Slashdot Mirror

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/19/usint13 767.htm

News reports indicate that Taliban and al-Qaeda detainees will be confined at Guantanamo Bay in small cages with chain-link sides, concrete floors and metal roofs. The cages will offer scant shelter from wind and rain. Details about sanitary and hygiene facilities are not available.

Explain that to me. It sounds like you think women are inherently weaker creatures then men in more than just the physical sense

That style of argumentation is inflammatory and unproductive, and I suggest you'll get along better in the world if you stop these "when did you stop beating your wife" style arguments.

In any case, rather than try to explain to you the link between women's rights and HIV/AIDS, I refer to article that explains the link. There are lots more articles on it on the Internet if you bother to look for them.

Then you start going off about a magic pill? Huh?

You have been arguing that investing in an HIV vaccine is important in order to help children and other people not responsible for their infection. With that argument, you implicitly assume that a practical, effective HIV vaccine can be developed at all. Right now, that's wishful thinking.

Improving women's rights and economic development in third world nations is difficult politically and very expensive; that's why policy makers are looking for a "magic pill" (an HIV vaccine) to avoid having to make tough political decisions or spend a lot of money.

While US politics, just like US business, can't see further than this presidential term and next quarter's results, those pesky Europeans tend to look years and decades ahead and plan business slower, but more profitable in the long run. And they get all the goodwill too: you never hear of "anti-Swiss sentiments" and all the money, including that of your pet dictators, is in their banks.

The big issue with landmines is only with antipersonnel landmines.

The U.S. used to be a big exporter, but Bush Sr. did a lot towards changing that. Under Bush Sr, there was a moratorium passed in the Congress/Senate & signed into law. Clinton supported & signed legislation extending the moratorium.

While Clinton would not sign the international ban without an exemption for their use in Korea, he did start the ball rolling towards acceptance of the ban.

Unfortunately, the Bush Jr. Administration changed the policy 180 degrees.
http://hrw.org/backgrounder/arms/arms0805/

If you read that link, you'll see they mention funding for a new antipersonell mine system with "full production decision expected in 2008." Ya wanna know why 2008? because the U.S. moratorium expires in 2008.

A lot of people are pissed off about this.
http://www.google.com/search?q=antipersonnel+bush+ expire+2008

U.S. Use of Landmines in Korea: Myths and Reality (Prepared by the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation March, 2002) http://www.banminesusa.org/qa/vvaf.html

NGOs Urge US to Halt use of Landmines in Afghanistan http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1027-05.ht m

From "Landmines in Iraq": http://hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/iraqmines1212.htm
The last time the U.S. used antipersonnel mines was in the Gulf War in 1991 and according to a study recently released by the General Accounting Office, the Bush Administration is reported to be reviewing war plans that include plans for the use of mines. The Pentagon has said it "retains the right to use landmines."

From the same source: What will the impact be on the mine ban movement if the U.S. uses mines in Iraq? The use of antipersonnel mines by the U.S. in Iraq would certainly be a setback to the overall movement to eradicate the weapon. It would reverse the positive steps the U.S. has taken in the past decade to ban antipersonnel mines, which has been an objective of the U.S. since 1994; it would likely be the death knell of the existing U.S. policy goal of joining the Mine Ban Treaty by 2006. New U.S. mine use would also undermine efforts to fully implement and universalize the Mine Ban Treaty by providing justification for other holdout states to use, produce, or export these indiscriminate weapons. The U.S. supplied antipersonnel mines to more than three-dozen countries in the past. U.S.-manufactured mines have been planted in the ground and caused civilian casualties in more than two-dozen countries.

So much for the US being whiter than white when it comes to landmines.

I'm not aware of any other part of the world where the US uses landmines (care to enlighten me?). Kuwait and Iraq in 1991 and they were shipped to but not deployed in Kosovo. http://hrw.org/backgrounder/arms/arms0805/

We can give the political equivilant of "I'm gonna hold my breath 'til you give me my candy" -- because we aren't in very much real danger. We live in the first world, a world where "poor" doesn't mean digging for food in the trash, dysentery, or even a shack made of cobbled together materials. "Poor" means no plasma screens, no statilite TV, and Dial up internet.

We can waste time argueing about flag-burning and gay marriage because we really don't have that many serious domestic problems to be dealt with. Other nations would laugh at our battles. What -- we're "persectuted" because the Wal-Mart greeter doesn't say "Merry CHRISTMAS"? Okay, so exactly what is it called when a man can be beheaded for daring to not be a muslim? We think it's censorship because some jackass wants to ban the sale of M-rated games to 16 year olds? What about the http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/11/16/saudia12049 .htmSaudi teacher sentenced to 40 months and 750 lashes for "declaring listening to music, smoking, adultery, homosexuality and masturbation as permissible under Islam"?

