Slashdot Mirror

The reporting of this war has verged on pornography, with too many reporters getting excited about bombs and tanks and too little attention being paid to the human cost.

There's an article on this very subject in yesterday's Guardian. Draws some very interesting parallels between porn and war footage: "This... is the kind of spectacular vision you get in porn - where the point is to see the sex act from every angle. It's narcissistic." (Linda Williams, professor of film studies and rhetoric at UC Berkley)

Then why are you against taking out the man who kills more children than anyone else? Saddam Hussein kills more children before lunchtime in a single day than will be killed in this whole war. If your heart cries out for the murdered innocent children, you need to be for this war! Saddam has used bees and scorpions to sting naked children in front of their parents.

Your way of "peace" only allows the merciless persecution and impoverishment of Iraqis to continue. Why is the justification for this war so hard to understand? Saddam has killed over 100,000 people. This is a rescue mission. It is a war of compassion to end a holocaust.

You wanted to give diplomacy more time?

"You just arrived. You're late. What took you so long? God help you become victorious. I want to say hello to Bush, to shake his hand. We came out of the grave." - liberated Iraqi

Listen to the account of a reformed anti-war protester who went to Iraq:

A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head."

Probably referring to this, in Kabul in 2001:
The US had scored a direct hit on the offices of the Qatar-based TV station Al-Jazeera, leading to speculation that the channel had been targeted deliberately

I wonder if there is a similar aged connection to USA support of Saddam?

You mean like this?

/. with "Fair and Balanced" reporting. Read the The Guardian for the Right and The New Zealand Herald for the Left. Read it at C|Net if you don't care.
Don't worry if you forget a secret Echelon knows it already.

And the Iraqis are aggrieved at the marines. A 50-year-old businessman and farmer, Said Yahir, was driving up to the main body of the reconnaissance unit, stationed under the bridge. He wanted to know why the marines had come to his house and taken his son Nathen, his Kalashnikov rifle, and his 3m dinars (about £500).

"What did I do?" he said. "This is your freedom that you're talking about? This is my life savings."

Americans call him president. Iraqis call him savior.

"You just arrived. You're late. What took you so long? God help you become victorious. I want to say hello to Bush, to shake his hand. We came out of the grave."

A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head."

It's really telling that you direct that statement (I quoted at the very top) toward Americans and President Bush and not Iraqis and "President" Hussein. (Of course, most Iraqis do not actually call Saddam "President" ... well, okay, not willingly.)

The actions of shocking genitals, medical experimentation, crucifixions, and using bees and scorpions to sting naked children in front of their parents merely qualifies Saddam Hussein as "not an angel." Meanwhile, the actions of leading the charge to use force to STOP those atrocities does not, in your mind, outweigh whatever other comparatively petty objections you have against George W. Bush, in qualifying him as an "a*hole." The fact that President Bush is at the forefront of this mission of emancipation and war on terrorism makes him all the more praiseworthy. Don't think I'm a Bushie yes-man. I strenuously disagree with the president on some of his foreign policy, but this war is just and necessary for peace. The cost in human life of this war will be high, but the cost of not going to war has been and would continue to be much higher.

Don't mistake courage and decisiveness for arrogance. However, even if Bush were arrogant, that does nothing to diminish the reasons for the war: national and world security, prevent terrorism, Iraqi liberation, stop oppression.

President Bush is not defying the United Nations. You see, the United States is essentially the executive branch of the U.N. It is the only entity in the world truly capable of fulfilling this position. The U.N. has no armed forces, and therefore, no way to enforce its resolutions when countries want to defy its will. Even if there were a U.N. military, the U.N. would be too cowardly to use it. Using aggressive force goes against the tragically flawed, international elitist philosophy that diplomacy can solve every possible conflict in the world. As a result, the U.N. is useless. Its words have no impact because it will not back them up.

