Slashdot Mirror

I'm proud to live in a country that takes due process very seriously

Really? I don't know about Britain but you can't mean the US. I already mentioned a US admin support for the Indonesian invasion of a sovereign nation, East Timor, in which 200,000 were massacred. CIA supported General Pinochet's overthrow of the democratically elected government of Chile, as well as his repressive rule. How about Reagan's support of The Contras, Cocaine, and Covert Operations. Operation Northwoods was a proposal for the CIA to commit acts of terror against US citizens in the US and blame Cuba for them. COINTELPRO was a group of actions taken by the FBI against political groups to discredit and disrupt them. The CIA's Family Jewels: "Agency Violated Charter for 25 Years, Wiretapped Journalists and Dissidents". Cubana Flight 455 was a Cuban airliner brought down by terrorists, Cubans who the CIA paid as agents. The Libertarian, Individual Liberties, and Free Markets Institute CATO has the report Does U.S. Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism? The Historical Record it answers in the affirmative.

And let's not forget what the US has done to American Indians. Even though the Cherokee had treaty rights in the Carolinas and Georgia, President Andrew Jackson ordered the military he commanded to force the Cherokee to march on the Trail of Tears to Oklahoma after gold was found. The US broke one treaty after another signed with the Sioux, forcing them unto smaller and smaller reservations. There was the Forced sterilization of Native American Indian women through the 1970's.

If I dig some more I can find a lot more I bet. So don't go saying the US "runs a pretty tight ship".

Falcon

apparently you missed the day in history class where they covered the Trail of Tears...

The Cherokee won their SCOTUS case... and Andy Jackson still force marched them to OK.

http://ngeorgia.com/history/nghisttt.html

So did the US. Don't believe me? The US protected the bombers of Cubana Flight 455, who included CIA operatives, in 1976. The year before, in 1975, the US supported Indonesia's invasion of East Timor, in which 200,000 East Timorese were massacred. In 1973 the US supported Gen Pinochet's overthrow of Chile's democratically elected government in a coup d'état Thousands of people disappeared afterwards. The US has a history of arming and supporting repressive regimes with large human rights violations.

Heck, at the same tyme the US was supporting Saddam, the US was also arming Iran, who he was fighting against. If the US had allowed democracy in Iran, instead of aiding the overthrow of Iran's elected government and installing the Shah in a dictatorship, there would not have been the revolution in Iran in 1980.

As far as Iraq goes, we had a treaty in place that allowed us to investigate them at will and they broke that treaty.

What treaty was broken and when? After Scott Ritter came out and stated Iraq had no significant WMDs the Neocons in Bush Jr's admin had to besmear him for not supporting their lies.

As for breaking treaties, the US has broken many treaties. I can think of 2 treaties Bush Jr broke or tried to break. With Starwars he was breaking the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia. In trying to locate the permanent nuclear waste disposal site at Yucca Mount he would also have violated the Treay of Ruby Valley which granted the Western Shoshone Yucca Mount and the surrounding land. The US broke a number of treaties with the Sioux. When Andrew Jackson forced the Cherokee to march on the Trail of Tears he broke a treaty when the Cherokee.

The US also supports Israel who has consistently disregarded UN resolutions, there was an uproar when VP Biden went to Israel and they announced more settlements in occupied territory.

the point was to keep Iran's military in line.

Why then did Reagan administration officials sell weapons to Iran in the Iran-Contra Affair? Quite simply they were supporting a number of different sides who were repressive.

At that time there was also a threat by the Soviets against northern Yemen (after they invaded Afghanistan) and Iraq was prepping to fight with Saudi Arabia to defend against them.

Afghanistan was the Soviet's Vietnam. And the same Muslims going there to fight would have fought for the Saudis as well, heck a lot of Saudis went to Afghanistan. After Saddam's invasion of Kuwait al qaeda offered to protect Saudi Arabia against Saddam. They would have caused the Soviets trouble too.

By the way, the USA did NOT give Saddam chemical weapons. Did you just make that up?

• How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons
• Reagan's WMD Connection to Saddam Hussein
• Where Did Saddam Get His Chemical Weapons?
• Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement
• How Did Iraq Get Its Weapons? We Sold Them
• Congressional Record: September 20, 2002

What boggles me is that Mao isn't universally hated... Or why Lenin's body hasn't been

For the same reason Andrew Jackson and others aren't reviled for the Trail Of Tears and other crimes against humanity. It was a long time ago and we put their actions in a historical context, they did a lot of good too and they were better than what went before.

The reactor you're referring to in France is a 3rd generation reactor, the first of its kind.

It is not the first of it's kind. It is a clone of the reactor in Finland.

Subsequent reactors built on the same technology will naturally cost less and not be underbudgeted.

Except it is a subsequent reactor and is still over budget and overdue.

In a previous post you mentioned people should have more "personable responsibility" when it comes to food choices. That is a truly crass and elitist statement,

No, those who want a nanny state are crass and elitist. Only the nanny state has the wisdom to decide what people can and can not do. Now tell me how many capitalists, free market advocates, and businesses have massacred more than 10 million people, massacred or repressed more than 10 million others, or killed tens of millions more people?