The problem -- if you could call it that, keeping Americans and Westerners in general in a "childlike state" is that we don't have nearly as many problems as other people. We stay childlike because the hardships that force other people to grow up quickly just don't happen here.

I'm going to break my response into multiple posts because the first one is so long.

The US doesn't torture prisoners. What you're doing is changing the meaning of the word "torture" to cover anything other than keeping them in a 5 star hotel and saying "please" and "thank you" every 5 seconds.

An interesting assertion. This flies flat in the face of pretty much all evidence that's come to light so far. You know, I've stayed in some pretty crappy motels, but I've never had the kind of "service" detainees have had in the care of US forces.

On August 1st 2002, Alberto Gonzalez sent a memo to the President about the use of torture in interrogation of prisoners. In this document, torture defined extremely narrowly. Physical torture is defined as physical punishments that would result in severe physical impairment, organ failure, or death and psychological torture is defined as only acts with threaten the above to the interogated or to a third party and the use of drugs to alter the senses or the personality of the detainee. (You can find more torture documents here.)

This, interestingly, does not cover many of the acts that went on at Abu Ghraib. Beatings that don't cause organ failure, severe impairment, or death don't count as torture under this. Electric shocks don't count as torture under this. Sexual humilation and rape doesn't count as torture under this. Hanging people in stress positions for hours doesn't count as torture under this. Having a prisoner parade around nude and covered in feces doesn't count as torture under this. You can find many images of the abuse on the Wikimedia Commons. Be warned, due to the sexual molestation involved, most of these images are not really safe for work.

Any sane person would consider these acts as having stepped beyond interrogation techniques and into torture.

Of course, even by these harsh and extremist standards, torture went on under US forces. Manadel al-Jamadi was beaten to death in the hands of soldiers at Abu Ghraib. That certainly counts as an interrogation method that leads to "organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."

Prisoner abuse by US forces in the "War on Terror" didn't start in Iraq, though. There were actually several deaths of detainees under US control in Bagram in Afghanistan.

Beyond that, you have Guantanamo Bay prison. The abuses of detainees at Guantanamo either haven't been as severe as those at Bagram and Abu Ghraib, or they've been kept a better secret. There have been numerous prisoners beaten (though not to death), and there is a lot of use of stress positions to cause pain and suffering to coerce prisoners as reports of treats that violated even Gozalez's standards to the family members of detainees. The tactics there that are publicly known are a lot softer than those at other facilities, but are certainly harsher than what's tolerated at prisons in US land, but there are a few things that have gotten out that suggest that some of the accusations of former inmates have some substance.

In one chilling account, Sean Baker, a soldier who served in the 438th Military Police was asked to pretend to be a resistant detainee in a training exercise in 2003. Other guards who were not aware he wasn't a detainee came in a began suffocating and beating him. The beatings did not stop with the codeword for the exercise and only stopped when he yelled that he was a soldier and they found his fatigues under the orange prisoner jumpsuit. Unfortunately, by then the head trauma led to traumatic brain injury and a discharge f

"Monopolies ONLY occur due to government licensing."

Ridiculous beyond comprehension. Learn about economics and its history. See: John D Rockefeller and Standard Oil. In an unregulated system, the natural equilibrium is monopoly.

"Not true. A provider of a product or service will provide what the consumer wants, including making sure that they abide by whatever environmental restrictions the market demands. Pollution is better covered by trespass and realistic tort laws than by regulation -- regulations of the environment today just move polluters around. The biggest polluter in the country is the US government, by the way."

First of all, a dichotomy between "tort laws" and "regulation" is patently false and intellectually shallow. Furthermore, pollution is not well-suited for tort law. Not only are harms that occur due to pollution often societal, but they are difficult to trace to individuals or companies as the cumulative effect brings about such negative consequences. Tort law focuses on private property and pollution harms the common good, public property and society in general.

"No, child labor has occured during the beginning of markets because the older workers were not able to adapt to the new markets. In most situations, children will be less productive if the government stops restricting how it pays employees. Minimum wage laws create unemployment because they rob uneducated non-productive people from finding jobs that won't pay them what they're worth until they prove their worth as employees. Many foreigners come into the country to work illegally for less than minimum wage, but quickly start earning much more than minimum wage once they've proven their worth."

Factually wrong. Its that simple. Child labor did not occur because older workers were not able to adapt. Its insulting that anyone would actually post such tripe. Children are not working in South East Asia for three generations because the older people couldn't adapt. Children didn't work in Western Europe and the United States from the start of the Industrial Revolution until nearly WWII because their parent's couldn't adapt. The children of children who were forced to work were also forced to work, are still forced to work at the same jobs.