The U.S. is not defying the U.N.; it's doing the exact opposite. The U.S. is enabling the U.N. to fulfill its goals. Bush is trying to put a backbone in the U.N., but the U.N. is hell-bent on being irrelevant. The U.N. said that Iraq needed to be disarmed, and if disarmament could not be achieved through diplomacy, then "serious consequences" would be necessary. After seventeen resolutions against the Iraqi regime and twelve years of diplomacy, the situation is worse than when we first began. The U.S. is fulfilling the U.N.'s wishes by volunteering to disarm Iraq by force.

If any one is

It doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks, because we are more right than they are ("Bush is Hitler," "No war for Texaco"). Because we alone have the ability to do whatever we want, combined with accurate knowledge and passion for goodness, we have the moral obligation to do what we know is right.

Bush and Blair are right. The protesters are wrong.

A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." (superyooser: Expounded, "My experience in the real world forced me to abandon my fantasies about Bush's greedy, imperialist intentions and taught me that his administration's position is right and based on reality.") Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head."

Some really smart people argue against your assesment for instance this Oxford professor.

Like this one, for instance? No wait a minute, the US refuses to sign that treaty, perhaps this one? Or maybe that'll end up the same place the anti-ballistic missile treaty did about a year ago.

No, you must closed minded and blind. I was referring to neo conservaties and the hawks in the White House.

Where's any proof that Iraq has funded Terrorism?

areal photos of camp

terrorist links

more ammo

washington times article

links to Al Qaeda

Is that enough? or do you need more?

maeryk

From The Guardian:

Iraq's information minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, told a news conference: "They targeted the houses of Saddam Hussein and his family, but they are safe. They are safe," he repeated, adding that the US president, George Bush, was the "leader of an international criminal gang of bastards".

When I read this, I most vividly remembered from my youth that I would resort to this kind of baseless name-calling when I was cornered by a parent who had been poked and prodded one time too many, and was comin' at me with a belt, ready to tan my hide. That's how I see Saddam right now... and it's really sad.

where can we go besides CNN and /. for frequently-updated briefs on the situation?

How about:

• http://news.bbc.co.uk/
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/

If the US/UK believed they had a chance to get the necessary majority (9 votes) they would have held that vote nevertheless simply to be able to say "the world wants us to do it just France's the pouting brat". Now it looks the other way round.

I'm saying France was wrong to make a public announcement that they would oppose it under any and all circumstances.

That's not what Chirac said. Stop bitching, start reading

Well, lets start with the dossier that Powell submitted to the U.N., it's a fake.

Remember that bit of evidence linking Iraq to nuclear weapons, oh yeah, it's a fake as well.

Those "great" tips our folks have been giving the inspection team? All that cool intel we have about trucks with mobile labs and sneaky shit going down, ummmm, it's garbage.

Shit, I could spend all day doing this. Our government has been busted time after time. They are liars. Period. However, now that we're at war, I support our folks over there fighting. Our president is a complete bullshit artist and his team of jackasses will, hopefully, go far far away after the next election. But I hope the people on the ground and in the air do what they have to do and get home safely.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/history/0,12792,876 851,00.html

"A disaster

The world must be told clearly that millions of British people are deeply shocked by the aggressive policy of the Government. Its action in attacking Egypt is a disaster of the first magnitude

Thursday November 1, 1956"

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

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

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

Troll... may I ask why?

Cheney was CEO of Halliburton. When he stated he was going to be running for VP of the US he stepped down to being Halliburton's chairman of the Board. Then left Halliburton in August of 2000. What's interesting is Halliburton was super nice to him and awarded him $20,000,000.00 (despite his origional severence package required he be awarded only $2,100,000.00 and required him to stay until he was 62. He's 59.) He owns more than a million shares (over $10,000,000.00 worth) of this commpany. Why was Halliburton so nice to Cheney despite his leaving before he was supposed to? Large companies aren't really known for being nice guys to anyone (especially former employees) unless it's in their best interest.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/12/ cheney.parachute.ap/

You'll also note than Halliburton was busted for extremely fishy and illegal accounting in July of 2002.
http://money.cnn.com/2002/07/10/news/cheney_lawsui t/

Well somewhere this vanished and accoring to http://www.judicialwatch.org/2221.shtml the whitehouse stopped the court order illegally. I'm not sure if I believe that story, but I haven't heard anything about this case since July of 2002. Anyone know anything about what happened to the charges?