And don't say the US hasn't had it's hands on anything like that. Ask the Cherokee about the Trail of Tears President Andrew Jackson forced the Cherokee to march on, in which thousands died, breaking a treaty despite the USSC ruling he was breaking the law. Ask the Sioux how many treaties the US broke with them. Ask them what happened in the Black Hills and at Wounded Knee. Ask the American Indian women who were forcibly sterilized up through the 1970s by the government. Ask the East Timorese about President Ford and Henry Kissinger's support of Indonesia's invasion of the sovereign nation of East Timor and the subsequent massacre of 200,000 East Timorese, on third of the population. Ask about Ford and Kissinger's support for the overthrow of the democratically elected in Chile by General Pinochet after which tens of thousands simply disappeared with thousands more bodies found.

Falcon

I don't understand your link between FDR and Jackson.

Jackson basically told the Supreme Court to get lost whereas FDR packed the court with those who would let him do what he wanted. That should be pretty easy to understand.

The treaty was signed and ratified in 1835 during Jackson's term, but the Trail of Tears didn't happen until 1838, after Jackson left office.

The Cherokee was sent on the Trail of Tears in 1838, but the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee-Creek, and Seminole were sent away before them. The Choctaw was forcibly removed in 1831, the Seminoles in 1832, the Creek in 1834, and the Chickasaw in 1837. Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act in 1830, so he was president during the removal of all these tribes except the Cherokee. I'm not sure about the others but when the Cherokee was forced the move the US broke a treaty with them. Okay, when the Choctaw was removed treaties were broken, and about 2500 died on their Trail of Tears. The Treaty of Indian Springs in 1825 which allowed the forcible removal of the Creek was never ratified by the Creek. And the Treaty With the Chickasaw, January 10, 1786 was broken with the forces removal of the Chickasaw.

there's little evidence in any case that Jackson's response was as harsh as you reported. What he is recorded to have said was much lighter, and basically that as the Supreme Court found Georgia's action to be unconstitutional, they could not force Georgia to comply; Jackson had no intentions of getting involved.

Okay so Jackson's remake may not of been as harsh as I made out, quotes I've read had him saying Marshall needed to get his own army, but it was bad still. And the decision was about the Cherokee removal:

"In 1831 the Supreme Court of the United States, in a decision rendered by Justice, John Marshall, declared the forced removal of the entire Cherokee Nation from their ancestral homes in the South Eastern United States to be illegal, unconstitutional and against treaties made. President Andrew Jackson, having the executive responsibility for enforcement of the laws had this to say:"
"John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can."

Jackson had no intentions of getting involved.

That's right, Andrew Jackson was pretty well known as an Indian Fighter in Tennessee, his home state.

Falcon

What the hell did 9/11 change? There has always been a threat from this group or that group. The threat has always been relatively small, but the groups do what they do to instill fear that however small the risk, it could happen to you. That's why they're called "terrorists". The only difference is that the attack on 9/11 claimed more lives than those before it or since. There is no moral or ethical difference in the world today from that on 10 September, and there should be no difference in the judgements and responses of a rational, objective person.

What happened on 9/11 only claimed more lives than any other terrorist act? The US killed far more American Indians than died in the WTC. Four thousand Cherokee died when Andrew Jackson broke a treaty and forced them to march from the Carolinas and northern Georgia on the Trail of Tears. More recent then? How about the thousands of Chileans who were killed and the tens of thjousands who "disappeared" when Pres Ford and Kissinger supported Gen. Penochet and his coup against the democratically elected president of Chile? Do you know that September 11 has another meaning to Chileans? That's when the military launched it's attack on the civilian government. And what about the approximately 200,000 who were killed after Ford and Kissinger supported Indonesia's invasion of East Timor in 1975? Falcon

Cornell University, the George Washington University, Middlebury College, University of Miami, the University of Southern California and the Wright State University (Ohio) have all pledged to have Napster up and running in the near future

Helen, Georgia (also here) is a fascinating place in its own right. You drive along the highway through dozens of nondescript small Georgia towns (each fading into obscurity in its own way) then come around a curve in the road to find an alpine villiage from Bavaria! In the late 1960's, with the town's major industries gone, the citizens decided that they needed a new industry if the town was to survive, and went with tourism. To separate themselves from their neighbors, they went with a "theme": The entire town was rebuilt with cobblestone alleyways, bavarian-style buildings, etc.--everything from doghouses to government buildings is done in the same style. The effect is quite dramatic and has been a great economic success; far from fading into obscurity, their biggest problem now is controlling the town's growth.

Dude, you are wrong. The south did what it did because the north was imposing ridiculous trade rules on the south, because northern politicians were catering to special interests who's bottom line was being affected by the souths decision to trade heavily with England. It was really these laws that were passed, designed souly to hurt southern states and push them back into primary trade with the north, that pissed them off. Yeah, the Abolition thing was an issue, but the south was taking it in the ass in a number of other ways that were more important. Here's a link to some info http://ngeorgia.com/history/why.html

And this is where the Bill of Rights failed. And here.

Why voting would make more difference than actually implementing the change? We are minority
About 20% of the people vote (in the USA). This means a vast minority is electing the officials that make the laws. If the 'Cyberselfish' were to band together, they would have a very large voting block (relative to the number of people who vote).

As for why voting, are you willing to do the prison time for your actions? Are you willing to give up your money/home/computer to 'implement' your ideas? Until the laws are in your favor, those with the money and guns are going to get their way. For a prime example from history, take a look at Andrew Jackson and the Cherokee Indians (see http://www.ngeorgia.com/history/nghis ttt.html).