"Go read Mises, Rothbard, Hayek and Goethe. You'll drop your Keynesian theories right quick."
Ah it all becomes clear. How about this - don't try and drape ideology as economics. The Austrian School is all about how economics 'should' be. Its horrible at predicting how things are. Its also fundamentally anti-labor (relying solely on the marginal utility to produce value has no fundamental origin of the system). There's a reason the Austrian school has been a fringe theory of economics in every society (except ironically under the National Socialists).

Paladin 144 post pretty much debunks what you said. To add to that you did see the TV footage of the (AFAIR) the diplomat of Saudi passing on a message saying that OBL thanked the US for helping him in Afganistan?

If I was you, I would also look into the "Northern Alliance" that was just a fancy name put onto them by the US so people wouldn't pry into what they were really like. As people go they make the Taliban look tame.

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/afghan-bck100 5.htm

"The lone customer will do what exactly?"
Probably just languish in prison wondering if his family is safe and if the guards are going to beat him again. http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/11/01/china11957. htm

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ = a whole lot of accidents.

I know how the Air Force plans bombing runs. The Law of Armed Conflict requires that commanders balance military necessity against unnecessary civilian suffering. Some suffering is considered to be unavoidable, and the commander has to determine whether the suffering that will or may be caused is worth the military value of destroying the target. Now, it's good that we actually worry about that. I'm very happy that we try to balance civilian suffering with military necessity. That's a great thing. Sets us apart from the monsters in the world. It's how I'm able to sleep at night. But there are times when a commander says "Well, we'll probably kill some innocent civilians in the process, but in the end the military value justifies their loss." and that's a fact. When you're like me and you consider the Iraq war to have been unnecessary, you consider all the civilian suffering (and for that matter, the military suffering because getting shredded by an IED is no picnic) to be unnecessary and a tragedy caused by short-sighted selfish fanatical people. On both sides of the conflict.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2003/12/12/iraq6582.ht m/
In a single day, U.S. cluster-munition attacks in Hilla on March 31 killed at least 33 civilians and injured 109. A hospital director in the southern Iraqi city told Human Rights Watch that cluster munitions caused 90 percent of the civilian injuries that his hospital treated during the war. Human Rights Watch obtained hospital records from Hilla, Najaf and Nasariya indicating 2,279 civilian casualties in March and April, including 678 dead and 1,601 injured.

That's a whole lot of whoops. Like "Whoops, I blew your house and kids up. But hey, enjoy the sweet taste of freedom. By yourself."

Would you please be specific about which innocent civilians the US is killing and where? Do you refer to Iraq and Afghanistan? Or do you refer to abortion rights in the US? I'm confused.

As for the current situation in China, it is less severe than under Mao's regime for the majority of citizens. However, China does still execute more people per year than the entire world combined. China still utilizes reeducation through labor, essentially prison labor camps. Slavery. And there have been many recent reports of organ harvesting of prisoners for sale on the international market.

I'm sorry, but I still don't think the human rights situation between the US and China comes close in comparison.

By contrast, the Indian government wastes huge sums of money on space exploration and nuclear-weapons development. Meanwhile, the majority of Indians live in squalor. Many Indian children continue to work as slaves.

There is a horrific comparison here. Japan, a nation with virtually no natural resources, has reached 1st-world status. India, a nation with plenty of resources, remains a cesspool of poverty. Why did Japan succeed but India fail?

If you have no substantive response to someones argument the best response is to make fun of them and call them mentally ill. Hey works for the Chinese too, you're in good company:

"There are surely few more potent deterrents to dissident activity of any kind than the threat of permanent or semi-permanent forced removal to an institution for the criminally insane. A potential Chinese dissident or religious nonconformist may be prepared to face imprisonment for his or her beliefs, but indefinite psychiatric custody is probably quite another matter. Additionally, psychiatric labeling of this kind serves to stigmatize and socially marginalize the dissident in a way that regular criminal imprisonment, in the present era at least, often fails to do."

http://hrw.org/reports/2002/china02/china0802-12.h tm

Yes you are a dick, it's true.

Maybe I missed something. What law are you talking about? I have googled, but I am not coming up with anything. Please enlighten me.

Google for The Hague Invasion Act.

first hit, second hit, with linkage to .gov site. The wikipedia article for "International Criminal Court" also links the "The Hague Invation Act" page.

He relished the task, launching a reign of terror which was brutal even by the standards of the Baath Party.

According to opposition groups, thousands were murdered.