Since Bush was elected (or placed in office by Florida's Supreme Court, rather) Halliburton has been handed many federal contracts worth many billions of dollars.

I simply can't stand the thought of my tax dollars and my friends in the military are being abused for the profit of someone who already has more money than anyone could need.

For more interesting articles concerning Halliburton and Cheney:

http://www.observer.co.uk/bush/story/0,8224,759141 ,00.html

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

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/13/business/13HALL. html

There are laws against such activities. But as long as a bunch of corrupt, self-serving, unconstitutional cowards are in charge, no real action against white-collar crimes will ever be taken.

Or, to put it differently: As long as white-collar criminals are in charge, white-collar crimes will be tolerated.

What I don't understand is why ordinary people tolerate and defend Bush's actions. After all, it is you and I who pay the bill at the end of the day.

I suggest consulting several sources with a broad range of perspectives. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Guardian Unlimited's World News Guide is a good starting point. It contains pointers to international sources for news from every region of the world.

The worst source for information is the American electronic media. They are obsessed with breaking the newest little piece of news, ignoring normal journalist practices of verifying information before going live with it. They focus on areas and events where they have reporter who can transmit live, and give little time to anything else. I watched CNN for half an hour this morning, and not even once did they slow down long enough to provide a summary of what was happening. FOX, CBS, etc. are just as bad. ABC is a little better, but only when Peter Jennings the anchor.

MSN Slate
Truthout
The Guardian
BBC
Reuters

Probably about 400 billion... coming from where... not taxes? Where o where is my 400bil comin from.

Read what you will but you cannot claim the UK government does not have support at home for the action.

Bollocks. Of course I can, and I have an ICM poll to back my claims up. 44% of the public opposed to war, 38% supportive. I'd be delighted to know where you got your figures fr... oh, hang on, you don't have any, it was an entirely unsupported assertion (cue shouts of "You're new around here, aren't you?").

As to political support, bear in mind that many Labour ministers are unwilling to oppose a war publicly for fear of damaging the party. Nobody wants Blair's head on a plate, since he's the most successful leader they've had in years. But the parent post referred to "popular support" so this is not really relevant.

The Guardian, Friday 7 March 2003

The Pentagon has asked the US Congress to lift a 10-year ban on developing small nuclear warheads, or "mini-nukes", in one of the most overt steps President George Bush's administration has taken towards building a new atomic arsenal.
Buried in the defence department's 2004 budget proposals, sent to congressional committees this week, was a single-line statement that marks a sharp change in US nuclear policy.

It calls on the legislature to "rescind the prohibition on research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons".

If passed by Congress, the measure would represent an important victory for radicals in the administration, who believe the US arsenal needs to be made more "usable", and therefore a more meaningful deterrent, to "rogue states" that have weapons of mass destruction, or WMD.

A Pentagon official said yesterday the research ban on smaller warheads "has negatively affected US government efforts to support the national strategy to counter WMD, and undercuts efforts that could strengthen our ability to deter or respond to new or emerging threats".

Democrats fought off earlier Republican attempts to lift the ban on researching and developing warheads under five kilotons (a third of the power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima), fearing they would lead to an end to the US moratorium on nuclear testing, and to a new arms race.

Starvation after war

Another one

Iraq's imports of food and medicine are not now and have never been affected by any of the various sanctions regimes imposed by the UN or the US.
You might want to update your knowledge here

And at the risk of starting a flamewar: an example, please, of "lies, propaganda, subterfuge, bribery and bullying threats". Let's think for a moment about the way George Bush has become 'president'. Here is something to get you started reading on that one.

Makes me wonder how you can install a democracy if you aren't a democratic leader yourself.

