U.S. hasn't just stepped over the line? It's only approx 50 miles from Seoul, and the North Korea's side of the line is packed full of artillary. We even think of crossing that line into North Korea and Seoul is gone (btw according to this article it's looking like that may not be an issue later. Now lets take the next two, China and Cuba both of those countries have shown to react very nicely to the diplomatic channels. Iraq was talked to for lets see about what 10 years and each time they said sure sure no problem then reniged, again and again, and again and again resolutions were passed in the U.N. saying follow these rules or else, and after a decade of saying or else the U.S. used the authority given to it by one of those previous or else resolutions to give an or else. Now as for the last country you list the Saudi's I'm afraid I would not weep if the Saudi govenment where to suddenly collapsed and a democratic one sprang up over night. I have never ignored the their basic lack of decency to anyone not of the royal family (notice I do distinish the difference between the govenment and the people as I had said in the parent of your post I met and made friends with people of many nationalities, and yes Saudi is one of them) but unless you've have proof that Saudi's routinely tourture it's people (and not that I've heard or seen, I've even looked here here or you have heard the attrocities first hand from an Iraqi don't compare the two.

weak??? That's a laugh, guess the fact that during the years of U.N. watching them oh so closely and making sure all the oil-for-food proceeds went to humantarian causes, and some how Saddam was able rebuild his miltary to what it was before the Gulf war doesn't bother you.

I don't quite agree with you here. Sure, Bush is well-known for mis-speaking and mis-pronouncing things on a regular basis. However, the masses, for whatever reason seem to have given him a pass on this [non]issue.

Kerry on the other hand is a seasoned Senate orator... one would think that he should trounce the word-fumbling president much like Gore in 2000(who also was a senator) ... but whoops! That didn't happen, the debates ended up hurting Gore. From Daily Kos (I can't believe I am citing daily Kos but what the hell,... here's to trying to be impartial):

The first presidential debate was held on October 3 and despite the fact that Gore was widely considered the winner (by an average of 9%), his behavior at the debate coupled with media coverage that labeled him an exaggerator, denied Gore a bounce. The race was a statistical dead heat leading up to the second debate on October 11. This time, Bush was the clear winner (by an average of 9%) and did receive a bounce. Bush was leading by an average of 4% leading up to the third debate on October 17, of which there was no clear winner (people favored Gore slightly).

he could raise undecided voters' passion quite a bit.

I think more interestingly will be the tone of the debates. This election is different than most. I don't believe that anyone is really 'undecided' given the polarization of the electorate. As opposed to past debates where the focus was on woo-ing undecideds (which has to be done somewhat gently and positively), I think that this series will be more about shoring up the base voters and trying to scare the decided but not stolid supporters on the other side. In other words... I think it will be quite ugly as debates go.

A Boston Globe story? You've got a lot of balls posting that link in here.

Why? It's not as if it's Fox.

Except, you know, for the fact that he was honorably discharged, not an honor conferred upon them what don't show up. And the public record of Bush's attendance. And the expert opinion of Lt. Col. Lloyd given upon examining the records. And the dental check-up that you guys love to forget about.

Hell, even CBS News admits that ample evidence of the president's honorable service exists.

Quote sources, please.

Oooh, one quote taken out of context and misrepresented. (He was talking about an event that happened in the winter of 1968, dumbass.) You baffle me. "There's no evidence at all! Except for all that evidence, which doesn't count because the Boston Globe which never, ever lies told me so!" Loser.

Ad homenim attack if I've ever seen one. You can't produce anything concrete, so you resort to attacking me? And besides, I only tried to pick a representative sample. If you want something not from the Globe, do a search for awol bush on Google. Before you even say biased, realize that what will turn up are sites that link to news articles about the issue. Please at least look before you respond with another ad homenim. Your karma will thank you.

There's no evidence to suggest that it was either systematic or at "very high levels" of either the Military or Executive branch.
The general in charge of Iraq operations failed to provide sufficient force levels or adequate supervision of activities at Abu Ghraib. Further prisoner abuse was reported in other military prison facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Abuse was widespread enough that there's good reason to label it as systematic, even if the generals can scapegoat some poor grunts and low level officers and hide behind plausible deniability.

I'll remind you that every prisoner left with his head on his shoulders.
Did you know about this and this?
Dead is dead. So Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib were carried out in a body bag with their heads attached to their shoulders.
The level of gruesomeness doesn't change that both were murder, some done on behalf of a country that claims to be above torture and murder of prisoners. When word gets out, it supports Zarqawi and his ilk who claim "Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose", and weakens any legitimacy of the U.S presence in Iraq. Shouldn't US citizens know what is being done in their name and how it affects the Iraqi population's view of the occupation? When it affects the ability to obtain intelligence that might stop the kidnappings and beheadings and win some battles in the war on terror instead of fanning the flames of Islamic mistrust?

But no, that would be unfair. Instead, keep on fanning the flames of moral outrage sparked by 9/11. The U.S.A. never does anything wrong and it's the terrorists that are bloody murderers.

The USA is making the same mistakes the French made in Algeria and it look increasingly likely that it may end in the same way, in civil war with thousands deads and the country in the hands of Islamic extremists. If that happens President Bush will have achieved what no one thought possible, making Saddam Hussein look good by comparison.

No, but it could be considered radical that someone in today's world, given all of our scientific knowledge, take creationism literally.

What is more radical about Bush is how he involves religion in his campaigning and his administration. For example: claiming that God wants him to be president. Tearing down the constitutional walls between church and state by funding "Faith based initiatives" via Presidential directive after Congress (with a Republican majority) denied them. Going on a personal crusage against homosexuals to "preserve the sanctity of marriage". etc.

Even comparing Bush to previous Republican administrations still makes him look like a religious radical. Hell, even compare him to his father's administration and the difference is huge.

Really? Can you provide any information to back this up? ie. actual statistics, as opposed to blogs. I'd heard exactly the opposite.