Victims were made to drink petrol before being set alight or strapped to concrete blocks and tipped into the Shatt-al-Arab waterway.

Bodies were bulldozed into the ground and, according to aid agencies, Al-Majid was filmed selecting Shia prisoners for execution. It was for his earlier atrocities, though, that he gained his nickname. He masterminded chemical attacks on Iraqi Kurds in the 1980s.

On one occasion he rejected suggestions he had killed 182,000 people with the chilling reply: "No, it couldn't have been more than 100,000."

His most infamous outrage was the use of poison gas to kill thousands of Kurds at Halabja in 1988.

Human Rights Watch covers it.

The Telegraph has done a series of stories: here, here, and here:

Like thousands of other Kurds who lived in Halabja he had become inured to the frequent artillery bombardments launched by Baghdad's big guns across the valley.

It was not until he saw a yellow mist settling over the town that he realised this attack was different.

Within hours his five children had died an excruciating death. They were among about 5,000 Kurds killed by Saddam Hussein's poison gas on March 16, 1988, as he exacted a hideous revenge for their support of Iran in the Iran-Iraq war.

The Christian Science Monitor did this story:

The memory of every Iraqi Kurd is seared with vivid images of Baghdad's 1988 genocide against its own ethnic Kurds when troops loyal to the Iraqi strongman were under orders to kill every Kurdish male in northern Iraq between the ages of 18 and 55. During the Anfal campaign, rights groups say more than 100,000 men disappeared, 4,000 villages were destroyed, and 60 more villages were subject to chemical weapons attack.

Some 5,000 Kurds died during the gassing of Halabja alone. The photograph of a man shielding an infant with his body ? both killed by gas ? has become an icon of Kurdish suffering and of Iraqi war crimes.

Although a part of the defense establishment didn't believe it for a time, the State Department apparently didn't get the word even in 2001.

This site has photos.

Why this should be hard to believe when Iraq was actively using chemical weapons against the Iranians at the time, and more and more mass graves with thousands of bodies from simple mass murder each are turning up in Iraq, I'll neven know.

Saddam's government apparently even killed as many as 61,000 just in Baghdad alone.

The survey obtained Monday, which the polling firm planned to release

umm... maybe you should check and get your facts straight.
Gladly. Please provide me with some links and I'll look into it.

the prophet muhammad is the first one who abolished slavery actually
Do you have any proof? I watch/listen to Let the Quran Speak regularly. The presenter, who probably has a firmer grasp of the Quran than you stated (and backed up using surahs) that Islam does not condemn slavery.

Do a google search for slavery Saudi Arabia and you will find nothing but support for my argument, including from renowned organizations such as Human Rights Watch.

You should also note that Saudi Arabia only banned slavery in 1962, and slavery (or something very much like it, and not just in a hyperbolic sense) is still going strong in Saudi Arabia (as well as much of the rest of the Muslim world that does not contain a homogeneous population). Link from Human Rights Watch..

As a matter of fact, they are a very worker-hostile country. Labor abuse is a serious problem there, as apparently in order to obtain an exit visa from many of these middle-eastern countries, you need sponsorship from your employer, amounting to an almost forced labor situation in many cases. (reference: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2003/09/19/uae6388.htm ) Many times passports are confiscated, resulting in the inability to leave or in some cases even report this abuse. I've also read another article not too long ago that I can't find now, explaining that many companies import cheap labor from outside the country promising excellent wages and opportunities, but then either cutting the workers pay immediately after they were there, amounting to a situation that many if not most of them can't afford to get out of. They have to work to survive, and never are given enough to get out of the hole and leave. Spaceports are cool and all, but I don't think I'd want to go there to help build one!

I guess the majority spoke loud and clear huh..
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&Modul eId=10005139

Lets face it, during the '30s, being jewish meant being lesser beings. Maybe we've changed since then, and maybe it's only window dressing.

The only way we'll know for sure is when it happens again... Oh wait... It has....

Rwanda ( http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/rwanda/ )

Sudan ( http://www.lnsart.com/Sudan%20Slave%20Story.htm )

Democratic Republic of Congo ( http://www.pambazuka.org/index.php?id=29835 )

Zimbabwe ( http://www.zimbabwedemocracytrust.org/outcomes/det ails?contentId=1948 )

(lame links, but I'm in a hurry)

But I guess they're just africans...

Maybe someone should start looking in the mirror. (And no I'm not soley referring to the parent/gp/ggp )

I, for one... Welcome our new terrorist-smeller pursuivant overlords

And well you should. The terrorists have the will, and a plan to become our new overlords. If they succeed, you will be living in a genuine theocracy uniting church and state, governed by Sharia law, in all of its harshness, including threat of crucifixion, beheading, stoning, and amputation.