Radio Netherlands

Guardian

Just because there isn't a second UN Security Council resolution doesn't mean that it was necessary to have one (when the first resolution spoke of 'grave consequences' what did that mean -- watching the French quip and quibble?).

Just because the Bush Administration has failed to argue the case for war coherently and convincingly (Saddam Hussein has links to Al Quaida ... no, he tried to kill my dad ... he has nukes ... er ... well, anyway he is bad and Wolfowitz always said so) doesn't mean that e.g., Tony Blair, John Howard , Tim Collins, Timothy Garton Ash, Julie Burchill, and Christopher Hitchens haven't.

Just because the case for war isn't clearcut doesn't mean that there isn't a case to be made. After all: if we say that Mr Hussein's violation of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire agreement, his violations of 18 UN Security Council resolutions, and his violations of the Iraqi peoples' [sic] basic human rights do not, put together, consitute a sufficiently strong case for war what exactly would?!?

'Innocent' (whatever that means) Iraqi civilians will inevitably die in this war. But is that really the same as saying that no 'innocent' Iraqi people will die if Mr Hussein is left to his own device and in power?

In the immortal words of the leftist Swedish band Hoolabandoola Band (admittedly à propos their supporting the then-guerilla the Sandinistas of Nicaragua) [I'm paraphrasing]: 'Är det verkligen fred vi vill ha? Och till varje enskilt pris?' (Is it really peace we want? And at any cost?)

Just because there isn't a second UN Security Council resolution doesn't mean that it was necessary to have one (when the first resolution spoke of 'grave consequences' what did that mean -- watching the French quip and quibble?).

Just because the Bush Administration has failed to argue the case for war coherently and convincingly (Saddam Hussein has links to Al Quaida ... no, he tried to kill my dad ... he has nukes ... er ... well, anyway he is bad and Wolfowitz always said so) doesn't mean that e.g., Tony Blair, John Howard , Tim Collins, Timothy Garton Ash, Julie Burchill, and Christopher Hitchens haven't.

Just because the case for war isn't clearcut doesn't mean that there isn't a case to be made. After all: if we say that Mr Hussein's violation of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire agreement, his violations of 18 UN Security Council resolutions, and his violations of the Iraqi peoples' [sic] basic human rights do not, put together, consitute a sufficiently strong case for war what exactly would?!?

'Innocent' (whatever that means) Iraqi civilians will inevitably die in this war. But is that really the same as saying that no 'innocent' Iraqi people will die if Mr Hussein is left to his own device and in power?

In the immortal words of the leftist Swedish band Hoolabandoola Band (admittedly à propos their supporting the then-guerilla the Sandinistas of Nicaragua) [I'm paraphrasing]: 'Är det verkligen fred vi vill ha? Och till varje enskilt pris?' (Is it really peace we want? And at any cost?)

Just because there isn't a second UN Security Council resolution doesn't mean that it was necessary to have one (when the first resolution spoke of 'grave consequences' what did that mean -- watching the French quip and quibble?).

Just because the Bush Administration has failed to argue the case for war coherently and convincingly (Saddam Hussein has links to Al Quaida ... no, he tried to kill my dad ... he has nukes ... er ... well, anyway he is bad and Wolfowitz always said so) doesn't mean that e.g., Tony Blair, John Howard , Tim Collins, Timothy Garton Ash, Julie Burchill, and Christopher Hitchens haven't.

Just because the case for war isn't clearcut doesn't mean that there isn't a case to be made. After all: if we say that Mr Hussein's violation of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire agreement, his violations of 18 UN Security Council resolutions, and his violations of the Iraqi peoples' [sic] basic human rights do not, put together, consitute a sufficiently strong case for war what exactly would?!?

'Innocent' (whatever that means) Iraqi civilians will inevitably die in this war. But is that really the same as saying that no 'innocent' Iraqi people will die if Mr Hussein is left to his own device and in power?