Our present "overlords" do well in defending us against the malice of the would-be Islamist terrorist overlords. The Islamist terrorists have a demonstrated interest in conducting infamous attacks aimed at mass murder, and a stated goal of killing four million Americans in pursuit of their nightmare state. The Superbowl is a natural target. The terrorists have the will to kill everyone at the Superbowl, but lack the opportunity due to the vigilance of our present "overlords",.... long may they "reign".

• US Funds the Taliban
• US Uses white phosphorous and napalm on civilians (WMV 40MB NSFW VERY GRAPHIC)
• US Proposes law legally to *allow* cruel and unusual torture for detainees in Guantanamo bay

http://hrw.org/reports/2005/china1205/

If they live through that then they should be placed in a real live jail and periodically offered counterfeit parole papers to sign.

And when they get raped, it should be with counterfeit condoms.

Thomas-

Meanwhile, Western leftists think that the occasional terrorist mass murderer getting slapped around is much more worthy of attention and support than peaceful political dissidents in leftist dictatorships, even dictatorships that have strayed from the "faith" like China.

Far be it from me to stop a self-satisfied rant from completely mischaracterizing the political views of tens of millions of people, but are you talking about Western leftists like Amnesty Interational? Or maybe you mean Human Rights Watch. Hmm, no, that's not it. Well, please provide examples, since you're obviously quite certain.

Ignore the possibility, of course, that you're living in a Western country, and thus are more likely to hear about protests directed at your own government. Or that China is successfully covering up some percentage of its internal discord, so you're never hearing about it. Or that China has been crushing its citizens for decades, while the West's adventures in fabrication-based nation building are more recent, and thus more likely to garner comment. Or that Western countries have more of a tradition of listening to their citizens, and thus the citizens are more likely to speak out about their own governments' policies with the expectation that it might actually do some good.

Concentrating effort where it's most likely to have an effect is clearly way too abstract a concept for wacko yogurt-eating Birkenstock-shod lefty nutjobs, so it must just mean they're hypocrites with no sense of proportion.

1. China: Police Shut Down Gay, Lesbian Event
2. Rampant Violence and Intimidation Against Petitioners - Chinese citizens who petition Chinese authorities for the redress of grievances are attacked, beaten, threatened, and intimidated

1. China: Police Shut Down Gay, Lesbian Event
2. Rampant Violence and Intimidation Against Petitioners - Chinese citizens who petition Chinese authorities for the redress of grievances are attacked, beaten, threatened, and intimidated

It's remarkable that so many of you don't seem to acknowledge, let alone accept the fact that in Europe, European law applies. Microsoft may be a US corporation, but as long as US marines aren't occupying our cities, we'll make our own laws here, thank you very much.

That being said, I should add that the EU we have now is a bureaucratic, undemocratic Moloch, and I voted against the proposed EU constitution last June (here's why). But the idea in itself of Europe imposing European laws on anyone (and any corporation) doing anything at all in Europe seems sound and fair to me.

And maybe, who knows, Microsoft having failed to bribe the EU authorities justifies some optimism regarding the democratic potential of the Union. I seem to remember that in the US, nailing Microsoft for unsavoury business practices turned out to be rather difficult.

Shhhhhhhh!!! Be vewwwwwwwwyyy quiet! You talk about the caste system in India and they get all upset! Because according to them, "...there are reservations and scholarships for backward classes in schools and also government jobs." It may be an excellent opportunity, but one which they might have to pay for with their lives.

How did that post have anything to do with mine? Did you even catch onto the nation of reference which has:

  * 200-400 nuclear weapons, most mated to delivery systems
  * Threated Iraq
  * Threatens Iran

But, lets take the bait anyways. So, the Iraqis gained immensely from our invasion, eh? True. They gained this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this.

"These numerous reports you speak of, decrying the United States' awful brutality and human rights violations - they are worried about us playing the wrong music to prisoners, or making them wear underwear on their heads"
You must be referring to something like this then http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/09/25/usint11 776.htm
or maybe this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4439850. stm
I also would like to refer you to the Geneva Conventions on the Treatment and Handling of POWs.
Granted i couldn't give a rat's ass about some of the allegations like disrespect to the Quran or naked pyramids as that stuff goes on even at University hazing, but i think you'll agree that some of the stuff mentioned is hardly a million miles away from those things carried out by China.

http://www.spr.org/pdf/struckman.pdf

http://www.spr.org/pdf/struckman.pdf

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/hivpj99.htm

http://www.hrw.org/reports98/women/#TopOfPage

http://www.spr.org/en/factsheetattitudes.html

Now where's the Mea Culpa AC? Or are you just going to run your idiot mouth and fade into the background hoping no one will notice you made a fool of yourself?

I apologize for exaggerating in my initial statement. The Bush administration has not broken ALL laws, rules, treaties and international regulations. Im sorry for making such a blatant generalisation. Do you follow the same logic in other contexts? Is it wrong to say that Saddam killed Kurds because he didnt kill ALL Kurds?

What I said in the original post, and for clarification will repeat here is that the Bush administration have shown that any law, rule, treaty or regulation by any national (US) or international forum will be broken, bent or circumvented if they see fit to do so.

The current administration has

Tortured
Kidnapped
Murdered
Instigated coups
Lied (Take your pick. My favourite is: "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.")
Broken treaties
Hindered international courts

The list goes on and on. I could list more points, various incidents on each point and various sources for each incident but frankly, I can't be bothered. Those who realize that these atrocities are being committed need no persuasions and those who refuse to acknowledge or refuse to see the harm... well... I have no illusion of "converting" anyone.

So; have a nice weekend, and don't let the clue-by-four hit you on the way out.

Well apparently lying in a bloody pool of denal

And also to quote a US general "He[Bush] made a decision that Geneva [conventions] would in fact govern all but al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda look-alike detainees. Any other prisoners of course would be governed by traditional methods, international law, Geneva and so forth".

IMHO the US is acting with total disregard for the basic human rights of people. They apear to be hell-bent on total world domination.

It's a massive shame

Jaj

But shouldn't they be? Shouldn't any company be out to make the lives of the people better in the places where they do business? Oh sorry... that's the idealist in me.

Which includes sending perfectly good jobs overseas where the labor is cheaper. Why pay $80K per year for a programmer, when you can pay half that? And not just sending away the job, but depriving the US of the social security and tax revenue that job would have generated here. Good for Microsoft, bad for America.

You bet I do! I want the full resources of Fortune 500 companies and world governments pooled and the best and brightest minds from all over the globe funded with this money to try and solve all the world's problems. Too much to ask?

It takes a lot temerity and audacity to use words like "backwards classes" and "reservations". We have reservations here in the US; it's where the Founding Fathers tried to send the shattered remnants of the native tribes (those that weren't wiped out by disease, alcohol, and bullets), so they cound be "re-educated" and kept out of the way of natural expansion and progress. Oh by the way, how did the Dalit become so "backward"? I seem to remember from my reading that they had some help in that regard. And if I read things right, things aren't changing too rapidly.

New Orleans ring any bells ?

still at least there is free wifi, that helps when you have (whats left of) a population who lost every single thing they owned

As for human rights, Guantanamo bay ? CIA torture flights ? Corrupt Politicans ? Fake News ?, Poverty ? Chemical Weapons ?

sure China has problems, but take that plank out of your eye first

Saudi Arabia, Belarus, Burma, China, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Libya, Maldives, Nepal, Uzbekhistan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan and Vietnam.

Coincidentally, these are some of the same countries that have protested the loudest about ICANN's control of DNS.

Also, coincidentally, these are some of the nations with the worst human rights records.

Hmmm...

Here's to another 200 years of "well enough."

even better, I've posted it here. I want to show eveyone how you claim between 300,000 and 1,000,000 is more than 20,000 and 30,000. Man i've seen dumb stuff on slashdot, but this one takes the cake. heck in 1991 60,000 kurds were killed. In one single year, it is double almost 3 years of this war. you level of ignorance is simply amazing. BTW these are not pro war sources, human rights watch as it at over 250,000.

Iraq, Saddam Hussein (1979-2003): 300 000
Human Rights Watch: "twenty-five years of Ba`th Party rule ... murdered or 'disappeared' some quarter of a million Iraqis" [http://www.hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm%5D
8/9 Dec. 2003 AP: Total murders
New survey estimates 61,000 residents of Baghdad executed by Saddam.
US Government estimates a total of 300,000 murders
180,000 Kurds k. in Anfal
60,000 Shiites in 1991
50,000 misc. others executed
"Human rights officials" est.: 500,000
Iraqi politicians: over a million

I mean look at the critism that most Europeans have over the U.S. ... it is too easy to get guns, there aren't enough laws to restrict buisnesses, taxes are too low, "hate speech" is not punished, health care should be nationalized and controlled by a central authority, etc., etc. They are not complaining for the most part that the U.S. restricts freedoms, they are complaining that the U.S. is too free and a "cowboy culture"

No.

Europe is complaining how freedom of press is killed. Europe is complaining how freedom of life is restricted by people being imprisoned for years without trial.