In the immortal words of the leftist Swedish band Hoolabandoola Band (admittedly à propos their supporting the then-guerilla the Sandinistas of Nicaragua) [I'm paraphrasing]: 'Är det verkligen fred vi vill ha? Och till varje enskilt pris?' (Is it really peace we want? And at any cost?)

Well, it seems the US government isn't too comfortable with that and tries (german link) to make (german link) the EU abandon that project. Naturally the EU doesn't like depending on a US-monopoly for such an important system.

I think we're already at war.

Gotta love that thing called diplomacy.

And remember this war was pre-determined when Bush came into power.

1) A cure for HIV that is cheap enough to be rolled out in Africa.

There are already several treatments for HIV and the symptoms of AIDS that are quite cheap - that is, cheap to produce. However most (but not all) of the western pharmaceutical companies refuse to license them at discounted rates because they're such a cash cow. Which means that tens of millions are facing death simply because drugs company execs are unwilling to sacrifice their bottom lines.

Which is sickening.

Some links: South Africa fights Aids drug apartheid, and if you're in the UK and haven't, donate to Comic Relief who help HIV/AIDS sufferers in the UK and Africa.

Could Tony Blair look at the internet now, please?

Is that what the guy from Trigger Happy TV uses to sync his giant mobile phone to his Mac?

Really, are they? Is this a different American than the one south of Canada that you're talking about?

Terror suspects 'have no right to US trial

we are becoming known for invading the privacy of citizens of the world

And not just any old citizens.

Incidentally, this story (spying on UN delegates) seems to have had a very low profile in the US media, not sure why, in general I find the coverage pretty good, usual suspects excepted of course.

Don't buy crap like this.

This type "research" is frequently sponsored by corporations with an interest in attempting to sway public opinion by footing the bill for "scientific studies."

Instead, call them out on it.

PS: we've seen this stuff before

Don't be a sucker.

only to have been BBC'd to my superiors

You mean like this ? Nope - my bad - that was to the Observer not the BBC...

Well, between Bush and Bush's army, that is kind of true. Wait a minute....

"Funny thing is, it was still the US doing most of the work. Seemed to end the conflict too, even if it wasn't pretty. Wonder why NATO wasn't invited to go to Afghanistan with us? There's your answer."

We didn't need to send the whole of NATO, just John Simpson of the BBC!

Anyway aren't the US part of NATO. And I know the Brits were definitely there.

Actually Pepsi doesn't own Dr. Pepper. They are in fact owned by Cadbury (and by Coca-Cola in the UK).

Pepsi does bottle and distribute Dr. Pepper in the states, however.

As this article suggests, you are not the only one with this misconception.

On November 1 1983, the secretary of state, George Shultz, was passed intelligence reports of "almost daily use of CW [chemical weapons]" by Iraq.

However, 25 days later, Ronald Reagan signed a secret order instructing the administration to do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq losing the war. Source: Rumsfeld 'offered help to Saddam'

Er, wow. Well, it occurs to me that Rupert Murdoch is a worldwide phenomenon, so it's not American media that's flawed, but that corporate agendas exert a baleful influence worldwide.

For further reading:

Paul Krugman of The New York Times on US/Europe media differences

His Master's Voice - The Guardian on the uniform pro-war line taken in all 175 Murdoch papers worldwide

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

• work seriously toward nuclear disarmament;
  
• abide by the biological and chemical weapons conventions;
  
• repudiate "preemptive" war plans;
  
• repudiate "regime change" doctrine;
  
• cease interference with the inspections process;
  
• acknowledge the Israeli nuclear program and cut off aid until it can be inspected and dismantled;
  

Well, no disrespect to anymone working in space programs, but there are a lot more dangerous jobs in the world. Just making the news now are the apparently attrocious conditions in China's mines: "More than 5,000 people were killed in coal mine accidents last year, according to the government."

The link in my previous post seems to have died, have a look at this link for an alternative.

I believe that suicide is the largest killer of young men in the uk.
Capitilism kills