Europe is laughing when a chick flashing some nipple causes a national scandal, and frightened when secret mass surveillance projects and torture facilities do not.

Europe is complaining that corruption and ridiculous massive secrecy restricts freedom. Europe wants things to be managed transparently, so at least abuses can be exposed.

Oh, and Europe is complaining that America's freedom to become better is restricted by automatic labeling of any not-in-Fox-News observations or suggestions as "anti-american".

It means that South Korea is obligated to recognize foreign copyrights, and stripping that protection for (arguably valid) nationalist reasons would almost certainly be in violation of international law.

In the other news, South Korean president announced that the nation must fight against the threat of terrorism and mmm.. next it was something about close connection between Microsoft and Al-Qaeda?

And wasn't that the acceptable exception to make any international law become a piece of paper you stick into detainee's ass?

Steve Ballmer, be prepared for a satellite-guided missile strike blowing your house or being captured by South Korean Central Intelligence Agency off your Redmond office. If you aren't already being interrogated in a dog-size cage while marines play their South Korean pop at 180dB and interrogators perform their sadistic experiments to you and anyone who happened to be around you at the moment of detention, hope you donated to Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch...

Damn... I forgot. That doesn't work.

IG Farben
Ford
US Arms Sales to Iraq
Oil Companies in Nigeria
US/UK Subversion of Democratic Iran for Oil Companies

I don't recall anyone asking for the public's opinion on these business practices.

This is plainly retarded. Ansar Al Islam, like other Islamist groups saw Saddam as a mortal enemy. The group did not even exist prior to September 2001. Their predecessor, The Islamic Movement of Iraqi Kurdistan, undertook jihad against Baghdad in May 1987! Osama himself offered to the Saudis to bring his Afghani mujahedeen and fight Saddam in the 1991 war. At no point in time there were ever any cooperation between secular, socialist dictatorship of Ba'ath (whom Osama fondly called "infidel communists" and "apostates") and far-out radical religious fanatics of Ansar Al Islam or Al-Queda. Osama frquently and consistently incited his followers to fight Saddam and Saddam in turn brutally put down any and all Al-Queda operatives he could find. The only reason Ansar Al Islam was where it was is because Saddam could not get to them to kill them all as they were in the Northern "no fly" zone, part of the "autonomous" Kurdistan.

and Iraqi help and training for Al Queda has been documented in documentary finds in Baghdad.

Complete and utter bullshit. No such credible documentation exists, not to mention that reams of "documents" were wholesale falsified and sold by Iraqi crooks after the war to gullible Westerners who saw what they wanted to see and were willing to pay for it.

They may or may not (I'm leaning towards may not) have provided some background support for 9/11 but the idea that there was no relationship at all has been pretty thoroughly debunked.

Debunked? By whom? Where are the documents? Link me to documentation which overturns the long standing mutual hatreds of Al-Queda and Saddam in order to do what?! Send some Saudis who never even been to Iraq to do 9/11? To what end?! Saddam had absolutely nothing to gain from any of this and a lot to lose. That is a raving lunacy.

As far as respect goes, you really should read up on what kind of respect the islamists demand. It's the respect of the 2nd class inhabitant exhibits to his masters. It's called dhimmitude and no, I won't give that.

Right, the demonization of all of your enemies is the first step to be able to callously murder them all. Al-Queda manual, page 1. Osama must be pleased that you were following the instructions. Newsflash: Most Islamic societies are composed of a vast majority of moderates who only want to have peace and bread on the table. And then there is a tiny minority of radical maniacs who speak of "master-slave" relationships and "missions from God". Al-Queda and similar in their corner and Neo-cons and various Christian fundamentalist nutjobs in yours. You need each other desperately to be able to hijack the world towards the bloodbaths you so desire to make you feel powerful and important. Both of you wanting to enslave the rest of the populace to your wacko ideologies and perfectly willing to level entire countries to do so.

If you knowingly would, shame on you.

No it is shame on your for such shallow, unthinking spewing of demonizing propaganda.

But they don't HAVE a use of landmines. The only remaining landmines are left in place from the still-inconclusive Korean war. The USA on principle refuses to employ landmines in general.

[bzzzzzzzt] WRONG.

"U.S. commanders constantly had to reassure their troops that antipersonnel mines, when properly employed, could be an asset in the field. But faced with the reality that everything from dead bodies to their own discarded ration containers might be mined, some U.S. troops even refused to use command detonated Claymore mines. Their fears were apparently well-grounded. In December 1969 the Mine Warfare Center warned that "a review of casualty reports reveals an alarming number of incidents involving U.S. troops being injured by the untimely detonations of M18A1 Claymores or the blasting caps." (http://www.hrw.org/reports/1997/gen1/General-03.h tm)

Most of the mine injuries suffered by US troops were caused by US mines being lifted and re-placed by the Viet Cong.

Sorry, I almost forgot. The UN is charging China with rights abuse. The government claims that things are getting better, but the testimonies say otherwise.

You have to realize that, not withstanding Articles 35 and 41, any right of speech, publication, or suggestions of criticisms on state organ must be made with the premise to protect the unity of the state.

No, I don't understand. The first amendment of the US Constitution was freedom of speech and freedom of press. This extended all the way into government affairs, with early Supreme Court cases ensuring that even views that would harm "the unity of state" could not be supressed. The second amendment of the US Constitution is the right to bear arms. The purpose of this was not only for common defense, but also to ensure that tyranny could never reign in the United States. The founding fathers understood that power corrupts, so to combat this they made certain that the populace was ALWAYS only a trigger pull away from overthrowing its government.

To this day, every citizen of the United States is allowed to carry weapons unless he has been convicted of a violent crime. If you know what you're doing, you can even obtain licenses to carry military grade hardware.

The freedoms of the people MUST be cherished by the US government, or it will find itself demolished from the inside. China has no checks and balances. If the government says it is so, it is so. The government would have you believe otherwise, but their actions (Great Firewall, Censoring of the Press, Jailing of Religeous Believers, etc.) speak far louder. Tell me, is this the tolerance and human rights that the Chinese government speaks of? The UN doesn't think so.

Yes. You might want to check out the history of Pinochet's rule in Chile. Pinochet was a totalitarian ruler who brought free-market economics to Chile. Laissez-faire capitalism can exist in a totalitarian government, just like socialism can exist in a democracy or a republic.

Chile didn't have when Pinochet was in charge and doesn't have a free market economy now. In a free market a company can't just take land from those who live on and own it yet that's exactly what is still happening in Chile:

The Spread of Commercial Tree Plantations in Ancestral Mapuche Lands
Important as they have been, government reform initiatives are insufficient to mitigate the negative effects of economic development schemes on Mapuche communities. During the 1990s Mapuche lands were profoundly affected by the expansion of investment in forestry, hydroelectric projects, and road construction. By the year 2000, an estimated 1.5 million hectares in ancestral Mapuche territory had been planted with commercial pine and eucalyptus. Two Chilean companies alone, Mininco and Arauco, accrued more than one million hectares of exotic trees, many of its plantations encircling Mapuche communities. Community members fiercely opposed encroachment by the forestry companies. They complained that the pine tree farms dried up their water sources, eroded the soil, and blocked the light needed to sustain the rich undergrowth of the native woods, on which Mapuche still rely for medicinal and ritual needs. At the same time, the Mapuche found only limited employment with the companies. For more than a decade, anger at what they considered the plunder of their livelihood exploded in public protests, occupations of forestry land, road blocks, and burning of trees, forestry vehicles, and equipment.

In response, the forestry companies denounced Mapuche leaders in the courts and invested in armed guards to protect their plantations and installations. Some communities reached agreements with government authorities to purchase forestry land through CONADI, regulate water rights, and institute bilingual education programs. However, in many areas the relationship between the communities and the forestry companies and government continued to deteriorate. These conflicts provide the backdrop to the prosecutions discussed in this report.

Another deeply conflictive development was the construction of a large scale hydroelectric project on the upper reaches of the river Bío Bío, ancestral lands of the Mapuche-Pehuenche people. The construction of a dam at Ralco, a project administered by the national electricity company Endesa, went ahead only after then-President Eduardo Frei intervened to secure its approval by the national environmental agency and by CONADI. Two CONADI directors who had opposed the Ralco dam were fired in quick succession. The project received a green light against the express wishes of the two indigenous communities directly affected, and of the Mapuche people in general.

Six Pehuenche families who refused to accept resettlement by the government led the protests against Ralco, gaining wide support from environmental and indigenous rights organizations across Chile.11 Many of the protests were broken up by the security forces. In March 2002, carabineros violently routed a group of families from the community of Quepuca Ralco who were blocking an access road to a construction site. Carabineros indiscriminately hit children, women, and old people and arrested about fifty protestors, who were presented to the military prosecutor in Chillán. As a leading Chilean environmentalist has argued recently, approval of the Ralco project without sufficient consultation with the affected indigenous families has inflicted profound damage on the government's credibility with the Mapuche people.12

In other cases the indigenous Mapuche people have been convicted of "terrorism" for opposing forestry companies who take their land for tree farms. In a free market these things aren't allowed.

Oh, really? You mean corporations wouldn't seize power themselves?

Huh...must be nice to live in anarchists wonderland.